Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naresh Chaturvedi vs State Of M.P. on 10 July, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.889 OF 2012
(NARESH CHATURVEDI
Vs.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.890 OF 2012
(SANJAY GUPTA
Vs.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
SHRI R.K. SHARMA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ABHIJIT SINGH
TOMAR - ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS.
SHRI ABHISHEK SINGH BHADORIYA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 02.07.2025
Delivered on : 10.07.2025
JUDGMENT
Per: ANIL VERMA J.
Both these criminal appeals are arising from the common judgment dated 20.11.2012 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Gwalior in Special Case No.4/2007.
Details of conviction and sentence are as under:
Naresh Chaturvedi:
Conviction U/s Sentence Fine Default (in lieu
of fine)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 7/11/2025
10:42:08 AM
2
CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012
Section 13(1)(d) 1 year RI 2,000/- 1 month RI
r/w Section 13(1)
(d) of Prevention
of Corruption Act
Section 13(1)(c) 3 years RI 5,000/- 1 month RI
r/w Section 13(2)
of Prevention of
Corruption Act r/w
Section 409 of IPC
Section 13(1)(d) 1 year RI 2,000/- 1 month RI
r/w Section 13(1)
(d) of Prevention
of Corruption Act
Section 420 of IPC 3 years RI 2000/- 1 month RI
Section 120-B of 3 years RI 1000/- 1 month RI
IPC
Section 201/34 of 3 years RI 2000/- 1 month RI
IPC
Sanjay Gupta:
Conviction U/s Sentence Fine Default (in lieu
of fine)
Section 420 of IPC 3 years RI 2000/- 1 month RI
Section 120-B of 3 years RI 1000/- 1 month RI
IPC
Section 201/34 of 3 years RI 2000/- 1 month RI
IPC
2. It is an admitted fact that at the time of incident i.e. on 11.5.2003 appellant Naresh Chaturvedi was posted as Depo Manager at Madhya Pradesh Pathya Pustak Nigam, Gwalior (in short 'Nigam').
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.5.2003, SHO K.N. Sharma of Police Station Janakganj, Gwalior received a telephonic information through an informer that scrap books of Nigam are taking in one vehicle.
After receiving the aforesaid information, ASI Lal Singh and Head Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 7/11/2025 10:42:08 AM 3 CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012 Constable Surendra reached the place of incident and intercepted a Tata 407 vehicle bearing Registration No.MP20-G-3809 and found inside some book gunny bags and thereafter, vehicle along with the books were brought to the Police Station Janakganj and after opening the bundles, it has been gathered that aforesaid books were provided free of cost for distribution to the Primary Schools of Nigam and these books had been purchased by the Firm - Narayan Das Ramswaroop by showing the books as scrap books and appellant Naresh Chaturvedi being Manager of the Nigam, violated the prescribed procedure, tender etc, for the purpose of selling the books in a scrap. It is also alleged that appellant Naresh Chaturvedi sold the books of total weight 15 tonnes by showing 10 tonnes of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of those books, which have been purchased by co-accused Sanjay Gupta and appellant Naresh Chaturvedi by misusing his capacity as a public servant, committed breach of trust and caused financial loss to the Government. After seizing books and account books from the possession of appellant Sanjay Gupta, offence was registered against them.
4. After completion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet against the appellants. Learned Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of PC Act, Section 13(1)(c) r/w Section 13(2) of PC Act, Section 409 of IPC, Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act r/w Section 13(2) of PC Act, Section 420 of IPC and Section 120-B and 201/34 of IPC against the appellant Naresh Chaturvedi and charges framed under Section 109 of IPC, Section 8 of PC Act, Sections 201/34, 420 and 120-B of IPC against appellant Sanjay Gupta.
5. Appellants abjured their guilt and took a plea that at the time of incident appellant Naresh Chaturvedi did not sell the aforesaid books to Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 7/11/2025 10:42:08 AM 4 CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012 any scrap dealer and the books were being shifted in a new Godam which has been situated in Gol Pahadiya, Gwalior and when the vehicle was on the way, it was intercepted by the police and a false case has been registered against the appellants.
6. Prosecution has examined as many as 30 witnesses, while the appellants have not examined any witness in their defence.
7. The Trial Court, after hearing the submission of both the parties and scrutinizing the evidence available on record, convicted the appellants for the offences mentioned hereinabove.
8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, appellants have preferred these two separate criminal appeals.
9. Learned counsel appearing for appellant Naresh Chaturvedi contended that appellant has been wrongly convicted by the Trial Court on the basis of improper appreciation of evidence. No independent witness supported the case of prosecution and only on the basis of statement of police personnel, he has been wrongly convicted even the evidence given by the police witnesses do not inspire confidence. Appellant was not present on the spot at the time of incident. Seizure memo (Ex.P/1) has been made only at the instance of Vishnu, who is driver of matador and Vishnu was not examined before the Trial Court. There is no evidence on record that appellant Naresh Chaturvedi sold the books to scrap dealer/appellant Sanjay Gupta in lieu of Rs.50,000/-. Although sample of handwriting of the appellants have been taken, but prosecution did not prove any report of handwriting expert. Nothing is available on record that the alleged books were sold out as scrap. No bill voucher has been proved. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statement of Bhagwati Prasad Sharma (PW-1) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 7/11/2025 10:42:08 AM 5 CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012 regarding place of incident. Although Bhagwati Prasad Sharma who categorically in his evidednce admitted that books and Matador were not seized from the shop of scrap dealer, but he was not declared hostile by prosecution. There are material omissions and contradictions regarding place of incident. It is proved that at the time of incident, the seized books were transporting to the Office of Nigam situated at Gol Pahadiya, but the books were wrongly seized by the police. Statement of ASI Lal Singh was not supported by the FIR. AS Lal Singh (PW-20) was also not duly authorized to investigate the matter under Prevention of Corruption Act, therefore, the entire trial is vitiated.
10. It is further contended on behalf of appellant Naresh Chaturvedi that Swaroop Gupta and K.N. Sharma (PW-26) categorically in their cross-examination admitted that under the pressure of police, Kanti Kumar Khandelwal had made entry in the stock register at police station and Ex.P/48 was written under the direction of ASI Lal Singh (PW-20). Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all the reasonable doubts. Not a single book has been produced and exhibited before the Trial Court. Therefore, no offence is made out against the appellants. Hence, he prays that the impugned judgment be set aside and appellant Naresh Chaturvedi be acquitted from all the leveled charges.
11. Learned counsel appearing for appellant Sanjay Gupta (CRA No.890/2012) also contended that the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the Trial Court on the basis of improper appreciation of evidence. Appellant Sanjay Gupta was not the owner of the alleged scrap shop. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statement of ASI Lal Singh (PW-20) and the FIR regarding the cost of the books. It is not proved that the books were seized from the shop of the scrap dealer.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 7/11/2025 10:42:08 AM 6CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012 Since article A/6 is only a photocopy, therefore, it is inadmissible in evidence. No reliable evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to prove that the books were sold to appellant Sanjay Gupta and under the pressure of police, Kanti Kumar Khandelwal made a false entry in the said register. Hence, he prays that appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment of the Trial Court be set aside and appellant Sanjay Gupta be acquitted from all the charges.
12. Heard both the parties and perused the entire record with due care.
13. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Janeshwar Das Aggrawal vs. State of U.P. reported in 1981 SCC (Cri.) 616 has laid down the law of land that before conviction under Section 409 of IPC can be recorded, prosecution must prove two essential ingredients, they are:
"(i) the factum of entrustment; and
(ii) the factum of misappropriation of entrusted articles.
The Supreme Court further held that even if it be assumed that entrusment was proved, in absence of any evidence to show either direct or circumstantial that accused has misappropriated the article, the conviction cannot be accorded under section 409 of IPC and the conviction which was accorded was set aside."
14. By testing the aforesaid principles as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, let be examined the evidence, which has been placed by the prosecution before the Trial Court.
15. It is an admitted fact that appellant Naresh Chaturvedi was posted as Depo Manager with Nigam during 2001-2003. General Manager Ashok Verma (PW-18), categorically stated that at the time of incident, Naresh Chaturvedi was working as Depo Manager at Gwalior, but he has Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 7/11/2025 10:42:08 AM 7 CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012 no right to sell the books in a scrap as he was not permitted by the office to sell out the aforesaid books as a scrap.
16. Senior Auditor Dineshchand Goyal (PW-3) also deposed that he came to know through the newspaper that books of Moti Mahal Depo has been sold out by Naresh Chaturvedi in a scrap to rag picker (Kabadi). LDC Smt. Manjulata Shrivastava (PW-4) also deposed in same manner that Depo Manager has no right to sell the scrap books without obtaining prior permission from the Headquarters.
17. Some employee of Nigam Bhagwati Prasad Sharma (PW-1), Umesh Jha (PW-6), Harbhan Singh (PW-9), Ganesh Shitoke (PW-19) also deposed in the same manner and also describe the procedure for selling of scrap.
18. Anil Goswami (PW-10) in his evidence categorically deposed that in compliance of the order issued by the General Manager of Nigam, he along with the Senior Manager (Audit) conducted the enquiry and thereafter submitted physical verification report regarding books and during the enquiry, accordingly deficit of the books has been found. Then, they had submitted the report (Ex.P/9) before the Managing Director, Bhopal.
19. From perusal of statement of Anil Goswami (PW-10), it is clear that he has not supported the case of prosecution and he categorically admitted that when he conducted the physical verification of the concerned Depo, appellant Naresh Chaturvedi was not present there and he has checked both the Depo and keys of both Depo was with Incharge Mahesh Parashar. Therefore, it is clear that physical verification of the Depo was not conducted in presence of appellant Naresh Chaturvedi and even key of the depo was not recovered from his possession. Although Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 7/11/2025 10:42:08 AM 8 CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012 Anil Goswami (PW-10) has not supported the case of prosecution, but the prosecution did not make any request before the trial for declaring him as a hostile witness, hence there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Anil Goswami (PW-10).
20. Further, learned counsel for appellant Naresh Chaturvedi argued that prosecution has utterly failed to adduce any cogent evidence in order to prove that the appellant was entrusted of the said books and he has misappropriated the entrusted articles. Although as per Ex.P/10, some of the stock register and cash book have been recovered from the possession of appellant Naresh Chaturvedi but Depo Manager Anil Goswami (PW-10) in Para 11 of his cross-examination, admitted that physical verification of the books were done twice in a year in comparison with ledger, but he did not know when physical verification was condcuted during the tenure of appellant Naresh Chaturvedi and he himself did not make any physical verification during tenure of appellant Naresh Chaturvedi. Senior Auditor Dineshchand Goyal (PW-3) also in his cross-examination admitted that during his tenure, no major fault has been found in the Depo. LDC Mahendra Singh Dandotiya (PW-5) in his cross-examination also admitted that no books has been sold out to any scrap dealer before him. Concerned Store Keeper was not examined by the prosecution, therefore, in absence of such material evidence on record, prosecution has failed to prove that appellant Naresh Chaturvedi was entrusted with the aforesaid books.
21. It is settled position of law that burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove the charges and since the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden by adducing cogent evidence, therefore, conviction which has been accorded is based on no evidence. (See: the case of Dr. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 7/11/2025 10:42:08 AM 9 CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012 S.L. Goswami vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 1972 SC 716.). Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the instant case prosecution did not adduce any material documentary evidence that appellant Naresh Chaturvedi was entrusted with the aforesaid books. Even no stock entry has been proved by the prosecution and physical verification report (Ex.P/9) is not clear about intrustment of aforesaid books, therefore, the case of prosecution appears to be very doubtful and the factum of entrustment of the books is not proved in the matter.
22. So far as the criminal conspiracy is concerned, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Edmund S Lyngdoh vs. State of Meghalaya reported in (2016) 15 SCC 572 has held as under:
33. To bring home the guilt of the criminal conspiracy, prosecution should prove ;(i) that the accused agreed to do or caused to be done an act that was illegal or was to be done by illegal means;
(ii) that some overt act was done by one of the accused in pursuance of the agreement. The essence of conspiracy is that there should be an agreement between persons to do one or other of the acts constituting the act under Section 120B IPC."
23. In the instant case, appellant Naresh Chaturvedi is alleged to be conspired with co-accused Sanjay Gupta and allegedly sold the books to other at an inflated price as against the then prevalent market price. Agreement among the conspirators can be inferred by necessary implications and the inference can be drawn on the proved facts. The facts and incriminating circumstances so proved must form the full chain whereby the agreement between the accused persons and their guilt can be safely inferred. In the instant case, allegedly the books were transported by Matador and Vishnu was the Matador driver and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 7/11/2025 10:42:08 AM 10 CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012 therefore, Vishnu must be material witness of theses facts in the present case, but surprisingly prosecution has failed to examine Vishnu before the Trial Court. It is also noteworthy that both the appellants were not present at the time of incident in the said vehicle, even owner of the said matador was not examined by the prosecution.
24. Apart from above, it is also to be seen that allegedly as per prosecution, books of seizure memo Ex.P/1 has been made from the possession of driver Vishnu, therefore, non-examination of this material witness Vishnu is fatal to the prosecution. Appellant Naresh Chaturvedi has taken a specific defence that earlier the Depo was situated at Motimahal, but the local residents made a complaint that transportation of books of Nigam through trucks may be dangerous because it is residential area, where the children used to play on the said premises and an accident has been taken place prior a year, therefore, the local residents filed a complaint before the Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior for shifting of the said Depo from Motimahal to other place, preferably outside the city. After obtaining permission from the higher authorities, the depo was shifted to a rented premises situated at Gol Pahadiya Chauraha, A.B. Road, Gwalior and the said premises was taken on rent after execution of rent agreement with the owner Harbans Lal Gupta. Because of this at the time of incident, the books of the Depo was transporting to shift it in a new Depo at Gol Pahadiya and during shifting, matador was seized by the police authorities due to some confusion.
25. Peon of the Depo Bhagwati Prasad Sharma (PW-1) in his evidence categorically admitted that at the time of incident, the books were transporting to Gol Pahadiya Office. Same fact was also admitted by Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 7/11/2025 10:42:08 AM 11 CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012 Smt. Bhawana Ratnakar (PW-2), Dineshchand Goyal (PW-3), Smt. Manjulata Shrivastava (PW-4), Mahendra Singh Dandotiya (PW-5), Umesh Jha (PW-6) and other witnesses. Depo Manager Anil (PW-10) also in his cross-examination admitted that at the time of incident, Depo at Motimahal and Depo at Golpahadiya both were in the possession of Nigam.
26. Y.K. Chouksey (PW-12) also admitted in his cross-examination that premises at Gol Pahadiya was taken on rent and after obtaining permission from the higher authorities, it was being shifted.
27. ASI Lal Singh (PW-20) who had made seizure (Ex.P/1) of the aforesaid books from the possession of Vishnu, Driver in his cross- examination categorically admitted that no books were recovered from any Depo of the scrap dealer and place of incident was nearby A.B. Road, which way also goes towards Gol Pahadiya as the Depo of Nigam was situated at Gol Pahadiya.
28. Hemant Gupta (PW-27) also deposed in his evidence that his father Harbans Lal Gupta had rented out the said premises to the Nigam, which is situated at Gol Pahadiya and after obtaining possession, the employees of Depo started shifting of the books to Gol Pahadiya Office. The rent agreement was Article S/1. It is also noteworthy that appellant Sanjay Gupta is not the scrap dealer.
29. Therefore, it is clear that on the basis of complaint (Ex.P/2) made by local residents and after obtaining due permission regarding shifting of the Depo, the same was shifted to Gol Pahadiya, which has been officially taken by Depo through rent agreement prior to the incident. It is also proved by letter dated 4.6.2003 (Ex.P/20) which has been written by General Manager of Nigam, Bhopal that the Depo of Harbans Lal Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 7/11/2025 10:42:08 AM 12 CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012 Gupta was taken on rent vide order dated 28.8.2003 (Ex.P/22).
30. Both the appellants also challenged the investigation proceeding on several grounds. CSP R.S. Narwariya (PW-24) in his evidence deposed that he had recorded the memorandum statement (Ex.P/27) of appellant Sanjay Gupta and on the basis of aforesaid memorandum he had recovered a letter Article A/6 written by appellant Naresh Chaturvedi. It is alleged that the aforesaid letter has been recovered through seizure memo (Ex.P/47). But both the seizure witnesses of Ex.P/47, Vishnu @ Vishvanath and Gangaram were not examined by the prosecution, therefore seizure proceedings appears to be doubtful. It is remarkable that letter (Article A/6) is only a photocopy, its original document was never produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court.
31. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhoorelal vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR [2008] MP 1229 has held that confessional statement of accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not absolute admissible in evidence. Only so far as it relates to information about recovery or discovery would only be admissible in evidence. But, in the instant case it is not proved by the independent witnesses and its original document has not been produced and letter (Article A/6) is a only photocopy and prosecution did not file any relevant application before the Trial Court for proving it by secondary evidence, therefore, photocopy of the said document is not admissible in evidence (See: the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ratanlal vs. Kishanlal & ors. reported in ILR [2012] M.P. 131 & Rajesh Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. reported in 2009 (III) MPJR 211), therefore, the photocopy of same (Article A/6) is not admissible in evidence and mere confessional statement of co-accused Sanjay Gupta cannot be Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 7/11/2025 10:42:08 AM 13 CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012 admissible in respect of other co-accused persons.
32. There are material contradictions in the statement of ASI Lal Singh (PW-20) and other witnesses regarding material facts. It is not proved by the prosecution that when actually the information was received by police through informer (Mukhbir) and when Assistant Sub Inspector Lal Singh went to place of incident in view of direction of K.N. Sharma (PW-26). Entries of Rojnamcha and also timings of FIR contradict the version given by Lal Singh (PW-20), therefore, it creates doubts about the investigation and it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that books were seized from the shop of scrap dealer.
33. It is admitted position that none of the books was seized from the shop of scrap dealer and all the books alleged to have been seized from the matador. Both the appellants are neither the owner nor driver of the said matador, they were not present in the said matador, therefore, it is not proved that books were sold by accused to scrap dealer as scrap books.
34. K.N. Sharma (PW-26) in his statement admitted that Ex.P/48 was written under his direction by Assistant Sub Inspector Lal Singh, it cannot be ignored that not a single book, which was alleged to be seized by the prosecution was produced in the Trial Court and no such book was exhibited in the Trial Court, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the prosecution case. Prosecution has failed to prove any bill voucher or register that appellant Naresh Chaturvedi has sold out books of Nigam in a scrap.
35. It is remarkable that during the investigation sample of signature of appellant Naresh Chaturvedi has been taken, but prosecution did not file any report of handwriting expert, therefore, in absence of material Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 7/11/2025 10:42:08 AM 14 CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012 evidence, legal presumption can be drawn against the prosecution.
36. In the present case, prosecution has also failed to prove that appellant Naresh Chaturvedi has made any demand of money from co- accused Sanjay Gupta. Prosecution did not examine any witness to establish that any money as an illegal gratification has been paid to appellant Naresh Chaturvedi by co-accused Sanjay Gupta or any other person. Nothing is available on record that appellant Naresh Chaturvedi being a public servant, has obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Therefore, in absence of any proof of demand or acceptance of illegal gratification, such legal presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act cannot be drawn against the appellants. Hence, in absence of aforesaid material evidence, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
37. On the basis of aforesaid evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has wrongly taken into consideration inculpatory part of the defence of the appellants while the exculpatory part of the defence was not considered while passing the judgment which is incorrect according to law because an admission or confession/statement of an accused can be considered in whole and it cannot be done that inculpatory part of the defence statement be considered and exculpatory part is not considered. In the instant case, independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and the police witness does not inspire confidence, therefore, their statements cannot be relied upon.
38. It is also pertinent to mention here that Surendra Kumar Jha (PW-
30) although did not support the prosecution regarding the seizure of bundle of books from the shop of co-accused, but he was not declared Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 7/11/2025 10:42:08 AM 15 CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012 hostile by the prosecution. Therefore, his version is binding on the prosecution whereby he stated that when books were taken from Motimahal Office to godown situated at Gol Pahadiya and in the way books were seized by the police and taken to police station where false panchnamas were prepared.
39. There is no evidence on the record that appellant Naresh hatched any conspiracy with other co-accused persons and by misusing his position of public servant taken any undue advantage or profit and cheated anybody and caused to disappear any evidence with intent to screen himself or any offender, therefore, no offence under section 13(1)
(d) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, under Section 13(1)(c) r/w Section 13(2) of PC Act r/o Section 409 of IPC, under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, under Section 420 of IPC, under Section 120-B of IPC and under Section 201/34 of IPC is proved against the appellants.
40. On the basis of foregoing analysis, facts and circumstances of the instant case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against both the appellants. Hence, it cannot be held that both the appellants had misappropriated any entrusted article.
41. Resultantly, both the appeals succeed and are hereby allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is hereby set aside and both the appellants are acquitted from all the charges.
42. Both the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. The amount of fine, if deposited, be refunded to the appellants.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 7/11/2025 10:42:08 AM 16CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012
43. The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the Trial Court is also upheld.
44. Let a copy of this order along with record of the Court below be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
45. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE (alok) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 7/11/2025 10:42:08 AM