Delhi District Court
State vs : Seema Sharma & Anr. on 9 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK, ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01 : CENTRAL DISTRICT :
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
State Vs : Seema Sharma & Anr.
FIR No. : 372/1998
U/s : 408/420/471/381/411/120 IPC
PS : Paharganj
Date of Institution : 30.10.1999
Date of Judgment reserved on : 27.02.2015
Date of Judgment : 09.03.2015
Unique ID : 02401R0341792003
Brief details of the case
A. Sl. No. of the case : 000379/P/08
B. Offence complained of
or proved : (1) U/s 468/471/120 B IPC
against accused Seema Sharma
(2) U/s 468/471/381/120B IPC
against accused Ravi Sharma
C. Date of Offence : 18.12.1997
D. Name of complainant : Sh. Nitin Khanna
Partner, M/s Krishan
Chemicals Corp.,
H.No.3210, Gali Dispensary
Wali, Paharganj, New Delhi
E. Name of accused : (1) Yash Pal Saini
S/o Om Prakash
R/o R-30, Inder Puri, Delhi
(2) Manmohan Lal
S/o Deep Chand
R/o WZ-43, Nimri Village,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi
(3) Seema Sharma
W/o Sushil Kumar
R/o E-2/24, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi
(4) Ravi Sharma
S/o Babu Ram Sharma
R/o 832, Type-II, Sector-I,
Ranipur, Haridwar
FIR No.372/1998 State Vs Seema Sharma & Anr. Page 1 of 18
F. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
G. Final order : Convicted for committing
offence U/s 465/120B IPC
H. Date of Order : 09.03.2015
Judgment
On the accusation of entering into a criminal conspiracy with the
common object of cheating Nitin Khanna (hereinafter referred to as
' complainant' ) by siphoning funds from the bank accounts of his company
through a fictitious account, accused Ravi Sharma, Seema Sharma, Yashpal
Saini and Manmohan Lal were sent up to face trial for committing offences
punishable under Section 408/420/471/481/411 IPC read with Section 120B
IPC.
Brief facts as disclosed in the charge sheet.
2. The case of prosecution is that complainant was running two
concerns named M/s Krishna Chemical Corporation, which was a partnership
concern, and M/s Krishna Resin & Pigment Pvt. Ltd. (a company registered
under the companies act). The concerns were having separate current
accounts in Bank of Punjab, Karol Bagh Branch, New Delhi i.e. current
account number 1102680 in the name of M/s Krishna Chemical Corporation
and current account number 1102681 in the name of M/s Krishna Resin &
Pigment Pvt. Ltd. Accused Ravi Sharma used to work as an Accountant in
these concerns. The allegations against him were that, while working as an
Accountant, he forged cheques of his employer and presented those cheques
FIR No.372/1998 State Vs Seema Sharma & Anr. Page 2 of 18
in a fictitious account which was opened by him in the name of Rajesh
Aggarwal at State Bank of India, Karol Bagh Branch, Delhi. The allegations
against accused Seema Sharma were that she introduced Ravi Sharma in the
bank for opening the fictitious account. On 11.09.1998, complainant noticed
some discrepancy in the current accounts of his concerns and on making
inquiries from his banker, he came to know that a person named Rajesh
Aggarwal has presented two cheques (each for a sum of Rs. 3 lacs) in the
current accounts and the said cheques were presented through State Bank of
Indian, Main Branch, Dehradun vide account No.1190110510. Complainant
managed to stop payment of these cheques and on making inquiries, it was
revealed that even on a prior occasion, forged cheques of his concerns were
presented in a similar fashion and the same were honoured by his banker. It
was further revealed that two such presented cheques bearing No.499035
drawn on account No.1102680 of M/s Krishna Chemical Corporation and
cheque No.487040 drawn on account No.1102681 of M/s Krishan Resin &
Pigment Pvt. Ltd. (each for a sum of Rs.25,000/-) were presented and got
encashed from the account of Rajesh Aggarwal. Complainant collected the
copies of the forged cheques from Bank of Punjab and came to know that the
cheques have been filled by accused Ravi Sharma. In the said background,
on a written complaint lodged by the complainant, present case bearing FIR
No.372/1998 under Section 408/420/468/471/381/420 IPC read with Section
120B IPC was registered at PS Paharganj.
3. The prosecution' s case proceeds further that after arrest, accused
FIR No.372/1998 State Vs Seema Sharma & Anr. Page 3 of 18
Ravi Sharma took the police party to his house at BHEL Colony, Ranipur,
Haridwar from where two blank cheques of complainant were recovered.
Accused Seema Sharma secured anticipatory bail from the Hon' ble High
Court of Delhi. The account opening form of fictitious account being No.
01190110510 was seized. Complainant produced the vouchers which were
bearing the handwriting of Ravi Sharma. Specimen handwriting/signatures of
Ravi Sharma, Seema Sharma and complainant were obtained and sent for
comparison. FSL returned a finding that handwriting on the cheque as well
as the account opening form tallied with the handwriting of Ravi Sharma
while no opinion could be given about the signatures of complainant on those
cheques. Report confirmed that Seema Sharma signed as an introducer of the
fictitious account opened by Ravi Sharma. Statement of witnesses were
recorded and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was put to the
court. Accused Ravi Sharma and Seema Sharma, Yaspal Saini and Manohar
Lal were also sent up for trial on the allegations that they received some
amount which was fraudulently encashed by accused Ravi Sharma.
4. Copies of the charge-sheet were supplied to all the accused
persons but vide order dated 27.07.2005, accused Yashpal Saini and
Manohar Lal were discharged while charges under Section 468/471/381 IPC
read with section 120B IPC were framed against accused Ravi Sharma and
charges under Section 468/471 IPC read with Section 120B were framed
against accused Seema Sharma to which both pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
FIR No.372/1998 State Vs Seema Sharma & Anr. Page 4 of 18
Witnesses Examined
5. Five prosecution witnesses were examined.
PW-1 Kusum Jain (Witness from Bank of Punjab, Karol Bagh
Branch, Delhi) stated that accused Seema Sharma was introducer of account
which was opened in the name of Rajesh Aggarwal. She mentioned that she
handed over the account opening cards of Seema Sharma and Rajesh
Aggarwal to the police. She mentioned that, as a usual practice, the bank
used to obtain the signatures of introducer on the account opening form in
the presence of its officer.
PW-2 Nitin Khanna (Complainant) stated in conformity with the
complaint lodged by him with the police but he was only partly examined.
PW-3 Ramesh Kumar (Accountant from Vaish Cooperative
Adarsh Bank Ltd.) stated that somewhere in the month of October 1996, he
verified the signatures of Anil Kumar Gupta who introduced accused Seema
Sharma for opening a new account bearing No.5326. He stated that he also
verified the signatures of Seema Sharma who introduced Rajesh Aggarwal
for opening a new account bearing No.5570 and the original account opening
card is Ex.PW-3/A.
PW-4 Ishwar Singh (Police official who went to State Bank of
India, Dehradun alongwith the Investigation Officer) mentioned that accused
took the police party to the bank at Dehradun. He stated that on making
inquiries at the bank, it was found that in the account opening form,
photographs of Ravi Sharma had been affixed against the name of Rajesh
FIR No.372/1998 State Vs Seema Sharma & Anr. Page 5 of 18
Aggarwal. He mentioned that Investigating Officer seized the photocopy of
account opening form, account opening card and two cheques vide memo
Ex.PW-4/A.
PW-5 HC Suresh (Witness of investigation) deposed that on
17.09.1998, complainant handed over three vouchers to SI Attar Singh and those vouchers were in the handwriting of Ravi Sharma. The seizure memo of the vouchers is Ex.PW-5/A. He stated that he accompanied the police party to State Bank of Indian, Dehradun from where the relevant documents of account No.01190110510 in the name of Rajesh Aggarwal were seized. He stated that photograph of Rajiv Sharma was found affixed on the account opening form. He mentioned that two blank cheques were recovered from the house of accused.
6. Separate statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein they denied all the allegations and stated that they have been falsely implicated. Accused Ravi Sharma stated that police officials never visited Haridwar and recovery has been planted upon him. Accused Seema Sharma admitted that she was holder of account bearing No. 5326 in Vaish Cooperative Adarsh Bank Ltd., Daryaganj Branch, Delhi but stated that she never introduced Rajesh Aggarwal for opening a new account. She stated that her sister Madhu Sharma took her signatures on a blank introduction form but she has no idea that the said form was used for opening a fictitious account. She stated that on 11.02.1998, against the wishes of her parents, Ravi Sharma solemnized marriage with her sister at Yamuna Bazar, New FIR No.372/1998 State Vs Seema Sharma & Anr. Page 6 of 18 Delhi. She also took the defence of false implication. No defence witness was examined by either of the accused.
Arguments
7. I have heard Ld. APP for State as well as Ld. Defence Counsel and carefully gone through the entire material available on record.
8. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that prosecution has failed to establish its case. He contended that the statement of relevant bank accounts were not produced during the trial and the original account opening form was not seized by the Investigating Officer. He argued that the concerned official from Dehradun Branch of SBI was not examined and the testimony of examined witnesses falls under the category of hear-say. It was argued on behalf of Seema Sharma that she had simply signed the blank introduction form which might have been used to open the fictitious account. Counsel contended that the said fact, in itself, does not establish that she entered into a criminal conspiracy with Ravi Sharma. On the force of these submissions, counsels have prayed that both the accused should be acquitted.
9. On the other hand, Ld. APP has countered the arguments of defence arguing that the prosecution' s case stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. He contended that there was no possibility of bringing on record direct evidence to prove criminal conspiracy. He argued that the testimony of witnesses, coupled with the documents seized by the Investigating Officer leaves no scope for doubt that both the accused were acting in furtherance of criminal conspiracy. He contended that although there are minor FIR No.372/1998 State Vs Seema Sharma & Anr. Page 7 of 18 contradictions in the testimony of witnesses but the same are inconsequential. It has been argued by him that invariably, conspiracy is hatched behind closed doors and the possibility of obtaining direct evidence is remote.
Brief reasons for decision
10. I have perused the record in the light of respective arguments.
11. Both the accused were charged with offences punishable under Section 468/471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and independent charge under Section 381 IPC was also framed against accused Ravi Sharma. The crucial evidence on record is the testimony of bank officials as well as FSL report submitted by Deepak Verma wherein it was mentioned that the writing on the cheques as well as the account opening forms of the concerned banks tallied with the handwriting of Ravi Sharma. FSL report also confirmed that accused Seema Sharma signed as introducer of Ravi Sharma at the time of opening bank account No.5570 in Vaish Cooperative Adarsh Bank, Daryaganj, Delhi. The documents including the account opening forms are also relevant. The evidence has to be appreciated to ascertain whether charges have been proved against both the accused persons.
12. Section 468 of IPC provides punishment for the offence of committing forgery for the purpose of cheating. The definition of forgery has been provided under Section 463 IPC while Section 468 IPC defines the meaning of making a false document. In order to understand the offence of forgery, both these sections have to be read together. Section 463 IPC states that whosoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part FIR No.372/1998 State Vs Seema Sharma & Anr. Page 8 of 18 of a document or electronic record with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. Section 464 IPC states when a person can be said to have made a false document. The first clause of the section provides that a person makes a false document, if he dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document with an intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority, he knows that it was not made, sealed, executed or affixed. The second clause of 464 IPC states that in certain conditions provided therein, the alteration of a document would amount to making of false document while the third clause provides for a situation where a person causes any other person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document knowing that such person does not know the contents of documents because of incapacity or by the reason of deception practiced upon him.
13. Section 471 IPC provides punishment for a person who fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or any electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document. It further provides that, in case, it is proved that a person has knowingly used a forged document as genuine, then, he shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document. Thus, as required under most of the FIR No.372/1998 State Vs Seema Sharma & Anr. Page 9 of 18 offences punishable under Indian Penal Code, there are two essential ingredients to commit the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC. The first ingredient is the actus part which means that a person must have used a forged document as genuine and he must have done so fraudulently or dishonestly. The second ingredient, which constitutes mens-rea, is that the person using the forged document as genuine should either know or has reasons to believe that the document is forged. It is only when these two ingredients have been proved that it can be concluded that offence under Section 471 IPC has been committed.
14. Coming to the facts of the present case, it has been proved that accused Ravi Sharma opened an account in the name of Rajesh Aggarwal in two banks i.e. Account No.5570 in Vaish Cooperative Adarsh Bank, Daryaganj Branch and Account No.01190110510 in State Bank of Indian, Main Dehradun Branch. Smt. Kusum Jain (PW-1), who was working as Manager with concerned branch of Vaish Cooperative Adarsh Bank, stated that she handed over the account opening card of account No.5570 to the police officials. The said card is Ex.P-1 (subsequently marked as PW-3/A). On perusing this card, it is apparent that accused Seema Sharma was an introducer of this account as her signatures appears in the relevant column. On the back side of the card, the photograph of accused Ravi Sharma has been affixed but his name has been stated as Rajesh Aggarwal S/o Sh. C.L.Aggarwal. The FSL report has confirmed that accused Ravi Sharma filled the account opening form. Similar finding about the handwriting found FIR No.372/1998 State Vs Seema Sharma & Anr. Page 10 of 18 on the account opening form of account No.01190110510 at State Bank of India, Dehradun Branch was given in the FSL report. The report is admissible in evidence under Section 292 Cr.P.C and even otherwise, the authenticity of the said report has not been disputed during trial. In fact, accused Seema Sharma evasively admitted her signatures on the account opening form of Vaish Cooperative Adarsh Bank by stating in her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C that on the request of her sister, she did sign a blank introduction form. The accused Ravi Sharma is her brother-in- law. She stated that her sister got married to him on 11.02.1998 against the wishes of her parents.
15. It has been argued by the defence counsel that testimony of complainant is incomplete and the evidence is not sufficient to arrive at a finding that both the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy. He stated that incomplete testimony of complainant is to be discarded and the fact that signatures of Seema Sharma were found on the account opening form of Ravi Sharma, in itself, does not prove anything. The evidence on record is to be appreciated by keeping in mind the observation made by the Hon' ble Supreme Court in " Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs State (Delhi Administration)" 1988 AIR 1883 that conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. It was observed that direct independent evidence of criminal conspiracy is generally not available and its evidence is a matter of inference. The inference are normally deduced from the act of the parties in pursuance of a purpose in common between the FIR No.372/1998 State Vs Seema Sharma & Anr. Page 11 of 18 conspirators. It is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of formation of criminal conspiracy or about the person who took part in the formation of conspiracy or about the object which the objectors set before themselves as the object of conspiracy or about the manner in which the object of conspiracy is to be carried out. All this is necessarily a matter of inference. It was observed that to show the conspiracy, the circumstances before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide the complicity of accused persons. Reference in this regard can also be made to the judgment of " Ram Narayan Popli Vs CBI & Ors." 2003 AIR SCC 2748.
16. In " Noor Mohd. Yusuf Momin Vs State of Maharashtra"
AIR 1971 Supreme Court 885, it was held by the Hon' ble Supreme Court that : -
" ......A conspiracy from its very nature is generally hatched in secret. It is, therefore, extremely rare that direct evidence in proof of conspiracy can be forthcoming from wholely disinterested quarters or from utter strangers. But, like other offences, criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. Indeed, in most cases, proof of conspiracy is largely inferential though the inference must be founded on solid facts. Surrounding circumstances and antecedents and subsequent conduct, among other factors, constitute relevant material. In fact because of the difficulties in having direct evidence of criminal conspiracy, once reasonable ground is shown for believing that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence then anything done by any one of them in reference to their common intention after the same is entertained becomes, according to the law of evidence, relevant for proving both conspiracy and the offences committed pursuant thereto........."FIR No.372/1998 State Vs Seema Sharma & Anr. Page 12 of 18
17. In yet another case tilted " Yashpal Mittal Vs State of Punjab"
AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2433, it was held by the Hon' ble Supreme Court that : -
" the very agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co-participators in the main object of the conspiracy. There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested. There must be unity of object, or purpose but there may be plurality of means some times even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be some times misfire or over-shooting by some of the conspirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others, it will not affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy" .
18. On appreciating the entire record, I am of the considered opinion that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that both the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy and the fictitious accounts were opened in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy. Although, the relevant bank statements of fictitious accounts were not produced during trial but this fact, in itself, does not render the other evidence useless. It has been confirmed in the FSL report that cheques were filled by the accused Ravi Sharma in his own handwriting. The cheques bearing No.497482 and 499490 were presented in the account FIR No.372/1998 State Vs Seema Sharma & Anr. Page 13 of 18 bearing No.01190110510 which was a fictitious account opened by the accused in the name of Rajesh Aggarwal. On the back side of these cheques, account No.01190110510 has been mentioned and both the cheques bear the stamp of State Bank of India, Dehradun Branch. In these circumstances, even though, there is no other documentary evidence, still, it can be safely concluded that, as a usual course of business, the cheques were submitted to be credited in account No.01190110510. Similarly, the other two cheques bearing No.497040 and 499035, which were stated to have been presented at Vaish Cooperative Adarsh Bank Ltd. were bearing the stamp of the bank. Ct. Ishwar Singh has deposed that these two cheques alongwith account opening form were seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW-4/A.
19. Apart from the cheques, which were presented in the account, two blank cheques were also recovered from the house of accused. These cheques were seized vide memo Ex.PW-5/A1. Ct. Ishwar Singh (PW-4) as well as HC Suresh (PW-5) have deposed that these cheques were recovered from the house of accused Ravi Sharma at Haridwar. As observed in judgment titled " Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs State (Delhi Administration) (supra), there can be hardly any direct evidence to prove criminal conspiracy. In case of criminal conspiracy, the intention of conspirators has to be gathered from the conduct of the parties. Accused Ravi Sharma opened fictitious accounts in the name of Rajesh Aggarwal in two banks i.e. Vaish Cooperative Adarsh Bank, Daryaganj Branch and State Bank of India, Dehradun. The testimony of bank officials, read in the light of FSL report, FIR No.372/1998 State Vs Seema Sharma & Anr. Page 14 of 18 leaves no scope for doubt that fictitious accounts were opened by accused Ravi Sharma. The account opening forms were seized from the custody of bank officials and it was found that in both the forms, accused had affixed his photographs but mentioned his name as Rajesh Aggarwal. Accused Ravi Sharma has taken a line of defence during cross examination of bank officials that the photographs on the account opening forms were posted/stappled subsequently. This line of defence is not appealing. Ramesh Kumar (PW-3) stated that the photographs of accused Ravi Sharma on account opening form for account No.5570 was affixed and signed by him at the relevant time. I find no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness more so when it is corroborated by the documentary evidence. There is nothing on record to suggest that the bank officials would falsely depose against accused. Bank account opening form was lying in the custody of bank and it was found that accused had affixed his photograph by mentioning his name as Rajesh Aggarwal. The said fact points towards the culpability of accused Ravi Sharma.
20. Accused Seema Sharma pleaded innocence and tried to wriggle- out by mentioning that her signatures were obtained by her sister on a blank account opening form. Her statement that she signed on a blank account opening form is unbelievable. It has come on record that accused Seema Sharma was related to accused Ravi Sharma. As stated earlier, accused Seema Sharma was sister-in-law of accused Ravi Sharma. In these circumstances, it can be safely taken that accused Seema Sharma very well FIR No.372/1998 State Vs Seema Sharma & Anr. Page 15 of 18 knew the name of accused Ravi Sharma. The fact that she introduced Ravi Sharma as Rajesh Aggarwal in the account opening forms suggest that she was fully aware of illegal design and she willingly participated in commission of offence for achieving the illegal object of criminal conspiracy. The bank official Smt. Kusum (PW-1) categorically stated in her cross examination that as a usual practice, the signatures of introducer on account opening form were obtained in the presence of bank officials. The defence of accused Seema Sharma that she signed on the blank introduction form does not hold ground. It is a hopeless attempt on her part to save herself by pleading the defence of ignorance but it does not advance her cause.
21. It was also argued by the defence counsel that specimen signatures of accused Ravi Sharma and Seema Sharma were obtained without seeking consent of the concerned court. Counsel has argued that FSL report should be discarded as the concerned official was not examined. I am not convinced with these arguments. Record shows that not only the specimen signatures of accused Ravi Sharma which were obtained during investigation but also signatures on the vouchers prepared by him were sent for comparison to FSL. Accused Ravi Sharma never took the defence that the vouchers which were handed over to the police by the complainant were not in his handwriting. FSL returned a finding that the handwriting on the cheques, account opening forms, vouchers as well as specimen signatures of accused Ravi Sharma was same. Even otherwise, these arguments qua accused Seema Sharma does not hold ground as she evasively admitted her FIR No.372/1998 State Vs Seema Sharma & Anr. Page 16 of 18 signatures on account opening form mentioning that her sister took her signatures on a blank form. The arguments that FSL report is not admissible in evidence also does not hold ground. Section 292 Cr.P.C expressly provides that the report under the hands of any government examiner of questioned documents in the course of proceedings under the code of criminal procedure may be used as an evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the code of criminal procedure, although such officer has not been called as a witness. Thus, the FSL report is very much admissible in evidence. Accused has never challenged the authenticity of the said report or mentioned that it was not correct. In these circumstances, at this stage, defence counsel can not be allowed to argue that the report should be discarded.
22. In view of the discussions made in the afore-stated paras, I have reached a conclusion that prosecution has been successful in establishing that accused Ravi Sharma and his sister-in-law/accused Seema Sharma entered into a criminal conspiracy to open bank accounts in the name of a fictitious person. Since the testimony of complainant remained incomplete, therefore, the cheating part has not been proved but the evidence has established that both the accused committed forgery. There is no evidence to prove actual loss to the complainant and illegal gain made by the accused persons but there is overwhelming evidence to prove that both the accused committed the offence of forgery as defined under Section 463 of IPC. The evidence on record fall short of arriving at a conclusion that accused persons committed FIR No.372/1998 State Vs Seema Sharma & Anr. Page 17 of 18 offence punishable under Section 468 IPC but the ingredients of offence under Section 465 IPC have been proved. Accused Ravi Sharma is acquitted from the charges under Section 468/471/381 IPC but he is convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 465 IPC read with Section 120B IPC. Similarly, accused Seema Sharma is also acquitted from the charges under Section 468/471 IPC but she is convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 465 IPC read with Section 120B IPC.
Be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in open Court (SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK)
on 09.03.2015 ACMM-01, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains Eighteen (18) pages and each page bears my signatures.
(SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK) ACMM-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No.372/1998 State Vs Seema Sharma & Anr. Page 18 of 18