Delhi court dismisses appeal of former MLA Asif Mohd Khan, upheld six months sentence

New Delhi [India], August 30 : Delhi's Saket Court on Friday dismissed the appeal of former MLA Asif Mohd. Khan and sentenced him to six months imprisonment. He is also directed to pay Rs 5 Lakh compensation to DDA.
He had challenged the judgement and sentence of 2018 in a case related to encroachment on DDA Land in the area of Jasola Village.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Vishal Singh upheld the Judgement and sentence order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in 2018. Khan's Counsel confirmed the order of the court.
The sessions court held that the learned Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence to convict the appellant. The impugned judgment of conviction is just and well-reasoned. Therefore, the present appeal, so far as it impugns the judgment of conviction for offence under sections 427/447/434 IPC and Section 3 of The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, stands dismissed.
"In view of testimonies of prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence, the prosecution was able to bring home the charged offence against the appellant," ASJ Vishal Singh held in the judgement passed on August 28.
The court also rejected the arguments of Asif Mohd. Khan. "There is no substance in arguments that the uprooted barbed wire was not seized by the Investigation Officer (IO) and no photograph of alleged encroachment was taken," the court said.
Former MLA Asif Mohd. Khan challenged the judgment of January 20, 2018, of Metropolitan Magistrate Saket Court, he was convicted for an offence Under sections 427/447/434 IPC & Section 3 of The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and on February 5, 2018, he was sentenced to simple imprisonment of six months along with a fine of Rs 5,000 for offence U/s. 427 IPC, simple imprisonment of six months along with a fine of Rs 5,000 for offence U/s. 434 IPC, simple imprisonment of three months alongwith a fine of Rs 500 for offence U/s. 447 IPC and Simple Imprisonment of six months alongwith a fine of Rs 10,000 for offence U/s. 3 of The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, in an FIR of PS Jamia Nagar. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
In addition, Khan was directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs 5 lakh to DDA, within one month.
As per Prosecution, Asif Mohd (appellant) committed mischief by causing damage to the amount of more than Rs 50 of the DDA land, situated at Khasra No.409, Village Jasola, by removing/destroying the barbed wire fencing up to 6ft. x 30ft, carried out by the DDA. The appellant encroached upon the said government land ( DDA land) and constructed a pucca concrete platform on it.
The FIR was registered on the complaint of November 23, 2007, of complainant Subhash Chandra, Director, Land Management, DDA, New Delhi. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in Court and Asif Mohd was charged for offence U/s. 427/447/434 IPC & Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
During the trial, Asif Mohd Khan did not avail of the opportunity to lead evidence in defence.
After, hearing the final arguments from both sides, the metropolitan Magistrate passed a judgment on January 20, 2018, holding appellant/accused Asif Mohd guilty of offence U/s. 427/434/447 IPC and Section 3 of The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and sentenced him vide order on sentence on February 05, 2018.
The prosecution opposed the appeal stating that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant and the Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced him.
Senior advocate Ramesh Gupta and advocate Tanvir Ahmed Khan Counsels for the appellant argued that the Trial Court could not have relied upon the testimony of prosecution witness retired Sub Inspector Hans Raj as he did not complete his testimony and did not make himself available for cross-examination by accused.
The court observed, "Indeed, the Trial Court record reflects that Hans Raj deposed before the Court on March 22, 2017, and his cross-examination was deferred on his request. Thereafter, he did not appear before the Court to complete his testimony. His incomplete testimony cannot be read in evidence against the accused. Anyhow, the offence of trespass and mischief were proved by DDA officials and Prosecution witness Mange Ram (Security Guard)."
Discarding the testimony of Hans Raj from consideration would not adversely affect the prosecution case, the court said.