Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: – 1 – C.C.NO.3505/PW/2018
Received on : 29/12/2018
Registered on : 29/12/2018
Decided on : 23/05/2023
Duration : 04 Y. 04 M. 24 D.
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
44TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY A. I. SHAIKH)
(JUDGMENT U/SEC. 355 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE)
C.N.R NO.MHMM190148942018
Exh.No.09
(a) The serial No. of the case; : C.C.No.3505/PW/2018
(b) The date of commission of
the offence;
: 20/09/2018
(c) The name of the complainant
(if any);
: The State (Versova Police
Station in C. R. No. 335/2018).
(d) The name of the accused
person and his parentage and
residence;
: Cendas Peter Galbano
Age 42 Yrs.
Occupation – Nil,
R/o. Room No.701,
Shanti Sadan,
In front of State Bank of India,
Kalina, Santacruz, Mumbai.
(e) The offence complained of
or proved ;
: Under Section 380 of the Indian
Penal Code.
(f) The plea of the accused and
his examination (if any);
: The accused pleaded not guilty.
(g) The final order; : The accused is acquitted.
(h) The date of such order; : 23/05/2023
-- 1 of 6 --
– 2 – C.C.NO.3505/PW/2018
Ms. Seema Mokal, Ld. APP for the State.
Mr. Pradeep Shetty, Advocate for accused.
J U D G M E N T
( Delivered on 23/05/2023. )
1. The accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable
under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is the case of the prosecution is that, on 20/09/2019 at
about 6.00 p.m. informant went to Venila Saloon for colouring her hair.
In the reception counter she came to know that they did not accept the
debit card therefore she will pay cash. Therefore, she went for
withdrawal the money by keeping her bag in the sofa of saloon. After
withdrawing the money she again came to saloon. She kept the cash in
her wallet and wallet kept in the bag. Thereafter, she went to
washroom. After returning from washroom she saw her mobile. There
is a message from Kotak Mahindra Bank that her debit card had
swapped. Therefore, she came to know that somebody had swapped
her debit card. Therefore, she searched her debit card but she didn't
found it in her bag. Therefore, she told the said fact to receptionist and
checked the CCTV camera of saloon. She saw in the CCTV camera that
one lady had opened her bag and theft of her wallet. Hence, she lodged
report of theft.
3. On the basis of the report given by the informant, crime
No. 335/2018 came to be registered against the accused. I.O. arrested
the accused. During further investigation I.O. prepared spot
panchanama, recorded statement of witnesses and after completion of
-- 2 of 6 --
– 3 – C.C.NO.3505/PW/2018
investigation filed chargesheet.
4. The charge is framed against the accused for the above
mentioned offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. The prosecution has examined three witnesses in total.
Statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded.
The defence of the accused is that of total denial.
5. The points for determination alongwith my findings
thereon as under :
POINTS FINDINGS
1] Does the prosecution prove that the
accused committed theft of blue colour
wallet and cash amount of Rs.2,700/
from the purse of informant?
In the negative
2] What order ? The accused is
acquitted.
REASONS
AS TO POINT NO. 1 :
6. The prosecution has examined in all three witnesses in this
Case. Anilkumar Lalbabu Shah (P.W.1) deposes at Exh.03 that incident
occurred on 24/09/2018 at Venila Saloon Ship in between 5.00 to 6.00
p.m. He was working in his saloon. He got knowledge that somebody
had taken purse. He do not know about this case. The witness is not
supporting to the prosecution case.
7. Archana Laxmikant Mudgal, informant, (P.W.2) deposes at
Exh.4 that incident occurred on 20/09/2018 at about 6.00 p.m. at
-- 3 of 6 --
– 4 – C.C.NO.3505/PW/2018
Versova, Venila Saloon. She was going Saloon for colouring her hair.
She went for withdraw of money to ATM and after withdrawing the
amount of Rs.2,000/ she again went to washroom. She put it her
wallet in her bag. When she going to washroom. She received message
from Kotak Mahindra Bank about invalid password of ATM. She saw
her bag there was no any wallet in her bag. She immediately informed
to receptionist about missing of her wallet. They saw CCTV footage.
One lady has taken her wallet and hide it in her shawl. Thereafter, she
went to police station and filed FIR. Police came with her at saloon and
they also seen CCTV footage. In her wallet there was Kotak Mahindra
Debt card, HDFC Debt card, Pan card, Metro Card, Railway Smart Card,
Scene Artist Card, cash of Rs.2,700/, key of her house. She had seen
the CCTV Footage, she had seen the lady who had stolen her wallet.
8. In her crossexamination she admitted that in the saloon
there are other customers are present and also 6 to 7 staff persons are
there. She further admitted that he had not given description of the
lady in her FIR and she had not received any of his stolen property from
the police. She denied that she and police had not seen any CCTV
footage. She further denied that there is no any footage recorded in the
CCTV of saloon. She also denied that she had not seen the accused in
the saloon.
9. Om Sureshrao Totawar, (P.W.3) deposes at Exh.6 that on
20/09/2018 he was attached to Versova police station. Crime
no.335/2018 was handed over him for investigation. He went to the
spot of incident and saw the CCTV footage. The police recovered
Rs.2,700/ from the possession of accused and prepared panchanama.
He filed chargesheet against the accused.
-- 4 of 6 --
– 5 – C.C.NO.3505/PW/2018
10. In his crossexamination he admitted that FIR was lodged
against unknown lady. Informant had not seen the accused while
committing the theft. He admitted that the identity of the lady was not
disclosed in CCTV footage. He denied that he lodged false charge
sheet.
11. I have carefully gone through the record. The prosecution
has examined three witnesses i.e. Anilkumar Lalbabu Shah (P.W.1) who
is hostile witness. Archana Laxmikant Mudgal (P.W.2) who lodged the
FIR. She is formal witness. She had not seen the lady who had stolen
her wallet. Om Sureshrao Totawar (P.W.3) who registered the FIR of
the informant. However, his evidence is very formal in nature. The
prosecution failed to produce any direct evidence against the accused.
The prosecution failed to adduce any further evidence to prove the case
of prosecution. Hence, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove guilt
of the accused. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
AS TO POINT NO.2 :
12. The prosecution failed to prove guilt of accused.
Therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted. In the result, in answer
to Point No.2, I pass the following order.
ORDER
1 The accused Cendas Peter Galbano is acquitted of the offences
punishable under Sections 380 of the Indian Penal Code vide
Section 248 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2 Bail bond of the accused stand cancelled.
-- 5 of 6 --
– 6 – C.C.NO.3505/PW/2018
3 The accused to execute P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees
Fifteen Thousand Only) vide Section 437–A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for appearance before the higher court, if
said court issues notice to her for her appearance.
The Judgment is transcribed directly on the computer and
pronounced in open Court.
(A. I. Shaikh)
Date : 23.05.2023 Metropolitan Magistrate,
44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
spj
Typed on: 23/05/2023
Signed on: 23/05/2023
-- 6 of 6 --