State vs Ravi Verma & Others
2010 Latest Caselaw 4520 Del

13.
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     CRL.L.P. 101/2003

STATE                          ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, APP for the State.

             versus

RAVI VERMA & ORS.                        ..... Respondents
              Through Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

               ORDER

%              24.09.2010

      CRL.L.P. No. 101/2003

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to order sheets and states that respondent Nos. 1 and 3 had entered appearance and their attendance is marked on 19th March, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. In the subsequent orders it is recorded that they have not been served. I have also examined the trial court record and find that no case for grant of leave to appeal has been made out against respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 because of lack of evidence. Hence, in these circumstances, the present petition for leave to appeal is being disposed of.

2. The present petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th January, 2001 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate acquitting the accused- respondents on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and evidence on record is not sufficient to convict them under Section 420/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short).

3. FIR No. 199/1993 was registered in Police Station Gandhi Nagar on a complaint made by Sunil Kumar that one Ashok Pandey, who is respondent No. 2 herein on 15th August, 1993 had presented a forged lottery ticket to him for encashment. He has further stated that on personal search of Ashok Pandey, near about 70 lottery tickets were recovered from him which were found to be forged.

4. The said Sunil Kumar has appeared as PW-1 and has reiterated the said facts. He also recognized the first lottery ticket, which was produced by respondent No. 2, Ashok Pandey, which was marked Exhibit P-1 and the other 69 lottery tickets, which were marked Exhibit P 2/1-69. In his examination in chief, he has not named respondent No. 1, Ravi Verma, respondent No.3, Sunny, respondent No. 4, Sanjeev Kumar and respondent No. 5 Raghubir Singh. In his cross-examination, he has stated:

"Two boys had come to my shop prior to 15.8.93. Those two boys namely accused Sunny Bedi and Sanjeev had come to my shop who are present in court today. Apart from these two boys none else came to my shop before 15.8.93."

5. PW-2, Chhote Lal has stated that on 15th August, 1993 he was sitting in his shop at Ajit Nagar with PW-1, Sunil Kumar, when Ashok Pandey presented a lottery ticket with last digit of „8‟. As they had been duped two days prior to the incident, he became suspicious that the lottery ticket was forged. He made Ashok Pandey sit and went out to call police. Ashok Pandey was handed over to the police. On his personal search, 69-70 lottery tickets were recovered. These tickets were taken into possession by the police. He recognized the lottery tickets which were produced before him. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the only Ashok Pandey had come to his shop.

6. PW-3, ASI Asha Ram has stated that on 15th August, 1993 the investigation of the case was marked to him. He has stated that one person was apprehended and other two companions had ran away from the spot. Ashok Pandey was arrested and PW-3 Asha Ram took into his possession the lottery tickets in possession of Ashok Pandey. Thereafter, on the pointing out of the Ashok Pandey, the police had gone to the premises of his friend Sunny and Sanjeev Kumar but could not trace them. Father of Sunny had assured him that he would produce Sunny before the police as and when required. Thereafter, he was transferred and the case was handed over to another police officer. In the cross-examination he was confronted with the statement that in Exhibit PW- 1/A reference is made to one accomplice and it was not stated that two accomplices had accompanied Ashok Pandey. He has also stated that during his investigation he did not send the lottery tickets for obtaining expert opinion.

7. PW-4, Constable Sunil Dutt, PW-7, SI Maha Narayan were examined only in chief and their cross-examinations were deferred. While deferring the examination of PW-7, SI Maha Narayan, order dated 13th September, 1996 records that the case property had not been produced from the malkhana. Subsequently, as per the order sheet these witnesses were never produced for further examination and vide order dated 25th January, 2001 the prosecution evidence was closed. Thus the statement of PW-4, Constable Sunil Dutt and PW-7, SI Maha Narayan cannot be read in evidence.

8. In view of the aforesaid evidence, I do not think any case is made out against respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5. They were not arrested at the spot.. No recoveries have been proved or established against them. There is no legal evidence to connect the said respondents with the offence which it is alleged Ashok Pandey had committed when he presented the interpolated lottery tickets for encashment. Leave to appeal against them is, therefore, dismissed. Leave to appeal against Ashok Pandey, the respondent No. 2, however, is granted. Registry is directed to register the appeal.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._________/2010 Fresh notice will be issued to Mr. Ashok Pandey on steps being taken by the appellant within fifteen days, for 14th January, 2011.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

SEPTEMBER 24, 2010 VKR