Delhi District Court
State vs Sachin Bhalla on 6 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: MS. SAYESHA CHADHA, DJS
FIR No. 337/2005
PS : Kotwali
U/s 292/174A IPC
State vs. Sachin Bhalla
Date of Institution of case: 18.05.2006
Date when Judgment reserved: 01.06.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 06.06.2025
JUDGMENT
A. Case No. : 8410/23
B. Date of Institution of Case : 18.05.2006
C. Date of Commission of Offence : 02.08.2005
D. Name of the complainant : SI Dharampal
E. Name of the Accused : Sachin Bhalla s/o Sh.
& his parentage and residence Satish Bhalla,
R/o WA-79, Shakarpur,
Delhi.
F. Offences complained of : U/s 292 and 174A IPC
G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Final order : Acquittal
I. Date of such order : 06.06.2025
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. In brief, the accused has been sent to face trial upon
the allegations that on 02.08.2005 at about 06:00 PM, In-
front of Shop No. 885, Old Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi
State Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
1/22
within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kotwali, accused
alongwith Co-accused Ravi Kumar (PO) were found in
possession and selling of CDs which were obscene films as
per seizure memo mark X1 and X2 and on 21.09.2012,
accused failed to appear before this court in case FIR No.
337/05, PS Kotwali titled as State Vs. Sachin Bhalla and
was declared proclaimed person vide order dated
21.09.2012 and thereby committed an offence punishable
U/s 292 and 174A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
called as IPC).
2. After completion of an investigation, a charge sheet
was filed against the accused on 18.05.2006. Cognizance
of the offence was taken. Copy of charge sheet and
annexed documents were supplied to accused under
section 207 (The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
hereinafter called as CrPC). Charge under section 292,
174A IPC was framed against the accused to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution examined nine (09) witnesses to
substantiate allegations against the accused person.
4. PW-1 HC Raja Gopalan has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that in the intervening night of
02.08.2005, he was posted as duty officer at PS Kotwali,
Delhi. On that day, his duty hours were 05:00 pm to 01:00
AM (Midnight). At about 07:35 PM, he received a Rukka
from Ct. Jagbir sent by Sl Dharampal. On the basis of the
said Rukka, he registered the FIR No. 337/05 Ex. PW-1/A
State Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
2/22
and endorsement of the Rukka vide Ex. PW-1/B bears his
signature at point A, thereafter, he handed over the original
Rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Jagbir. He brought the
original copy of FIR.
5. PW-2 ASI Jagbir Singh has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that on 02.08.2005, he alongwith SI
Dharampal, Ct. Shailender went for patrolling duty in
Chandni Chowk. At about 6.00 pm. During patrolling, one
secret informer met SI Dharampal and told him that two
unknown persons are selling blue films CDs in front of
Shop No.885, Old Lajpat Nagar Rai Market and can be
apprehended if raided now. Thereafter, SI Dharampal
prepared a raiding team including him, Ct. Shailender and
went to the spot alongwith secret informer. On reaching
the spot, the secret informer pointed out towards both the
accused persons and left the spot. Thereafter, SI
Dharampal went towards the accused persons as a
decoy/fake customer and asked for the blue film CD. The
accused persons asked for Rs.25 for one blue film CD and
gave Rs.25 (in denomination of Rs.10×2 and Rs.5×1) to
one of the accused whose name later on enquiry was
revealed as Sachin Bhalla. Accused asked the co-accused
whose name later on enquiry was revealed as Ravi to give
one blue film CD to SI Dharampal and accordingly, the co-
accused Ravi took out one CD from the counter from one
plastic black colour polythene and he gave one blue film
CD to SI Dharampal and accused kept Rs.25 in his pocket.
Obscene picture was printed/pasted on the aforesaid CD
State Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
3/22
Thereafter, IO SI Dharampal asked 4-5 public persons to
join the investigation but all of them refused by giving
their reasonable excuses without disclosing their names
and addresses. Due to paucity of time, no notice could be
served upon them. Thereafter, SI Dharampal called his co-
staff at the spot and they apprehended both the accused
persons. Thereafter, SI Dharampal asked the accused
persons to handover all the blue film CDs to him.
Accordingly, the accused persons took out 30 CDs from
the black colour polythene placed under the counter.
Thereafter, IO carried out cursory search of both the
accused persons but nothing was recovered from them.
Thereafter, IO seized one blue film CD recovered from
accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A, bearing his
signature at Point A after preparing the pullanda and duly
sealed with the seal of ‘DP’. Thereafter, IO seized Rs.25/-
(in denomination of Rs.10×2 and Rs.5×1) recovered from
accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B, bearing his
signature at Point A after preparing the pullanda and duly
sealed with the seal of ‘DP’. Thereafter, IO seized thirty
blue film CDs recovered from accused Ravi vide seizure
memo Ex.PW2/C, bearing his signature at Point A after
preparing the pullanda and duly sealed with the seal of
‘DP’. The seal after use was handed over to Ct. Shailender.
Thereafter, IO prepared the tehrir/rukka at the spot and
handed over the same to him for registration of FIR at
about 7.20 pm. Accordingly, he went to PS Kotwali and
got the FIR registered. After registration of FIR, he came
State Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
4/22
back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and
original rukka to HC Rambir who was found present at the
spot when he reached there. Thereafter, Second IO HC
Rambir arrested both the accused persons vide arrest
memo Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E and carried out their
personal search vide memos Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/G, all
bearing his signature at Point A. IO HC Rambir Singh
prepared the body inspection memo of both the accused
persons vide memos Ex.PW2/H and Ex.PW2/I, both
bearing his signature at Point A. Thereafter, both the
accused persons were released on police bail being
bailable offence. Thereafter, IO HC Rambir Singh
recorded his statement U/s 161 CrPC and he was
discharged. He has correctly identified accused. The case
property has already been destroyed vide record
Ex.PW-5/A.
6. During cross examination of the Ld. Counsel for
accused, PW-2 stated that he was on patrolling duty on
Chandni Chowk when they received the information on
02.08.2005 at 06:00 pm. They reached at the spot alongwith
secret informer. The secret informer left the spot at about 06:15
pm. He admitted that the spot was crowded. IO requested to
public persons to join the investigation but all of them refused
and left the spot without disclosing their name and addresses.
Due to paucity of time no notice was served upon them. He
went alongwith the tehrir for registration of FIR at about 07:20
pm and came back at the spot at 08:00 pm. Only seizure memo
was prepared by the IO before sending me for registration for
FIR alongwith Tehrir/rukka. He did not remember whether IO
State Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
5/22
prepared the site plan in his presence due to passage of time.
The seal after use was handed over to constable Shailender. No
seal handing over memo was prepared by IO in his presence.
He denied that nothing was recovered from the accused. He
denied that he was deposing falsely.
7. PW-3 ASI Shailender Singh has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that on 02.08.2005, he was posted as
Constable at AATS/North District. On that day, he
alongwith SI Dharampal, Ct. Jagbir went for patrolling
duty in Chandni Chowk. At about 6.00 pm, during
patrolling, one secret informer met SI Dharampal and told
him that two unknown persons are selling blue films CDs
in front of Shop No.885, Old Lajpat Nagar Rai Market and
can be apprehended if raided now. Thereafter, SI
Dharampal prepared a raiding team including him, Ct.
Jagbir and went to the spot alongwith secret informer. On
reaching the spot, the secret informer pointed out towards
both the accused persons and left the spot. Thereafter, SI
Dharampal went towards the accused persons as a
decoy/fake customer and asked for the blue film CD. The
accused persons asked for Rs.25 for one blue film CD and
gave Rs.25 (in denomination of Rs.10×2 and Rs.5×1) to
one of the accused whose name later on enquiry was
revealed as Sachin Bhalla. Accused asked the co-accused
whose name later on enquiry was revealed as Ravi to give
one blue film CD to SI Dharampal and accordingly, the co-
accused Ravi took out one CD from the counter from one
plastic black colour polythene and he gave one blue film
State Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
6/22
CD to SI Dharampal and accused kept Rs.25 in his pocket.
Obscene picture was printed/pasted on the aforesaid CD
Thereafter, IO SI Dharampal asked 4-5 public persons to
join the investigation but all of them refused by giving
their reasonable excuses without disclosing their names
and addresses. Due to paucity of time, no notice could be
served upon them. Thereafter, SI Dharampal called his co-
staff at the spot and we apprehended both the accused
persons. Thereafter, SI Dharampal asked the accused
persons to handover all the blue film CDs to him.
Accordingly, the accused persons took out 30 CDs from
the black colour polythene placed under the counter.
Thereafter, IO carried out cursory search of both the
accused persons but nothing was recovered from them.
Thereafter, IO seized one blue film CD recovered from
accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A, bearing his
signature at Point A after preparing the pullanda and duly
sealed with the seal of ‘DP’. Thereafter, IO seized Rs.25/-
(in denomination of Rs.10×2 and Rs.5×1) recovered from
accused Sachin Bhalla vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B,
bearing his signature at Point A after preparing the
pullanda and duly sealed with the seal of ‘DP’. Thereafter,
IO seized thirty blue film CDs recovered from accused
Ravi vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C, bearing his signature
at Point A after preparing the pullanda and duly sealed
with the seal of ‘DP’. The seal after use was handed over
to him. Thereafter, IO prepared the tehrir/rukka at the spot
and handed over the same to Ct. Jagbir for registration of
State Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
7/22
FIR at about 7.20 p.m. Accordingly, he went to PS
Kotwali and got the FIR registered. After registration of
FIR, he came back at the spot and handed over the copy of
FIR and original rukka to HC Rambir who was found
present at the spot when he reached there. Thereafter,
second IO HC Rambir arrested both the accused persons
vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E and carried
out their personal search vide memos Ex.PW2/F and
Ex.PW2/G, all bearing his signature at Point A. IO HC
Rambir Singh prepared the body inspection memo of both
the accused persons vide memos Ex.PW2/H and
Ex.PW2/I, both bearing his signature at Point A.
Thereafter, both the accused persons were released on
police bail being bailable offence. Thereafter, IO HC
Rambir Singh recorded his statement U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C.
and he was discharged. He has correctly identified
accused. The case property has already been destroyed
vide record Ex.PW-5/A.
8. During cross examination of the Ld. Counsel for
accused, PW-3 stated that he was on patrolling duty on
Chandni Chowk when they received the information on
02.08.2005 at 06:00 pm. They reached at the spot alongwith
secret informer. The secret informer left the spot at about 06:15
pm. He admitted that the spot was crowded. IO requested to
public persons to join the investigation but all of them refused
and left the spot without disclosing their name and addresses.
Due to paucity of time no notice was served upon them. SI
Jagbir went alongwith the tehrir for registration of FIR at about
State Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
8/22
07:20 pm and came back at the spot at 08:00 pm. Only seizure
memo was prepared by the IO before sending him for
registration for FIR alongwith Tehrir/rukka. IO prepared the
site plan in his presence. During the period when SI Jagbir
went for registration of FIR IO did not prepare any document.
The seal after use was handed over to him. No seal handing
over memo was prepared by IO in my presence. He denied that
nothing was recovered from the accused. He denied that he was
deposing falsely.
9. PW-4 SI Suresh Kumar has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that the main charge-sheet had
already been filed in the present case against the accused
persons by the IO/SI Dharam Pal. Accused was declared
PO on 21.09.2012 in the present case and was arrested by
HC Om Prakash Dagar on 06.03.2023 vide DD No. 42A
PS Maurice Nagar and he filed the kalandara u/S 41.1 (c)
Cr.P.C. and produced the accused before the concerned
court. Thereafter, as per the directions of concerned SHO,
he collected the photocopy of relevant documents from HC
Om Prakash Dagar and he filed the supplementary
chargesheet u/s 174A IPC against accused before the
concerned court.
10. PW-5 Pankaj Kumar has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that he brought the record from
Nazarat Branch, Tis Hazari, (HQ), Delhi. That as per the
D.No. 437/2018 dated 30.05.2018 the case property i.e.
two pullanda of CD and Rs. 25/- under FIR No. 337/05
were received vide RC No. 123/21/2018 dated 30.05.2018
State Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
9/22
for disposal/destruction in compliance of order dated
07.04.2018 passed by Ld. MM Sh. Dinesh Kumar. In
compliance of the said order the above-said case property
was disposed of in the presence of disposal committee on
22.10.2018, 23.10.2018 and 25.10.2018, Rs. 25/- have
been deposited in Government account on 04.06.2018. The
above said record exhibited as Ex.PW-5/A bearing his
signature at point A on each page.
11. During cross examination of the Ld. Counsel for
accused, PW-5 admitted that no sample of the case
property was preserved by them and neither any
photographs of the same were preserved as per record. He
denied that he was deposing falsely.
12. PW-6 Retired Inspector Dharampal has deposed in
his examination-in-chief that on 02.08.2005, he was posted
as SI at AATS/North District. On that day, he alongwith
Ct. Jagbir, Ct. Shailender went for patrolling duty in
Chandni Chowk. At about 6.00 p.m., during patrolling, one
secret informer met him and told him that two unknown
persons are selling blue films CDs in front of Shop
No.885, Old Lajpat Nagar Rai Market and can be
apprehended if raided now. Thereafter, he prepared a
raiding team including Ct. Jagbir, Ct. Shailender and went
to the spot alongwith secret informer. On reaching the
spot, the secret informer pointed out towards both the
accused persons and left the spot. Thereafter, he went
towards the accused persons as a decoy/fake customer and
asked for the blue film CD. The accused persons asked for
State Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
10/22
Rs.25 for one blue film CD and he gave Rs.25 (in
denomination of Rs.10×2 and Rs.5×1) to one of the
accused whose name later on enquiry was revealed as
Sachin Bhalla. Accused asked the co-accused whose name
later on enquiry was revealed as Ravi to give one blue film
CD to him and accordingly, the co-accused Ravi took out
one CD from the counter from one plastic black colour
polythene and he gave one blue film CD to him and
accused kept Rs.25 in his pocket. Obscene picture was
printed/pasted on the aforesaid CD. He asked 4-5 public
persons to join the investigation but all of them refused by
giving their reasonable excuses without disclosing their
names and addresses. Due to paucity of time, no notice
could be served upon them. Thereafter, he alongwith his
co-staff apprehended both the accused persons at the spot.
Thereafter, he asked the accused persons to handover all
the blue film CDs to him. Accordingly, the accused
persons took out 30 CDs from the black colour polythene
placed under the counter. Thereafter, he carried out
cursory search of both the accused persons but nothing was
recovered from them. Thereafter, he seized one blue film
CD recovered from accused vide seizure memo
Ex.PW-2/A, bearing his signature at Point C after
preparing the pullanda and duly sealed with the seal of
‘DP’. Thereafter, he seized Rs.25/- (in denomination of
Rs.10×2 and Rs.5×1) recovered from accused Sachin
Bhalla vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/B, bearing his
signature at Point C after preparing the pullanda and duly
State Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
11/22
sealed with the seal of ‘DP’. Thereafter, he seized thirty
blue film CDs recovered from accused Ravi vide seizure
memo Ex.PW-2/C, bearing his signature at Point C after
preparing the pullanda and duly sealed with the seal of
‘DP’. The seal after use was handed over to Ct. Shailender.
Thereafter, he prepared the tehrir/rukka at the spot Ex.
PW-6/A bearing his signature at point A and handed over
the same to Ct. Jagdish for registration of FIR at about
7.20 p.m. Accordingly, he went to PS Kotwali and got the
FIR registered. In the meantime, 2 nd IO/HC Rambir came
at the spot and narrated him the whole incident. Thereafter,
he handed over the copy of rukka, all the seizure memos
and custody of both the accused persons to the 2 nd IO/HC
Rambir and he recorded his supplementary statement and
he was discharged. He has correctly identified accused.
The case property has already been destroyed vide record
Ex. PW-5/A.
13. During cross examination of the Ld. Counsel for
accused, PW-6 stated that he was on patrolling duty on
foot at Chandni Chowk when they received the
information on 02.08.2005 at 06:00 pm. They reached at
the spot alongwith secret informer. The secret informer left
the spot at about 06:15 pm. He admitted that the spot was
crowded. He requested to public persons to join the
investigation but all of them refused and left the spot
without disclosing their name and addresses. Due to
paucity of time no notice was served upon them. SI Jagbir
went alongwith the tehrir for registration of FIR at about
State Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
12/22
07:20 pm. He handed over the seal to Ct. Shailender. He
had not prepared the seal handing over memo. Only
seizure memos and tehrir were prepared by him before
sending him for registration for FIR alongwith
Tehrir/rukka. He denied that nothing was recovered from
the accused. He denied that the accused Sachin Bhalla was
falsely implicated in this case. He denied that he was
deposing falsely.
14. PW-7 HC Punit Malik has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that on 06.03.2023, he was posted at
AATS North as HC. On that day, at about 12.30 PM, at
Metro Station KKD, accused was apprehended by IO/HC
Omparkash Dagar as he was declared Proclaimed Offender
vide order dated 21.09.2012 by the court of Ms. Charu
Aggarwal Ld. MM, Delhi in the present case vide FIR No.
337/05 PS Kotwali u/s. 292/34 IPC within the jurisdiction
of PS Kotwali. After arrest of the accused, Kalandra u/s
41.1.c CrPC was prepared by IO. The said kalandra along
with DD no. 42A dated 06.03.2023 along with arrest
memo and personal search memo. Thereafter, IO recorded
his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC and he was discharged. He has
correctly identified accused.
15. During cross examination of the Ld. Counsel for
accused, PW-7 admitted that he had no personal
knowledge of the present case. He denied that he was
deposing falsely.
16. PW-8 HC Omprakash Dagar has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that on 06.03.2023, he was posted at
State Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
13/22
AATS North as HC. On that day, at about 12.30 PM, at
Metro Station KKD, accused was apprehended by him as
he was declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated
21.09.2012 by the court of Ms. Charu Aggarwal Ld. MM,
Delhi in the present case vide FIR No. 337/05 PS Kotwali
u/s. 292/34 IPC within the jurisdiction of PS Kotwali.
After arrest of the accused, Kalandra u/s 41.1.c CrPC was
prepared by him. The said kalandra along with DD no.
42A dated 06.03.2023 along with arrest memo and
personal search memo Ex.PW-8/A and Ex.PW-8/B bearing
his signature at point A respectively. Thereafter, accused
was medically examined at AAA Hospital. Thereafter,
accused was produced before the concerned court and sent
him to JC. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the
witnesses and they were discharged. He has correctly
identified accused.
17. During cross examination of the Ld. Counsel for
accused, PW-8 admitted that he had no personal
knowledge of the present case. He denied that he was
deposing falsely.
18. PW-9 HC Sumit Kumar has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that on 06.03.2023, he was posted at
AATS North as HC. On that day, at about 12.30 PM, at
Metro Station KKD, accused was apprehended by IO as he
was declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated
21.09.2012 by the court of Ms. Charu Aggarwal Ld. MM,
Delhi in the present case vide FIR No. 337/05 PS Kotwali
u/s. 292/34 IPC within the jurisdiction of PS Kotwali.
State Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
14/22
After arrest of the accused, Kalandra u/s 41.1.c CrPC was
prepared by IO. The said kalandra along with DD no. 42A
dated 06.03.2023 along with arrest memo and personal
search memo Ex.PW-8/A and Ex.PW-8/B bearing his
signature at point B respectively. Thereafter, the accused
was medically examined at AAA Hospital. Thereafter,
accused was produced before the concerned court and sent
him to JC. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement u/s 161
Cr.PC and he was discharged. He has correctly identified
accused.
19. During cross examination of the Ld. Counsel for
accused, PW-9 admitted that he had no personal
knowledge of the present case. He denied that he was
deposing falsely.
20. Accused had made a statement u/s 294 CrPC and
admitted the GD No. 42A, PS Maurice Nagar, Delhi dated
06.03.2023 Ex. A-1, DD No. 6 dated 06.03.2023, AATS,
North District, Delhi Ex. A-2, the photocopy of PO order
of the accused dated 26.06.2010 Ex. A-3 and the statement
dated 21.09.2012 of process server HC Ram Kumar Ex.
A-4 without admitting the contents of the same.
21. Vide order dated 03.12.2024, PE was closed at the
request of Ld. APP for the State.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
22. On 27.01.2025, statement of the accused u/s 313
Cr.PC was also recorded wherein accused denied the case
of the prosecution and stated that he has been falsely
State Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
15/22
implicated in the case and false case has been registered
against him.
ARGUMENTS
23. During final arguments, it was argued by Ld. APP for
the State that the case against the accused stood proved in
view of the evidence led by the prosecution. Accordingly, he
argued that accused deserved to be convicted for the offence
u/s 174A IPC.
24. In order to ensure convenient appraisal of evidence,
the following points of determination has been framed.
I. Whether the accused Sachin Bhalla on 02.08.2005, at
about 06.00 pm, In front of Shop No.885, Old Lajpat Rai
Market, Delhi, was found in possession as well as selling
CDs containing obscene films.
II. Whether the accused had absconded or was concealing
himself that a process u/s 82 CrPC was issued against him
and consequently, he was declared a proclaimed person
vide order dated 21.09.2012 and thereby, committed
offence u/s 174A IPC.
25. In order to ensure convenient appraisal of evidence,
the court deals first point of determination.
I. Whether the accused Sachin Bhalla on 02.08.2005, at
about 06.00 pm, In front of Shop No.885, Old Lajpat Rai
Market, Delhi, was found in possession as well as selling
CDs containing obscene films.
26. Perusal of record reflects that the case property
State Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
16/22
comprising of the CDs allegedly containing obscene
material has been destroyed by District Nazir subsequent
to the order dated 07.04.2018. The said order as well as the
report of the District Nazir has been annexed on record.
PW-2 ASI Jagbir Singh has categorically submitted in his
cross-examination that no public witness could be joined
in the investigation and due to paucity of time, no notice
was served upon them. PW-3 ASI Shailender Singh has
also stated in his testimony that as per the record
Ex.PW5/A (colly), the case property has been destroyed by
the District Nazir. No photographs of the case property
were retained as has been stated by PW-5 Sh. Pankaj
Kumar in his cross-examination.
27. The entire case was based upon the seizure of the
alleged CDs. Without examination of the same, the court
cannot arrive at the conclusion as to whether any obscene
material was contained in them or not. Moreover, no
public witness was made part of the investigation and the
alleged seizure was effected in the absence of the public
witness. At this juncture, the court deems it apposite to cite
the case
28. At this juncture, reference is made to the judgment
of Roop Chand v. State of Haryana 1989 SCC OnLine
P&H 539 : (1989) 2 RCR (Cri) 504, wherein it has been
observed:
“4. It is well settled principle of law that the Investigating Agency
should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of
contraband articles, if they are available and 5/2023 their failure to
do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution
case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnessesState Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
17/22
were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate
themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire
confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses
examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the
persons contacted to join.
29. Reliance is placed upon the judgement of State of
Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1872, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that:
“It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions
i.e. Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an
irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case
depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of
course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether
any prejudice has been caused to the accused and also
examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the
fact that these provisions have not been complied with and
further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any
manner affected because of the non-compliance. It is well-
settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or
discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an
official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the
circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent
corroboration. This again depends on question whether the
official has deliberately failed to comply with these
provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity
to associate some independent witnesses with the search and
strictly comply with these provisions.”
30. Hence, due to destruction of case property and lack
of evidence, the court deems it apposite to acquit the
accused u/s 292 IPC.
31. The court shall now deal with the second point of
determination.
II. Whether the accused had absconded or was concealing
himself that a process u/s 82 CrPC was issued against him
and consequently, he was declared a proclaimed person
vide order dated 21.09.2012 and thereby, committed
State Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
18/22
offence u/s 174A IPC.
32. The onus to prove the same shall be on the
prosecution. Section 82 CrPC states that
(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence
or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it
has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot
be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation
requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time
not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such
proclamation. AUVIT
(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:-
(i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town
or village in which such person ordinarily resides;
(b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or
homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some
conspicuous place of such town or village;
(c) a copy thereof shall be affixed 1o some conspicuous part of the
Court House; Procematon te be pulisked f , il newpaper circulating
in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.
(3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to
the effect that the proclamation was duly published on specified day,
in the manner specified in clause (i) of subSection (2), shall be
conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been
complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day.
(4) Where a proclamation published under sub-Section (1) is in
respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections
302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399,
400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860), and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time
required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such
inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and
make a declaration to that effect.
(5) The provisions of sub-Sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a
declaration made by the Court under sub-Section (4) as they apply to
the proclamation published under sub-Section (1).”
33. It shall be noted that 82 of CrPC clearly provides
that the court may publish a written proclamation against a
person requiring his appearance only after the court has
issued warrants and has reasons to believe that a person
against whom warrants have been issued has absconded or
State Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
19/22
is concealing himself so that such warrants cannot be
executed.
34. In the present case, NBWs were issued against the
accused on 18.04.2012. The perusal of report on NBWs
shows that the accused has left the address. The statement
of one Ramesh Chand was recorded who stated that the
accused Sachin Bhalla was a tenant and has now left the
address to an unknown location. Consequently, process u/s
82 CrPC was issued.
35. No DD entries of departure have been annexed on
record indicating the visit of process server to the said
address.
36. At this juncture, I deem it relevant to cite the
judgment of The Honorable High Court of Delhi in the
case of Sunil Tyagi Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and
Anr, AIR Online, 2021 Del 912 wherein the court laid
down certain guidelines for issuing process u/s 82 CrPC.
1. Concealment has to be deliberate for the purpose of avoiding
arrest. The mere fact that the police could not find the accused
is not enough.
2. Pre-requisites to the publication of a proclamation under
Section 82(2)(ii) CrPC – Prior to publication under Section
82(2)(ii) CrPC the Police Officer may be mandatorily required
to file an Affidavit disclosing: A picture showing that
proclamation has been affixed in a conspicuous place of the
house where the person resides. The picture must be taken in a
manner that makes it clear to the Court that the proclamation
has in fact, been affixed at the said house; The Court must pass
an order dealing with the contents of the Affidavit and
statement of the process server along with its reasons for
directing publication under Section 82(2)(ii).
3. Publication by all three modes essential – Publication by all
three modes namely (i) public reading in some conspicuous
place of the town/village in such person ordinarily resides; (ii)
affixation at some conspicuous part of the house or homestead
State Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
20/22
and (iii) affixation at some conspicuous part of the court house
are mandatory under Section 82(2) CrPC. The failure to
comply with all the three modes of publication is to be
considered invalid publication, according to law as the three
sub-clauses (a) to (c) are conjunctive and not disjunctive.
37. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Patna
High Court titled as Ajeet Kumar Vs. State of Bihar,
criminal appeal (DB) No. 945 of 2003, wherein it was held
that “trial Court proceeded in the matter without there
being any service report of the summons or bailable
warrant of arrest. The procedure adopted by the learned
trial Court was of issuing non bailable warrant, process
under section 82 and thereafter under section 83 Cr.P.C.
even without recording its reasons and satisfaction to the
effect that the petitioners were deliberately avoiding
service.
“The orders issuing process under section 82 Cr.P.C. as
also under section 83 Cr.P.C. were clearly contrary to the
procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The same thus being not sustainable, are both
fit to be quashed,” Justice Sarthy added”.
38. Further, the process u/s 82 CrPC was issued and
statement of process server was recorded, the report on the
process was exhibited as Ex.CW2/A. However, no
photographs of affixation on the notice board of the court
or the last known address of the accused have been placed
on record. There are no DD entries indicating the visit to
the said address. The publication in newspaper has also not
been done. Hence, the process u/s 82 CrPC has not been
executed in compliance of the mandate of law.
State Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
21/22
39. Further, the accused was arrested from Trilokpuri,
Delhi and not from Shakurpur where the process issued u/s
82 CrPC was affixed. Hence, this suggests that the accused
had never received the warrants as well as the process
issued against him.
40. Hence, it can be concluded that since the process u/s
82 CrPC was not duly executed, the accused cannot be
held guilty u/s 174A IPC.
41. Accordingly, accused stands acquitted u/s 174A
IPC.
Announced in open court
Digitally signed
by SAYESHA
SAYESHA CHADHA
Date:
CHADHA 2025.06.06
in the presence of accused. 16:16:40
+0530
(SAYESHA CHADHA)
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
[This judgment contains 22 pages and each page bears the
initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete
sign of undersigned.]
State Vs. Sachin Bhalla
FIR No. 337/05
PS Kotwali
22/22