Delhi District Court
State vs . Amar Singh, Fir No. 394/97, U/S : ... on 20 August, 2016
State Vs. Amar Singh, FIR no. 394/97, u/s : 448/420/468 IPC, PS OIA Page no. 1/14 IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MOR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02, (DISTRICT SOUTH EAST), SAKET COURTS, DELHI. FIR NO. 394/97 PS. Okhla Industrial Area U/s. 448/420/468 IPC State Vs. Amar Singh. JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 491/2/01
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 10.04.2002
C. DATE OF OFFENCE : 05.06.1997
D. NAME OF THE : Ms. Sunita
COMPLAINANT w/o Sh. Joginder Prasad.
E. NAME OF THE : (i) Amar Singh @ Kallu
ACCUSED S/o Sh. Chadmi Lal
F. OFFENCE
COMPLAINED OF : U/s 448/420/474/120B IPC
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
H. FINAL ORDER : Acquitted.
I. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 20.08.2016
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision
1. The brief facts of the present case are that on receipt of complaint of Smt. Sunita dated 04.06.1997, HC Vedvir Singh alongwith Ct. Rajvir Singh went to the house of complainant Smt. Sunita i.e. house no. RZ 483/13A, Tuglakabad Extension, New Delhi. HC Vedvir Singh recorded fresh statement of the complainant on 05.06.1997. In the said complaint, she had alleged that in the year 1994, she had purchased a constructed house situated on plot no. 537, measuring 150 square yards, in Gali no. 12, Sangam Vihar, G Block, New Delhi from one lawyer namely Sh. Ram Avadh for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,05,000/. She had further alleged that the total area of the said plot was 200 square yards and remaining 50 square yards was purchased by a person namely Ramesh. She had further alleged that she had taken the vacant physical possession of the said property and she had put her lock on it. It was alleged that State Vs. Amar Singh, FIR no. 394/97, u/s : 448/420/468 IPC, PS OIA Page no. 2/14 in the meanwhile she had gone to her village and on her return, she found that her neighbor Amar Singh @ Kallu had taken unlawful possession of her said property after breaking its lock and by preparing its false and forged documents. On the basis of the said complaint, the present FIR u/s 448/420/468/471 IPC was lodged at PSOIA.
2. During investigation, IO recorded the statement of witnesses. He prepared the site plan. He collected the respective ownership documents of the accused and the complainant in respect of the said property. The accused produced ownership documents purported to be executed by one Sh. Ramphal in his favour and the said documents were found to be forged. IO arrested the accused and after completion of investigation, he filed chargesheet u/s 448/420/468/471 IPC.
3. Accused was summoned by the court for facing trial for the aforesaid offences. In compliance of Section 207 Cr. PC, the copy of the challan and the documents annexed therewith were supplied to the accused. Prima facie charge U/s 448/420/474/120B IPC was made out against the accused. Accordingly, on 02.05.2003, the Ld. Predecessor of this court framed charges against him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the said charges. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution evidence.
4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses.
5. PW1 Sh. Yogesh Kumar Gupta has deposed that he had purchased a house covering 50 square yards at Sangam Vihar in the year 1992 from an advocate and it was later sold by him in the year 1995. He has testified that he does not remember whether the remaining 150 square yards of the plot was purchased by the complainant Sunita or not. He has again deposed that Sunita had purchase a house from an advocate. He has testified that he does not know that accused Amar Singh was ever in possession of 150 square yards of the plot. State Vs. Amar Singh, FIR no. 394/97, u/s : 448/420/468 IPC, PS OIA Page no. 3/14
6. PW2 Sh. Ram Avadh Pandey has deposed that in the year 1985, he had purchased a property in Khasra no. 1601, Plot no. 537, Gali no. 12, GBlock, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi from Rajender Singh through a dealer Chhote Lal. He has deposed that Rajender Singh executed GPA, agreement to sell, receipt and affidavit in his favour for sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/ and handed over the possession of the said plot measuring 200 square yards to him. He has further deposed that he constructed six rooms on 150 square yards of the said plot and he spent Rs. 70,000/ in their construction. He has further deposed that he sold the said built up area of 150 square yards to Smt. Sunita in the year 1994 for a sale price of Rs. 1,05,000/ and also executed GPA, agreement to sale, affidavit and receipt in that regard. The certified copies of the said documents are Ex. PW2/A, B, C and D respectively.
7. PW3 Smt. Sunita is the complainant and she has deposed that she purchased a plot measuring 150 square yards (out of total 200 square yards) in Khasra no. 1601, Plot no. 537, Gali no. 12, GBlock, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi from Sh. Ram Avadh Pandey vide documents Ex. PW2/A, B, C and D for a total sale of consideration of Rs. 1,05,000/. She had testified that at the time of its purchase, it had six constructed rooms in it and thereafter, she alongwith her son Sunil used to live in the said house. She has deposed that in the year 1997, she went to the house of her niece at Gorakhpur, U.P for attending marriage of her daughter. She has deposed that in her absence accused Amar Singh broke the locks of the said house and took its unlawful possession. She has deposed that Ram Avadh Pandey had sold remaining 50 square yards of the said property to one Sh. Yogesh Gupta. She has proved her complaint dated 05.06.1997 as Ex. PW3/A. She was recalled for her further examination and in her further examination, she has testified that the accused had prepared the forged documents in respect of the said property purported to be thumb impressed by Ramphal in his favour. The original GPA dated 17.12.1984, agreement to sale, State Vs. Amar Singh, FIR no. 394/97, u/s : 448/420/468 IPC, PS OIA Page no. 4/14 affidavit and receipt in respect of property in Khasra no. 981, plot no. 580, measuring 150 square yards, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi, all purported to be thumb impressed by Ram Phal in favour of accused are Ex. PW3/B. Ld. Counsel for the accused objected to their exhibition on the ground that the said witness was not the author of the said documents. She has further deposed that Khasra no. 981, is a government land and it did not belong to Ramphal. She has also placed on record certified copies of GPA, Agreement to sell, affidavit and receipt all dated 16.01.1985 whereby Sh. Ram Avadh Pandey purchased the said plot. The said documents are Ex. PW3/C (colly). In her cross examination, she has admitted that she had filed a civil suit for possession against the accused in respect of the said property and the said suit was dismissed by the trial court. The certified copy of the judgment and decree of the said suit is Ex. PW3/DA (colly). She has deposed that she has preferred appeal against the said decree. She also admitted that she did not get the property demarcated in the said civil suit. In her cross examination, the certified copy of her statement as PW3 in suit no. 345 of 1991 titled as Sunita Vs. Amar Singh was exhibited as Ex. PW3/D1. She has placed on record the certified copy of statement of Patwari Sh. Giriraj Singh that was recorded in RCA no. 64 of 2005 and the copy of Khasra Girdawri and the same are marked as Mark PW3/X (colly).
8. PW4 Javed was the Assistant Ahlmad in the court of Sh. R.K Chauhan, the then Ld. Commercial Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts and on 04.08.2005, he had produced the case file of suit for permanent injunction no. 216/97 filed by the accused against the complainant. It contained order dated 07.06.1997 passed by Sh. Vipin Kumar Gupta the then Ld. Civil Judge, report of Local Commissioner Sh. Lokeshwar Sharma dated 06.06.1997 and other applications. The said documents are Ex. PW4/A to Ex. PW4/H (OSR).
9. PW5 HC Harjeet is a formal witness who had registered the present FIR. He has proved its copy as Ex. PW5/A. State Vs. Amar Singh, FIR no. 394/97, u/s : 448/420/468 IPC, PS OIA Page no. 5/14
10. PW6 HC Ved Veer Singh is the first IO of the case and he has deposed that on 05.06.1997, complainant Sunita came to police post to lodge a complaint regarding her dispossession from her plot by preparing forged documents. He has further deposed that he recorded her statement which is Ex. PW3/A. He prepared rukka Ex. PW6/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Rajbir Singh. He prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Sunita and the same is Ex. PW6/B. He arrested the accused Amar Singh and further investigation of this case was marked ASI Sahab Singh.
11. PW7 Sh. Chhote Lal, has deposed that he was running a business of building material at Sangam Vihar Gali no. 12. He was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State as he was resiling from his earlier statement. In his cross examination, he has deposed that he does not know whether, plot no. 537, Gali no. 12, Sangam Vihar belonged to Ram Avadh Pandey. He has deposed that he supplied building material to Ram Avadh Pandey, however, he could not say that the said building material was delivered at the said plot.
12. PW8 Ramesh Chand Gupta, has deposed that in the year 199596, he had purchased a land measuring 50 square yards from Ram Naresh Pandey for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/. He has deposed that the said property was situated at Sangam Vihar, G Block, Gali no. 12, Plot no. 537, Khasra no. 1601. The total area of the said plot was 200 square yards. He has further deposed that the remaining 150 square yards was purchased by Sunita for sale consideration of more than Rs. 1,00,000/. He was also cross examined by Ld. APP for the State as he was resiling from his earlier statement. In his cross examination, he has proved his signatures on photocopies of GPA agreement to sell and receipt all dated 13.01.1994. The said photocopied documents are marked as Mark X1 (colly). In his cross examination conducted by defence, he has deposed that the complainant had not purchased one 150 square yards of the said plot in his presence and the said fact was informed to him by the complainant. State Vs. Amar Singh, FIR no. 394/97, u/s : 448/420/468 IPC, PS OIA Page no. 6/14
13. On 28.11.2015, Sh. Krishan Kumar, Kanoongo, office of SDM Kalkaji, New Delhi was examined as a court witness. He has placed on record a report in terms of order dated 30.10.2015, which was in continuation with order dated 04.02.2014 and the said report is Ex. PW1/A. The relevant portion of the said order dated 04.02.2014 is reproduced as under: " The basic point of contention between the parties is that complainant is referring to the disputed property as situated in Khasra no. 1601, plot no. 537, Gali no. 12, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi, whereas the accused is claiming that the said property is situated in Khasra no. 981, Plot no. 580, Gali no. 12, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. Though, both the parties are claiming the same property at the spot to be their property inspite of the fact that they are claiming different numbers/addresses of the said property. The aforesaid area of Sangam Vihar is admittedly an unauthorized colony. In such circumstances, I deem it appropriate that the patwari concerned of the said area be summoned alongwith the relevant record to clarify as to in which khasra number the said property is situated......."
The said witness has testified that as per his report, the said property does not fall within Khasra no. 1601, village Tuglakabad and the disputed property is approximately 1Km. away from the said Khasra. He has deposed that his report is based upon google image and khasra plan. He has placed on record the google image of the spot and the same is Ex. CW1/B. The partial copy of the massabi [the original of sizra (village khasra plan)] containing the disputed property is Ex. CW1/C. He has deposed that the exact Khasra number of the disputed property can only be determined on the basis of "Total Station Method"
and the said property may fall within Khasra no. 1647. He has specifically testified that the possibility of disputed property falling in Khasra no. 1601 is impossible. In his cross examination conducted by Ld. APP for the State, he has deposed that it is correct that some persons who are residing near the disputed property are claiming that their property is situated in Khasra no. 1601. Thereafter, PE was closed.
14. Separate statement of the accused U/s. 313 Cr. P. C was recorded. All the incriminating evidence were put to him for seeking his explanation. He has State Vs. Amar Singh, FIR no. 394/97, u/s : 448/420/468 IPC, PS OIA Page no. 7/14 stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. In the said statement, accused has stated that the complainant Sunita had also filed a civil suit for possession of the said property against him and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2005 Ex. PW3/DA and she preferred appeal against the said order. The said appeal has also been dismissed vide order of Sh. Shailender Malik, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari, New Delhi dated 26.04.2016. He placed on record the certified copy of the said order and the same is marked as MarkX. He has further stated that the said property belongs to him and he purchased it from one Sh. Ramphal in the year 1984. He further alleged that he was residing in the said property since 1984. He has stated that the said property is in Khasra no. 981 and the complainant is wrongly claiming it to be her property stating that it falls in Khasra no. 1601. Accused preferred not to lead any evidence in his defence. Hence, DE was closed and the matter proceeding for final proceedings.
15. I have heard Ld. APP for the State assisted by the complainant and her counsel and Ld. counsel for the accused. I have carefully perused the case file.
16. The cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
17. The accused has been charged for the offence of cheating punishable under section 420 IPC, offence of having possession of a forged document intending to use it as as genuine document punishable u/s 474 IPC, offence of House trespass punishable under section 448 IPC and for the offence of Criminal Conspiracy punishable u/s 120B IPC.
18. The ingredients of the offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 IPC State Vs. Amar Singh, FIR no. 394/97, u/s : 448/420/468 IPC, PS OIA Page no. 8/14 are that the accused cheated and dishonestly induced the person deceived to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. Therefore, one of the essential ingredients of the said offence is delivery of any property to any person. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had not delivered anything to the accused. Further, she was also not dishonestly induced by the accused to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. Moreover, there is no allegation of the prosecution that the accused even attempted to procure any valuable property from the complainant by dishonestly inducing her. Besides, none of the prosecution witnesses have testified that the complainant delivered any property to the accused or that she was dishonestly induced by the accused to deliver any property. Therefore, all the essential ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC are conspicuously missing. Hence, the accused is entitled to be acquitted for the offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 IPC. Accordingly, ordered.
19. In respect of the offence punishable u/s 474 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was having possession of a forged document. Therefore, existence of forged document is a pre requisite for attracting the said offence. Section 463 IPC defines forgery and it means making a false document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person. False document is defined in section 464 IPC. Therefore, for calling a document to be forged it must be a false document and it must fulfill the requirement of section 464 IPC.
The Hon'ble Apex court in case titled as Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. ( 2009) 8 SCC 751 has discussed the meaning of "False document" in detail and it has held as under: State Vs. Amar Singh, FIR no. 394/97, u/s : 448/420/468 IPC, PS OIA Page no. 9/14 " 14..................In short a person is said to have made a "false document", if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else: or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
15. The sale deeds executed by first appellant, clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of false documents. It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant that the execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected with the land, amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the intention of taking possession of complainant's land (and that accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor colluded with first accused in execution and registration of the said sale deed) would bring the case under the first category. 16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorized or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bonafide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of "false documents", it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed.
17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorized by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is not forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the code are attracted ".
20. As per prosecution, the accused was having possession of forged documents Ex. PW3/B (colly). The said documents are GPA, agreement to sell and purchase, affidavit and receipt all dated 17.12.1984 purported to be executed by one Sh. Ram Phal in favour of the accused in respect of property situated in Khasra no. 981, No. 580, measuring 150 square yards, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. The said documents are thumb impressed by said Ramphal.In State Vs. Amar Singh, FIR no. 394/97, u/s : 448/420/468 IPC, PS OIA Page no. 10/14 view of above judgment, the said documents can be termed as forged only if the prosecution establishes that the said thumb impression does not belong to Ram Phal or that Ram Phal is a fictitious person or that the said document were altered or tampered or that the said document were obtained by the accused by practicing deception from Ram Phal not control of his senses. The onus of establishing the said facts is on prosecution. However, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the said facts. The prosecution has neither examined the said Ram Phal nor any other person who is conversant with the handwriting of the said Ram Phal. Further, the said documents were not sent to the handwriting expert for the comparison of the signature and thumb impressions on the said documents with the admitted or specimen signatures and thumb impression of said Ram Phal. Besides, no evidence has been led to show that the said Ram Phal was a fictitious person. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the said documents Ex. PW3/B were not executed by said Ram Phal. Hence, the prosecution has failed to establish that the said documents are false or forged documents. Therefore, being in possession of the said innocuous documents does not attract any culpability towards the accused. Hence, the accused is entitled to be acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 474 IPC. Accordingly, ordered.
21. In respect of the offence of criminal conspiracy, it is alleged that the accused hatched a criminal conspiracy to forge the documents Ex. PW3/B. As discussed in the above para, the prosecution has failed to establish that the said documents are forged. Therefore, the very foundation of the said allegation has crumbled. Besides, there is no credible evidence on record to assume that the accused hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of forgery. The conspiracy can only be hatched between two or more persons. However, in the instant case the accused solely faced the trial and a single person cannot be held responsible for a conspiracy. Therefore, there is not even an iota of evidence to State Vs. Amar Singh, FIR no. 394/97, u/s : 448/420/468 IPC, PS OIA Page no. 11/14 indict the accused for the offence of criminal conspiracy to commit forgery. Hence, he is acquitted for the said offence.
22. Now, the only offence that survives for deliberation is house trespass punishable u/s 448 IPC. The essential ingredients of the said offence are as follows:
(i) The complainant was in possession of the property;
(ii) Property consisted of a building tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or a building used as a place of worship or for custody of property.
(iii) The accused entered into or upon such building, tent or vessel;
(iv) Having entered lawfully into such building, tent or vessel the accused remains there unalwfully.
(v) His intention was to commit an offence, or intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession.
23. The prosecution has alleged that the accused committed house trespass into the property of the complainant situated in Khasra number 1601. Complainant/PW3 Smt. Sunita has testified that she had purchased a built up plot no. 537 in Khasra no. 1601, Gali no. 12, G Block, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi measuring 150 square yards from PW2 Sh. Ram Avadh Pandey for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,05,000/. She has testified that PW2 Ram Avadh Pandey executed sale documents of the said plot i.e. GPA, Agreement to sell, affidavit and receipt all dated 13.01.1994. The said documents are exhibited as Ex. PW2/A to Ex. PW2/D respectively. The said fact is also corroborated by PW2 Ram Awadh Pandey. She has further testified that thereafter, the vacant physical possession of the said built up plot was delivered to her and she alongwith her son Sunil lived in the said house till the accused trespassed in it in the year 1997. Therefore, as per prosecution, the complainant alongwith her son stayed in the said house for more than three years from the date of its purchase till they were dispossessed by the accused. However, the prosecution has failed to place on State Vs. Amar Singh, FIR no. 394/97, u/s : 448/420/468 IPC, PS OIA Page no. 12/14 record any document including electricity bill, ration card, voter ID card, or Adhar card of the complainant or her family members to establish that the complainant was in possession of the said property for three years. Further, the prosecution has not examined any witness including neighbor who had seen the accused committing the offence of house trespass.
24. The complainant could not have resided with her family members in the said property without basic minimal household articles. As per allegations, in the year 1997, the complainant had gone to Gorkahpur for attending marriage of her niece and when she returned on 20.04.1997, she found that the accused had trespassed into her said property. However, she did not allege that any of her household articles was stolen or misappropriated by the accused. It is highly improbable that the accused would have dispossessed the complainant and her family members without removing her household articles. Therefore, the most probable conclusion is that the complainant was not physically occupying the said property and was not residing in it with her family.
25. There is another very vital dimension to the dispute between the parties. Both the accused and the complainant are alleging that they are owner of the disputed property. The complainant has alleged that she was dispossessed from the said property by the accused in the year 1997. On the other hand, accused has averred that he is in continuous possession of the said property since the year 1984 after its purchase from Ramphal. The most interesting and confusing aspect is that the complainant has alleged that the said property falls in Khasra no. 1601, whereas the accused has asserted that it falls in Khasra no.
981. To resolve the said dispute, a revenue official was examined as a court witness. Court Witness no. 1 SH. Krishan Kumar, Kanoongo office of SDM, Kalkaji, New Delhi has categorically stated that the said property does not fall in khasra no. 1601. The documents Ex. PW2/A to Ex. PW2/D are in respect of property that is in Khasra no. 1601 and therefore, the said documents cannot be State Vs. Amar Singh, FIR no. 394/97, u/s : 448/420/468 IPC, PS OIA Page no. 13/14 held to be related to the disputed property. So, the said documents do not give rise to or create any rights including possessory rights in favour of the complainant in respect of the disputed property. Hence, the said documents cannot form basis to conclude that the complainant was in possession of the disputed property.
26. Further, the complainant had filed a suit for possession of the said property against the accused and the said suit was dismissed on 26.09.2005. The copy of the said judgment is Ex.PW3/DA. Thereafter, complainant preferred an appeal against the said dismissal, but the same was also dismissed on 26.04.2016 by Sh. Shailender Malik, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi. The certified copy of the said judgment is marked as Mark X. Therefore, the complainant has even failed to established her rights in the said property before the civil courts. It is pertinent to mention here that, whether the accused is trespasser in the disputed property was an issue in the said suit and the said issue was decided against the complainant.
27. This court is conscious of the fact that neither the question of ownership and possessory rights of the said property are in issue before it nor this court has jurisdiction to decide the same. Further, it is also a fact that the decision of the present case and decision in the said civil suit are based upon different evidence and different principles of appreciation of evidence. However, the aforesaid judgments of civil courts also create doubt in the story of the prosecution that the complainant was in possession of the disputed property. Even, independent of the said judgments and in the light of discussion in preceding paras, the prosecution has failed to conclusively establish that the complainant was in possession of the disputed property. The onus of establishing the guilt of the accused and all the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under section 448 IPC are on the prosecution. The said onus can only be discharged by leading conclusive evidence to establish the guilt of the State Vs. Amar Singh, FIR no. 394/97, u/s : 448/420/468 IPC, PS OIA Page no. 14/14 accused beyond any reasonable doubt. However, the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the said section including possession of the disputed property with the complainant prior to alleged trespass. The accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and therefore, he deserves to be acquitted for the offence punishable under section 448 IPC.
28. In view of the above discussion, the accused Amar Singh is acquitted of the charges framed against him under section 420/448/474/120B IPC. He is directed to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs.15,000/ with one surety in the like amount, in accordance with section 437 A Cr.P.C. The same are furnished and they are accepted for next six months.
File be consigned to record after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN OPEN COURT (DHEERAJ MOR)
i.e. 20.08.2016 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
SAKET COURTS/DELHI
State Vs. Amar Singh, FIR no. 394/97, u/s : 448/420/468 IPC, PS OIA Page no. 15/14
State Vs. Amar Singh
FIR No.394/97
PS. OIA
U/s: 420/448/474/120B IPC
20.08.2016
Present: Ld. APP for the State assisted by the complainant and her counsel.
Accused is on bail with his counsel Sh. Vineet Gandhi.
Vide my separate judgment announced in the open court today, the accused Amar Singh is acquitted of the charges framed against him under section 420/448/474/120B IPC. He is directed to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs.15,000/ with one surety in the like amount, in accordance with section 437 A Cr.P.C. The same are furnished and they are accepted for next six months.
File be consigned to record after due compliance.
(Dheeraj Mor) MM02/SE/Saket/ND 20.08.2016