Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 111/2009
th
% Reserved on: 12 April, 2012
th
Decided on: 9 July, 2012
NARENDER KUMAR SINGH @ NENDAY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prag Chawla, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for State
with SI Alok Bajpai, PS S.P. Badli.
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. By the present petition the Petitioner seeks to set aside judgment dated
th
25 February, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
upholding the judgment passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated
th th
12 November, 2007 and the order on sentence dated 26 November, 2007
whereby the Petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 411 IPC and
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner primarily contends that the
Petitioner was only sitting in the car which was allegedly the stolen car. The
car has been seized from the possession of co-accused. The learned courts
below failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner had no knowledge about
the stolen car and was simply occupying a seat in the car as a rider, thus no
presumption can be raised against the petitioner. Furthermore the seizure
memo of the car Ex.PW2/1 clearly records that the car was recovered from
the possession of the co-accused Satya Bhagwan and no other evidence has
Crl.Rev.P. 111/2009 Page 1 of 5
been placed on record to prove that the same was recovered from the joint
possession of the petitioner and the co-accused.
3. Per contra learned APP for the State contends that the impugned
judgments suffer from no illegality. There are two witnesses to the recovery
of the stolen car i.e. PW2 and PW11 who have clearly deposed that the car
was recovered from the joint possession of the petitioner and the co-accused.
It is further stated that the presumption under the law was correctly raised
and the burden of proof shifted to the petitioner to prove his innocence.
Thus, the present petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
st
5. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 31 March, 1997 after
receipt of DD No. 13-B, HC Ishwar Singh along with Ct. Narain went to
premises bearing no. E-1/17, Sector 18, Rohini where statement of Arun
Kaushik was recorded. Arun Kaushik complained about the theft of his
Martui 800 car bearing No. DDU 3119 with Engine No. 227004 and Chasis
th
No. 169146 on 30 March, 1997 at about 10.30 PM p.m. A case was
th
registered under Section 379/411 IPC. On 10 April, 1997 ASI Karan Singh
and SI Vidya Dhar on the basis of secret information, reached near Road no.
41, opposite Depot Rohini-I, Delhi and arrested the Appellant and co-
accused Satya Bhagwan in FIR No. 188/1997 and 189/1997 under Section
25 Arms Act PS Rohini. They recovered a Maruti 800 Car bearing no. DDU
3119 from their possession. The co-accused Satya Bhagwan was driving the
vehicle while appellant was sitting on the next seat. The car bearing no.
DDU 3119 was taken into possession. On completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was filed. After recording the statement of the prosecution
Crl.Rev.P. 111/2009 Page 2 of 5
witnesses, Petitioner and co-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. learned
Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the Petitioner and the co-accused as
mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate convicting him, the Petitioner preferred an appeal.
This appeal of the Petitioner was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions
th
Judge vide judgment dated 25 February, 2009. These judgments passed by
learned Metropolitan Magistrate and learned Addl. Sessions Judge are
impugned in the present petition.
th
6. PW2 Darshan Kumar, Head Constable has deposed that on 10 April,
1997 he was posted in Anti Robbery Section, Crime Branch, Delhi. The
accused Narender and Satya Bhagwan were arrested by the police team in
case FIR No. 188/189 of 1997 of P.S. Rohini and at the time when the
accused were apprehended by the police party, he was also the member of
th
the raiding party. On 19 April, 1997 information was available with Insp.
Ishwar Singh regarding 2,3 persons coming from the side of Haryana and
going towards Madhuban Chowk. At about 6.15 p.m. one car came from the
side of Madhuban Chowk when they were present at DTC bus depot. Signal
was given to stop the car however the driver of the said car did not stop. The
car was chased and made to stop. Satya Bhagwan was driving the said car
and the Petitioner Narender was sitting on the front side seat of driver. One
country made pistol was recovered from Narender and the car bearing No.
DDU 3319 was also taken into possession. On interrogation, both the
accused made disclosure statement that they had stolen the said car from E-
1/70, Sector-8, Rohini. The car was taken into possession vide seizure
memo PW2/A.
Crl.Rev.P. 111/2009 Page 3 of 5
st
7. PW7 Head Constable Ishwar Singh, deposed that on 31 March, 1997
he was posted as Head Constable at PS Samay Pur Badli and on that date at
about 7 a.m. on receiving DD No. 13B regarding theft he went to the spot at
E-1/70 Sector 12, Rohini, where the complainant Arun Kaushik met him and
told about the theft of the maruti car. He does not remember the car number.
He obtained his complaint and prepared a rukka and handed over the same to
Const. Narain Singh for the registration of the case. After some time Const.
Narain Singh came to the spot with original rukka Ex. W7/A and copy of the
st
FIR Ex.PW1/A. On 1 April, 1997 he flashed out wireless message through
out India and informed all the Police Stations about the theft of car. He
enquired on his level and when he found no clue of the car, he informed the
NCRT Authority to inform him whenever any such car was found. The car
which was stolen was of white colour and the number of that car was DDU
3119 as disclosed by the Complainant. The case was transferred to the
th
Crime Branch on 10 April, 1997.
8. Ex.PW2/A i.e. the seizure memo of the car bearing no. 3119 records
that the said car was recovered from the accused Satya Bhagwan from road
no. 4, near DTC Depot, Rohini.
9. Section 411 IPC reads as under:
â411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property -Whoever
dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or
having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.â
10. A bare reading of the Section shows that the essential ingredients to
constitute an offence under this section are that the person must dishonestly
Crl.Rev.P. 111/2009 Page 4 of 5
receive or retain any stolen property knowingly or having reasons to believe
that the same is stolen. Thus it is clear that receiving or retaining of a stolen
property and having the knowledge are essential. From the facts proved on
record it cannot be legitimately concluded that the Petitioner had the
requisite knowledge or belief that the car was a stolen one. No evidence has
been placed on record that the Petitioner shared the requisite mensrea with
the co-accused who was in constructive possession of the car.
11. Hence keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case
the petitioner is acquitted of the charge under Section 411 IPC. The
impugned judgments are set aside.
12. Petitioner is on bail. His bail and surety bonds are discharged.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JULY 9, 2012
âdkâ
Crl.Rev.P. 111/2009 Page 5 of 5
+ CRL.REV.P. 111/2009
th
% Reserved on: 12 April, 2012
th
Decided on: 9 July, 2012
NARENDER KUMAR SINGH @ NENDAY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prag Chawla, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for State
with SI Alok Bajpai, PS S.P. Badli.
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. By the present petition the Petitioner seeks to set aside judgment dated
th
25 February, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
upholding the judgment passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated
th th
12 November, 2007 and the order on sentence dated 26 November, 2007
whereby the Petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 411 IPC and
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner primarily contends that the
Petitioner was only sitting in the car which was allegedly the stolen car. The
car has been seized from the possession of co-accused. The learned courts
below failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner had no knowledge about
the stolen car and was simply occupying a seat in the car as a rider, thus no
presumption can be raised against the petitioner. Furthermore the seizure
memo of the car Ex.PW2/1 clearly records that the car was recovered from
the possession of the co-accused Satya Bhagwan and no other evidence has
Crl.Rev.P. 111/2009 Page 1 of 5
been placed on record to prove that the same was recovered from the joint
possession of the petitioner and the co-accused.
3. Per contra learned APP for the State contends that the impugned
judgments suffer from no illegality. There are two witnesses to the recovery
of the stolen car i.e. PW2 and PW11 who have clearly deposed that the car
was recovered from the joint possession of the petitioner and the co-accused.
It is further stated that the presumption under the law was correctly raised
and the burden of proof shifted to the petitioner to prove his innocence.
Thus, the present petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
st
5. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 31 March, 1997 after
receipt of DD No. 13-B, HC Ishwar Singh along with Ct. Narain went to
premises bearing no. E-1/17, Sector 18, Rohini where statement of Arun
Kaushik was recorded. Arun Kaushik complained about the theft of his
Martui 800 car bearing No. DDU 3119 with Engine No. 227004 and Chasis
th
No. 169146 on 30 March, 1997 at about 10.30 PM p.m. A case was
th
registered under Section 379/411 IPC. On 10 April, 1997 ASI Karan Singh
and SI Vidya Dhar on the basis of secret information, reached near Road no.
41, opposite Depot Rohini-I, Delhi and arrested the Appellant and co-
accused Satya Bhagwan in FIR No. 188/1997 and 189/1997 under Section
25 Arms Act PS Rohini. They recovered a Maruti 800 Car bearing no. DDU
3119 from their possession. The co-accused Satya Bhagwan was driving the
vehicle while appellant was sitting on the next seat. The car bearing no.
DDU 3119 was taken into possession. On completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was filed. After recording the statement of the prosecution
Crl.Rev.P. 111/2009 Page 2 of 5
witnesses, Petitioner and co-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. learned
Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the Petitioner and the co-accused as
mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate convicting him, the Petitioner preferred an appeal.
This appeal of the Petitioner was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions
th
Judge vide judgment dated 25 February, 2009. These judgments passed by
learned Metropolitan Magistrate and learned Addl. Sessions Judge are
impugned in the present petition.
th
6. PW2 Darshan Kumar, Head Constable has deposed that on 10 April,
1997 he was posted in Anti Robbery Section, Crime Branch, Delhi. The
accused Narender and Satya Bhagwan were arrested by the police team in
case FIR No. 188/189 of 1997 of P.S. Rohini and at the time when the
accused were apprehended by the police party, he was also the member of
th
the raiding party. On 19 April, 1997 information was available with Insp.
Ishwar Singh regarding 2,3 persons coming from the side of Haryana and
going towards Madhuban Chowk. At about 6.15 p.m. one car came from the
side of Madhuban Chowk when they were present at DTC bus depot. Signal
was given to stop the car however the driver of the said car did not stop. The
car was chased and made to stop. Satya Bhagwan was driving the said car
and the Petitioner Narender was sitting on the front side seat of driver. One
country made pistol was recovered from Narender and the car bearing No.
DDU 3319 was also taken into possession. On interrogation, both the
accused made disclosure statement that they had stolen the said car from E-
1/70, Sector-8, Rohini. The car was taken into possession vide seizure
memo PW2/A.
Crl.Rev.P. 111/2009 Page 3 of 5
st
7. PW7 Head Constable Ishwar Singh, deposed that on 31 March, 1997
he was posted as Head Constable at PS Samay Pur Badli and on that date at
about 7 a.m. on receiving DD No. 13B regarding theft he went to the spot at
E-1/70 Sector 12, Rohini, where the complainant Arun Kaushik met him and
told about the theft of the maruti car. He does not remember the car number.
He obtained his complaint and prepared a rukka and handed over the same to
Const. Narain Singh for the registration of the case. After some time Const.
Narain Singh came to the spot with original rukka Ex. W7/A and copy of the
st
FIR Ex.PW1/A. On 1 April, 1997 he flashed out wireless message through
out India and informed all the Police Stations about the theft of car. He
enquired on his level and when he found no clue of the car, he informed the
NCRT Authority to inform him whenever any such car was found. The car
which was stolen was of white colour and the number of that car was DDU
3119 as disclosed by the Complainant. The case was transferred to the
th
Crime Branch on 10 April, 1997.
8. Ex.PW2/A i.e. the seizure memo of the car bearing no. 3119 records
that the said car was recovered from the accused Satya Bhagwan from road
no. 4, near DTC Depot, Rohini.
9. Section 411 IPC reads as under:
â411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property -Whoever
dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or
having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.â
10. A bare reading of the Section shows that the essential ingredients to
constitute an offence under this section are that the person must dishonestly
Crl.Rev.P. 111/2009 Page 4 of 5
receive or retain any stolen property knowingly or having reasons to believe
that the same is stolen. Thus it is clear that receiving or retaining of a stolen
property and having the knowledge are essential. From the facts proved on
record it cannot be legitimately concluded that the Petitioner had the
requisite knowledge or belief that the car was a stolen one. No evidence has
been placed on record that the Petitioner shared the requisite mensrea with
the co-accused who was in constructive possession of the car.
11. Hence keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case
the petitioner is acquitted of the charge under Section 411 IPC. The
impugned judgments are set aside.
12. Petitioner is on bail. His bail and surety bonds are discharged.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JULY 9, 2012
âdkâ
Crl.Rev.P. 111/2009 Page 5 of 5