Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C. C. NO.3398/PW/2018
Filed on .. 19/12/2018
Registered on .. 19/12/2018
Delivered on .. 07/02/2023
Duration .. 04Y 01M 19D
CNR No. MHMM190137642018
Exh. 5
BEFORE 65th METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(Presided over by C.P. Kashid)
(Judgment as per Sec. 355 of the Cr.P.C.)
(a) The serial number of the
case;
: C.C. No.3398/PW/2018
(b) The date of commission of
offence;
On 09.11.2018 at about 05.00
p.m.
(c) The name of the
informant, if any;
: Through PSO Vileparle Police
Station (CR No.409/2018)
(d) The name of the accused
person, his parentage and
residence;
: Dilip Ganpat Shirke
Age : 29 Year
Occupation : Nil
R/o.: Room No.2, Fugewali
chawl, Kamraj Nagar,
Ghatkopar East, Mumbai.
(e) The offence complained of
or proved;
: U/Sec. 380 r/w Sec.511 of the
Indian Penal Code.
(f) The plea of the accused
and his examination, (if
any);
: Accused pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order; : As Per Final Order
h) The date of such order; : 07/02/2023
-- 1 of 5 --
2 C. C. NO.3398/PW/2018
Appearance : Ld. APP. Samrat Patil for the State
Ld. Adv. Birajdar for the accused
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 07/02/2023)
1. Accused has been chargesheeted for the offence
punishable U/Sec. 380 r/w Sec.511 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short “IPC”).
The prosecution case in short is as follows :
The informant Shamlal Bagher was working as Security
Guard at Akruti Oriyan Building, Shradhanand road, Vileparle
East, Mumbai. On 09.11.2018 at about 05.00 p.m. informant
found that on 2nd floor of above said building, one person
committed theft of volve of machine of fire brigades. Therefore,
the informant called police by making phone call to control room.
Thereafter, the informant went to police station and lodged FIR
against the accused. As per FIR, Crime No.409/2018 registered
against the accused. Thereafter, Investigating Officer recorded
statement of witnesses, prepared seizure panchanama and seized
volve pins and spanners from the custody of the accused and after
completion of investigation submitted chargesheet against the
accused.
2. My Learned Predecessor has framed charge against the
accused vide Exh.2 and it read over and explained to him in
vernacular, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
His defence is of total denial and false implication.
-- 2 of 5 --
3 C. C. NO.3398/PW/2018
3. Following points arise for my determination and I have
recorded findings thereon for the reasons discussed herein after :
SR.
NO.
POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether prosecution prove that on
09.11.2018 at about 05.00 p.m, at Akruti
Oriyan Building, Shradhanand road,
Vileparle East, Mumbai, accused attempted
to commit the offence of theft of volve of
machine of fire brigade from the above said
place ? No
2 What order ? As per
final order
R E A S O N S
As to point No. 1 :
4. For proving guilt of the accused, prosecution has
examined only one witness. The prosecution has examined the
informant Shamlal Bagher as PW1 at Exh.4.
5. It has come in the evidence of PW1 that he was working
as Security guard at Aakruti Orient commercial office at Vileparle
in the year 2018. At that time, he caught hold one person who
was having fire pin in his bag. Therefore, he went to police station
and lodged FIR. But he further stated that he do not know the
contents of FIR. He further stated that he do not know that when
the police came in the society, at that time, police asked the name
to the person to whom he caught hold and he told his name Dilip
-- 3 of 5 --
4 C. C. NO.3398/PW/2018
Shirke. He further stated that he do not know the person to whom
he caught hold. He specifically stated that he do not know the
accused. During cross examination, he admitted that he do not
know the person, from whom stolen articles were seized by the
police.
6. Thus it shows that the prosecution has proved that one
person was found having fire pin in his bag which was caught hold
by PW1. But the prosecution has failed to prove that accused was
found in possession of stolen articles as PW1 has not identified the
accused, even he does not know that person. Therefore, the
evidence of PW1 is not supported and corroborated to the
prosecution against the accused.
7. The record shows that despite of issuing summons to
other witnesses, the prosecution has failed to serve it. Thus the
prosecution has failed to examine other witnesses. Thus, the
prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, I answered point No.1 in the
negative. Therefore, accused is entitled to be acquitted from the
charges levelled against him. Hence for answering point No.2, I
pass following order :
ORDER
1) Accused is acquitted of the offence punishable U/Sec. 380 r/w
Sec.511 of the IPC vide Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
2) His bail bonds (if any) are cancelled.
-- 4 of 5 --
5 C. C. NO.3398/PW/2018
3) The accused is directed to furnish P.B. & S.B. of Rs.15,000/ or
cash bail of the same for appearance before the Hon'ble Appellate
Court towards the compliance of Section 437(A) of the Cr.P.C.
4) Seized muddemal property be returned to its original owner
after appeal period is over.
5) Dictated & declared in the open Court.
Date : 07.02.2023 (C.P. Kashid)
Metropolitan Magistrate
ask 65th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Dictated &
typed on : 07.02.2023
Signed on : 07.02.2023
-- 5 of 5 --