Interim Order 1

Order Details: Original bank memo
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
36th COURT MUMBAI CENTRAL, MUMBAI.
C C No. 551/PW/2019.
Order below (Exh.-2)
Present application is moved by accused Satyam Singh under
the provision of section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code for discharge.
It is contended that accused is falsely implicated in the crime and no
evidence is collected by prosecution against him. It is also contended
that there are discrepancies in the statements of witnesses and nothing
is recovered from him. It is also contended that no independent witness
is examined by police. It is prayed that accused be discharged.
2. Ld. A.P.P. strongly opposed the application. It is contended
that sufficient material is collected by Investigation Officer to show that
accused committed offence. It is also contended that informant
identified the accused in test identification parade. It is prayed that
application be rejected.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Present application is moved on behalf of accused under
provision of 227 of Criminal Procedure Code. Admittedly section 227 of
Criminal Procedure Code is applicable for trials before Honourable
Court of Sessions. Offence against accused is punishable under section
392 r/w. 34 and 411 of Indian Penal Code, which is exclusively triable
by this court. According to prosecution, accused snatched the mobile
handset of deceased and committed robbery. Accused is arrested on the
basis of CC TV footage installed on platform. Incident occurred in local
train. During investigation the mobile handset is also recovered.
According to prosecution accused No.3 purchased the mobile handset
-- 1 of 2 --
~2~
though she was knowing that it was stolen property. It is also appears
that during investigation test identification parade of accused was held
at Byculla Jail for identification of accused.
5. As such, prima-facie material is collected by the prosecution
and prima-facie case is made out against accused to frame the charge.
There are grounds for presuming that accused have committed an
offence triable by this court. Whether the accused is falsely implicated
in the crime cannot be decided at this stage. Whether there are
discrepancies in statements of witnesses also cannot be decided at this
stage and on said grounds accused cannot be discharged. It is also
contended that no independent witness is examined by the prosecution,
but the same also will not be a ground for discharge of accused, as even
evidence of single witness is also sufficient, as per provision of section
134 of Evidence Act. In these circumstances application stands rejected.
Date :-30/11/2019.
SRD.
Sd/-
(G. P. Bawaskar)
Metropolitan Magistrate
36th Court, Mumbai Central,
Mumbai.
-- 2 of 2 --