Court refuses to discharge Mint Employee accused of stealing two Rs 20 Coins

 

The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Ballard Pier in Mumbai has refused to discharge a Mint employee who was caught with two Rs 20 coins in his locker. These coins are not yet available as currency.

The 55-year-old Chabukswar was serving as a Bullion Accountant with the India Govt Mint. On July 24, 2020, around 3 am, he allegedly committed the theft of two coins of Rs 20 each from the Mint & kept those coins in his locker within the Mint premises.

 Those coins were seized from the locker of Chabukswar in the presence of 2 witnesses. Based on the report lodged by the inspector of CISF, an FIR was registered at the MRA Marg police station in Mumbai under Section 381 (theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of a master) of the Indian Penal Code.

Chabukswar had filed anticipatory bail applications, but it was rejected. He was arrested in Dec 2020.

Chabukswar denied all the allegations levelled against him by saying that he had worked with the Mint for nearly 33 years & had even been awarded the Best Employee Award in 2018. Even his father served the Mint for 40 years, & he does not have a criminal past. He argued that there are three exit points, one after the other, at the Coining Department of the Mint, where all the employees are checked thoroughly with the help of a metal detector. Chabukswar stated that he, being a Bullion Accountant, had no business related to physically handling the coins. He argued that he had been falsely implicated in the crime.

 After the charge sheet against him was filed by the police, Chabukeswar moved the discharge plea stating that there is no material evidence against him that could lead to his prosecution & he should not be made to go through the rigours of trial. He also argued that the person who had informed the authorities that the coins were in his locker had not mentioned how he got to know about the presence of coins.

 

The Govt leader, on the other hand, argued against the accused. He stated that in the FIR & charge sheet, the involvement of the accused is mentioned & explained.
“The investigating officer also saw CCTV footage & saw the accused committing the crime. Hence, the IO filed a charge sheet. There is ample evidence against the accused to frame charges,” argued the government pleader & thus prayed for the rejection of the discharge application.

Magistrate IR Shaikh said, “At this stage, it cannot be decided that the prosecution evidence is weak & the accused cannot be convicted on the above material. Though the accused may have a good case, citing lacunas, if any, in the prosecution evidence. He has an opportunity to bring it on record at the time of trial. After going through the charge sheet, I am of the considered view that the charge does not seem groundless to discharge the accused under Section 239 of The Code of Criminal Procedure.” Section 239 deals with the discharge of an accused before the commencement of a trial.

 With this, the Magistrate asked the prosecution to expedite the trial.

 Source Link 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure