UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES,

PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

INTERNSHIP DIARY

INTERNSHIP DURATION: 1ST AUGUST TO 31ST AUGUST’ 2022

UNDER ADVOCATE BARUN JASWAL

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Ms. SONAL DUTTA SIDHANT SHARMA

(FACULTY OF LAW) ROLL NO. 173/18

UILS, PANJAB UNIVERSITY SEMESTER: 9TH

B.COM LL.B

SECTION: C
 IN THE COURT OF CHETESH GUPTA
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE Ist CLASS, CHANDIGARH
UID-HR0432

PCH No. 5436 of 2018

Date of Institution : 05.09.2018
CNR No.: CHCH03-015493-2018
Date of Decision: 04.10.2021

State

Versus

1. Pankaj @ Munna son of Sh. Shamul, resident of Village

Akailashpur, PS Dhaliwal, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.
2. Arti wife of Sh. Pankaj 2 Munna, resident of Village Akailashpur,
PS Dhaliwal, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.
…. Accused

F.I.R. No. 288, Dated 22.09.2017

Under Sections 380,411 of Indian Penal Code.
Police Station – Sector 11, Chandigarh.

Present: Sh. Varinder Kumar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

State.
Accused Pankaj and Aarti on bail with counsel Sh. Barun
Jaswal, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

The above named accused persons have been sent to face trial

for commission of offence punishable under Section 380,411 of Indian

Penal Code pertaining to Police Station, Sector-11, Chandigarh.

2. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 13.05.2018

the accused were found in possession of stolen property i.e. one gold coin

weighing 10grams, canadian dollar belonging to complainant Dr. Pankaj

C. Vaidya knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen

property. A prayer was made for taking legal action against the accused.

On the basis of said complaint, the FIR was registered against the

accused. During investigation, rough site plan of the spot was prepared.

Statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded.

Accused was arrested. On culmination of investigation, challan under

Section 380, 411 of Indian Penal Code against accused was forwarded to

the Court for trial.

3. Copy of challan accompanied with documents was supplied

to the accused free of costs as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4. On hearing Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State

as well as Learned defence counsel and on appraisal of documents

accompanied with challan, a prima facie case under Section 411 of Indian

Penal Code was found to be made out against the accused. Accordingly,

accused was charge sheeted separately to which accused did not plead

guilty and claimed trial.

5. To substantiate its case, prosecution has examined following

witnesses:-

PW1 Retired Inspector Ramesh Kumar, 1st IO.

PW2 Dr. Pankaj C. Vaidya, complainant.
PW3 HC Jai Bhagwan, witness of register no.19.
PW4 HC Joginder Singh, recovery witness.
PW5 SI Baldev Singh, Investigating Officer.
PW6 C. Sunil, witness of DDR.
PW7 Lady ASI Amarjit Kaur, recovery witness.

6. The documentary evidence of the prosecution is as under:

Ex. P1 Complaint.
Ex. P2 FIR.
Ex. P3 Endorsement.
Ex. P4 RSP.
Ex. PW2/1 and Recovery cum Identification memo.
Ex. PW2/2
Ex. PW3/A True copy of entry in register no.19.
Ex. PW4/1 Personal search memo of accused Pankaj.
Ex. PW5/1 and Arrest memo of accused Pankaj and Arti.
Ex. PW5/2
Ex. PW5/3 Personal search memo of accused Arti.
Ex. PW5/4 RSP of recovery.
Ex. PW6/1 True copy of DDR entry.
Ex. PW6/2 Copy of certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.

Thereafter, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State

gave up witnesses SI Harpal Singh and Inspector Lakhvir Singh and

closed the prosecution evidence vide separate statement dated 06.09.2021.

7. Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were

recorded, wherein the accused pleaded themselves to be innocent and that

they have been falsely implicated in this case. Though the opportunity

was given to the accused for leading defence evidence but they did not

lead any evidence in defence. Thereafter, accused closed the defence

evidence vide separate recorded statement.

8. I have heard rival contentions of learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor as well as learned defence counsel and gone through case file

carefully.

9. The point for determination which arises in the present case

is that whether on 13/05/2018 the accused were found in possession of

stolen property i.e. one gold coin weighing 10 grams, Canadian dollar

belonging to complainant Dr. Pankaj C Vaidya knowing or having reason

to believe the same to be stolen property and thereby committed offence

under Section 411 IPC.

10. Ld. APP while referring to the complaint Ex.P-1 and

testimony of complainant PW2 submitted that the complainant proved the

complaint and identified his signatures on the complaint. He further

submitted that though the complainant did not support the prosecution so

far as the point of identification of the accused persons is concerned, yet,

the evidence of the complainant so far as it confirms the case of the

prosecution must be considered and relied upon by the court. He further

referred to testimony of PW1, PW3 and PW4 to submit that the police
proceedings in the case have been duly proved by the prosecution. While

referring to testimony of PW5, PW7 and the recovery memo Ex.PW2/1

and Ex.PW2/2, he submitted that the stolen articles i.e. gold coin and

Canadian dollars were recovered from the possession of the accused and

thus prosecution has proved the charge against the accused beyond

reasonable doubt. He thus prayed that the accused be convicted.

11. Per contra, Ld. defence counsel referred to testimony of

complainant PW2 to submit that the star prosecution witness did not

support the prosecution story and thus the entire case of prosecution is a

bundle of falsehood. He asserted that the complainant specifically stated

that police told him about the accused persons but nothing was recovered

from the accused persons present in the court and thus the important link

evidence regarding identity of the accused persons is missing. He further

pointed out inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses as to

the police proceedings to submit that the entire police proceeding was

carried out in the police station itself and the alleged recoveries were

planted upon the accused persons. He thus prayed that the accused are

innocent and be acquitted.

12. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the counsels

and perused the case file very carefully. Perusal of the recovery memo Ex.

PW2/1 reveals that the recovery memo has been signed by the

complainant and HC Joginder Singh (PW4). The other recovery memo

Ex. PW2/2 has been signed by the complainant and HC Amarjeet Kaur

(PW-7). As per the case of the prosecution, both the accused persons were

apprehended at the same time and thus it means that both the recoveries

were effected from the accused persons in close proximity of time. In this

backdrop it is relevant to note that PW-4 stated in his examination in chief

that at about 1:30 p.m. secret informer came to the IO and told him about
the persons who had committed the alleged offence. However, this

witness stated in his cross-examination that the secret informer met the IO

at about 11:15 a.m. and informed the IO regarding the accused persons.

On the other hand, PW-7 stated that the secret informer came to her at

about 1:30 p.m. and told about the persons who had committed theft at

House No. 1183, Sector 15 B, Chandigarh. Further, PW-4 stated that the

secret informer remained there with them and when the accused persons

were approaching the Naka, he made a signal by moving his hand over his

head and left the spot. However, in his cross examination, this witness

stated that the secret informer remained at the spot for 2-3 minutes and

then he left the spot. PW7, on the other hand, stated that at about 2:30

p.m. the accused persons approached the Naka and at that time, the secret

informer made a signal to her by raising his hand above his head and the

accused were apprehended. Further, PW7 stated that no independent

witness was joined in the investigation and the case property was not

sealed in her presence. The IO, PW5 stated that the secret informer met

him at about 11 a.m. and the secret informer remained with him for 2 ½

hours. The IO also stated in his cross examination that he did not take any

ownership proof regarding the gold coin from the complainant. Further,

the complainant specifically did not support the prosecution story so far as

the identity of the accused persons is concerned. Though the recovery

memo Ex. PW2/1 and Ex. PW 2/2 bear the signature of the complainant,

he explained that nothing was recovered from the accused persons in his

presence and the accused persons were not arrested in his presence. He

stated that he had signed the documents as per the instructions of the

police. Further, no explanation whatsoever has been tendered by the IO

for not joining any independent witness from the public at the time of

recovery.
13. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion it can be concluded

that prosecution failed to connect the accused persons to the alleged

offence and the testimony of the complainant when viewed in the light of

the inconsistencies in the testimony of police witnesses and the absence of

independent witness of recovery creates sufficient doubt regarding the

culpability of the accused persons. Therefore, prosecution has failed to

prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and

the accused are acquitted of the allegations against them. Their bail bonds

and surety bonds stands discharged. Case property, if any be disposed of

as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Pronounced: (Chetesh Gupta), HCS

04.10.2021 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Chandigarh/UID-HR0432

Note: This Judgment contains 6 pages in total, each page is

checked and signed by me.

(Chetesh Gupta), HCS

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Chandigarh/UID-HR0432
Devinder
Stenographer Grade-II
Present: Sh. Varinder Kumar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Accused Pankaj and Aarti on bail with counsel Sh. Barun
Jaswal, Advocate.

Accused closed the defence evidence vide separate joint

statement of today.

Vide my separate judgment of even date, the accused are

acquitted of the allegations against them. Their bail bonds and surety

bonds stands discharged. They are ordered to furnish bonds in the sum of

Rs.20,000/- as per provisions of Section 437-A of Code of Criminal

Procedure. Bonds furnished, accepted and attested. Case property, if any

be disposed of as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due

compliance.

Pronounced: (Chetesh Gupta), HCS

04.10.2021 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Chandigarh/UID-HR0432
Sanjay Dogra vs. Mamta 1

IN THE COURT OF SH. PARVEEN KUMAR, HCS,

RENT CONTROLLER, CHANDIGARH

Rent Petition no. 4323 of 03.01.2013

Computer ID No.F040101000532013
Date of Decision : 12.12.2016

Sanjay Dogra son of Sh. C.R. Dogra, resident of House No.1423, Sector
22-B, Chandigarh aged 49 years.
…... Petitioner

Vs.

1. Mrs. Mamta widow of Ashok Kumar resident of House No.2744,

Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.
2. Pardeep Kumar son of Ashok Kumar resident of House No.2744,
Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.
2nd Address : Booth No.1, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh.
3. Mrs. Bachan Devi resident of House No.2154, Sector 22-C,
Chandigarh.
4. Sh. Tirlok Kumar son of Late Sh. Raj Kumar, resident of House
No.2154, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.
5. Mrs. Parveen Bal daughter of Sh. Raj Kumar resident of House
No.2154, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.
6. M/s Durga Bhujia Bhandar Booth No.1, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh
through its proprietor.
…... Respondents

Petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab

Urban Rent Restriction Act for eviction of the
respondents from the demised premises i.e.
Booth No.1, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh opposite
Kiran Theatre which is in use and occupation of
the respondents as tenant on the ground of
personal necessity as well as arrear of rent.

Parveen Kumar
Sanjay Dogra vs. Mamta 2

Present:- Sh. Ashok Sharma, counsel for petitioner.

Ms. Jyotika, counsel for respondent no.2, 4 to 6.
Respondent no.1 & 3 died.
Remaining respondents exparte.

ORDER

This is a rent petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13

of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction of the

respondents from demised premises.

2. The brief facts of the present petition are that petitioner is

owner and landlord of Booth No.1, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh and he has

purchased the same vide sale deed dated 10.11.2010 from one Aman

Gupta. It is further averred that booth in question was leased out by

previous owner with forefathers of respondent no.1 & 5. Sh. Raj Kumar,

father of Ashok Kumar and Vipan Kumar had also paid rent w.e.f 1992-

96 in the court for said premises as there was a chain of litigation

between the parties. Ashok Kumar and Vipan Kumar had also died and at

present business is being run by LRs of Ashok Kumar and other

respondents under the name and style of M/s Durga Bhujia Bhandar in

demised premises being tenant. Petitioner after purchasing said booth

contacted respondents and made several requests for vacating the said

booth as the same is needed by petitioner for his personal use and

occupation. Till date respondents have not vacated the premises in

question. Respondents have also not paid rent w.e.f 1.12.2010 till date

inspite of repeated requests made by the petitioner. Petitioner wants to

start his own business in booth in question as he is sitting idle. Booth in

question has been allotted for general trade and petitioner is capable of

Parveen Kumar
RC/Chd/12.12.16
Sanjay Dogra vs. Mamta 3

doing any type of retail business in the demised premises. Hence, the

present petition for eviction of respondent on the ground of non payment

of rent and personal necessity.

3. Upon notice, respondent no. 2 to 4 appeared and filed

written statement taking preliminary objections that present petition is

not maintainable; petitioner has not approached the court with clean

hands and suppressed true & material facts from this court; no cause of

action has arisen to file the present petition; the petition is bad for non

joinder of parties. On merits, it is submitted by the respondent that

petitioner never informed the respondents about the purchase of premises

in question. It is admitted that Ashok Kumar and Vipin Kumar had died.

The son, daughter and wife of Vipin Kumar have not been impleaded as

party to the petition after death of Vipin Kumar for the reason best known

to petitioner. Petitioner never contacted respondents either to inform

about purchase of premises by him or for any other purpose. It is further

submitted that petitioner does not require the demised premises for his

own use and occupation. Petitioner has not disclosed about his other

property.

4. Respondent No.7 to 9 appeared and filed reply taking

preliminary objection that there is no landlord tenant relationship

between petitioner and answering respondents. A rent petition was earlier

filed by Satpal Gupta for eviction of respondents with sole purpose to get

same vacated but he failed in proving his case. Present petition is

outcome of that rent petition. The alleged sale deed and transfer of booth

Parveen Kumar
RC/Chd/12.12.16
Sanjay Dogra vs. Mamta 4

in question in favour of petitioner is nothing but shame transaction with

intent to get property vacated from answering respondents on the ground

of personal necessity. As per knowledge of respondents, petitioner has

other commercial properties also. It is denied that petitioner requires the

demised premises for his own use and occupation. Denying remaining

averments prayer has been made for dismissal of rent petition. During

pendency of case, respondent no.1 & 3 died and respondent no. 7 to 9

failed to appear and they were proceeded against exparte.

5. From the pleading of the parties, following issues were

framed :-

1. Whether the respondents are liable to be evicted from the

premises in dispute on the ground of personal necessity and
arrears of rent as prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether the present petition is not maintainable ? OPR.

3. Whether the petitioner has not approached the court with

clean hands and suppressed true & material facts from this
court ? OPR

4. Whether no cause of action has arisen to file the present

petition ? OPR

5. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of parties ? OPR

6. Relief.

6. In order to prove his case, petitioner himself stepped into the

witness box as PW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A reiterating the

contents of petition. He also relied upon documents copy of sale deed

Ex.P1, copy of letter dated 25.2.2011 Ex.P2. Petitioner also examined

Sunil Kumar, Clerk, Estate office who produced on record letter issued to

Parveen Kumar
RC/Chd/12.12.16
Sanjay Dogra vs. Mamta 5

petitioner by Estate office vide which booth in question was transferred

in the name of petitioner which is Ex.PW2/1. Thereafter, the evidence

was closed by counsel for petitioner.

7. On the other hand respondents examined Parkash Chand,

Assistant, office of ITO who produced on record ITRs of petitioner for

the year 2011-12 to 2014-15 which are Ex.RW1/A to Ex.RW1/D and

copy of his ID card Ex.RW1/E. Tirlok Kumar appeared in the witness

box as RW2 and tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A vide which he reiterated

the contents of reply. Respondents also examined Yashpal, Tax Assistant

who produced on record ITRs of M/s Dogra and Company for the years

2010-11 to 2012-13 which are Ex.RW3/A to Ex.RW3/C. Thereafter,

respondent evidence was closed by court order on dated 18.11.2016.

8. Thereafter, chance of rebuttal was given to the petitioner, but

in rebuttal no evidence was led by the petitioner. However, the petitioner

to support his case has relied upon the following judicial authorities :-

(I) Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

1991(1) RCJ 158
(II) Sohan Lal vs. Raj Kumar and another 2006(2) RCR (Rent)
635
(III) Madan Lal (deceased) through his LRs vs. Hardeep Kaur
2014(1) RCR (Rent) 70

9. I have heard Learned counsel for the parties at length and

perused the case file very carefully with their assistance. On the basis of

pleadings of both the parties, Issue-wise findings, with reasons thereof

are as under:-

Parveen Kumar
RC/Chd/12.12.16
Sanjay Dogra vs. Mamta 6

ISSUE NO. 1

Whether the respondents are liable to be evicted from the

premises in dispute on the ground of personal necessity
and arrears of rent as prayed for ? OPP

10. The onus to prove this issue is on the petitioner. The

petitioner has filed the present petition for eviction of the respondent

from the premises i.e. booth No.1, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh. In order to

prove his case the petitioner has examined himself as PW1 and tendered

his affidavit Ex.PW1/A vide which he reiterated the contents of the

petition. Petitioner also examined Sunil Kumar, Clerk, Estate office who

proved letter issued by Estate office vide which booth in question was

transferred in the name of petitioner which is Ex.PW2/1. On the other

hand, respondents examined Parkash Chand, Assistant, office of ITO who

proved ITRs of petitioner for the year 2011-12 to 2014-15 which are

Ex.RW1/A to Ex.RW1/D. Respondents also examined Tirlok Kumar as

RW2 who tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A vide which he reiterated the

contents of reply. Respondents also examined Yashpal, Tax Assistant who

proved ITRs of M/s Dogra and Company for the years 2010-11 to 2012-

13 which are Ex.RW3/A to Ex.RW3/C.

11. During arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued that on

the basis of evidence on record it has been duly proved that he is in

bondafide need of demised premises. Hence respondent is liable to be

evicted from demised premises. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for

respondent argued that petitioner is not bonafide resident of Chandigarh

and petitioner has failed to prove his bonafide necessity of demised

premises. Ld. Counsel for respondent further argued that from the

Parveen Kumar
RC/Chd/12.12.16
Sanjay Dogra vs. Mamta 7

evidence of respondent on record, it has been duly proved that petitioner

was doing business and he was paying income tax to income tax

department whereas petitioner in his evidence has falsely deposed that he

was not doing any business.

12. Admittedly, the demised premises have been purchased by

petitioner vide sale deed dated 10.11.2010. Further vide transfer letter

dated 25.2.2011 demised premises was transferred in the name of

petitioner. Ld. Counsel for respondent admitted that petitioner is his

landlord. Petitioner in his petition is contending that he is required the

demised premises for his own use and occupation as he wanted to start

business. Ld. Counsel for respondent argued that petitioner was already

doing business in Himachal Pradesh, hence he is not required the

demised premises for his bonafide requirement. It is established law that

respondent-tenant can not dictate terms to his landlord what business is to

be carried out by the landlord. Moreover, this argument of counsel for

respondent is not tenable that petitioner was doing his business in

Himachal Pradesh and he was not bonafide resident of Chandigarh.

When demised premises have been purchased by the petitioner, he might

be planning to carry on business in the demised premises.

13. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again held

that it is not for the tenant to dictate the terms to the landlord and the

landlord is free to choose and decide how he wishes to use the property

in question. The Apex Court in Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India

Insurance Company Ltd. AIR 1999 Supreme Court 100 has held as

under:-

Parveen Kumar
RC/Chd/12.12.16
Sanjay Dogra vs. Mamta 8

“14. The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section

14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for
occupation of the tenanted premises must be bonafide. When a
landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own
occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the
presumption that the requirement is not bonafide. When other
conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord
shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to
draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is
bonafide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to
dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust
himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises.
While deciding the question of bonafide of the requirement of
the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to
how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.”

14. In the present case, there is not even a single circumstance to

hold that requirement pleaded by the landlord-petitioner is not bonafide.

Mere assertions would not do any good to respondent when onus on him

is very heavy. There is no reason to disbelieve the petitioner. The support

is derived from the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment delivered in Sarla

Ahuja Vs. United Insurance Company Ltd. (supra).

15. In view of the foregoing reasons, issue no.1 is decided in

favour of the petitioner.

ISSUE NO. 2 to 5

Whether the present petition is not maintainable ? OPR.

Whether the petitioner has not approached the court with

clean hands and suppressed true & material facts from this
court ? OPR

Parveen Kumar
RC/Chd/12.12.16
Sanjay Dogra vs. Mamta 9

Whether no cause of action has arisen to file the present

petition ? OPR

Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of parties ? OPR

16. All these issues are interlinked, so for the purpose of brevity

taken together. Onus to prove these issues is on the respondents. In order

to have a positive approval on these issues, the respondents were required

to show by way of cogent evidence that the petition is not maintainable.

17. Though the instant issue were composed in the luminance of

the preliminary objection taken by the respondents in their written

statement, however, in the preliminary objection the respondents have

not explained as to how the petition is not maintainable. It is difficult to

comprehend, in absence of any pleading or evidence in this regard, rather

it seems like the present objection was taken only for the sake of taking

certain objections. Hence, in absence of any evidence by the respondent

in respect of the present issue, it cannot be said that respondents have

succeeded in discharging his onus in respect of this issue. Further, in

view of my findings to issue no.1, it is proved that petitioner has come to

the court with clean hands. Accordingly, all issues are decided against the

respondents.

RELIEF

18. As an upshot of the above discussion on the above issues,

present petition is hereby allowed against the respondent. The petitioner

is held entitled to recover the vacant physical possession of premises in

dispute, fully detailed and described in the head note of the petition, from

Parveen Kumar
RC/Chd/12.12.16
Sanjay Dogra vs. Mamta 10

the respondent and the respondent is also directed to hand over the

physical vacant possession of premises in dispute to the petitioner within

two months from today. Memo of costs be prepared and file be consigned

to record room.

Pronounced:- Parveen Kumar

12.12.2016 Rent Controller,
Chandigarh.

Note : All the pages of this judgment have been checked and signed by
me.

Parveen Kumar
Rent Controller,
Chandigarh.

Himanshu
JW-II

Parveen Kumar
Sanjay Dogra vs. Mamta 11

Present:- Sh. Ashok Sharma, counsel for petitioner.

Ms. Jyotika, counsel for respondent no.2, 4 to 6.
Respondent no.1 & 3 died.
Remaining respondents exparte.

Ld. Counse for petitioner wants to cite some case law. On

his request to come upon 12.12.2016 for pronouncement of judgment.

Parveen Kumar/RC/9.12.16

Present:- Sh. Ashok Sharma, counsel for petitioner.

Ms. Jyotika, counsel for respondent no.2, 4 to 6.
Respondent no.1 & 3 died.
Remaining respondents exparte.

Vide my separate order of even date, the present petition is

hereby allowed. Memo of costs be prepared and file be consigned to

record room.

Pronounced:- Parveen Kumar,

12.12.2016 Rent Controller,
Chandigarh.

Parveen Kumar
RC/Chd/12.12.16