Delhi District Court
Narinder Kumar Rana vs Parvesh Kumar on 6 August, 2012
CA NO: 53/2012 U/s: 138 NI Act PS: Pahar Ganj DATED: 06.08.2012 IN THE COURT OF SHRI SURINDER S. RATHI:ASJ:02: CENTRAL: ROOM NO.32:TIS HAZARI COURTS :DELHI ID NO: 02401R0291012012 CA NO: 53/2012 CC NO: 1572/1 U/s: 138 NI ACT PS PAHAR GANJ IN THE MATTER OF : NARINDER KUMAR RANA S/o SHRI SURAJ MAL R/o 556, MANTOLA STREET, PAHAR GANJ, NEW DELHI-110055 ........ (CONVICT/APPELLANT) VERSUS PARVESH KUMAR S/o SHRI RAM SINGH R/o 2449, NALWA STREET, CHUNA MANDI, PAHAR GANJ, NEW DELHI-110055 .......... (COMPLAINANT/ RESPONDENT)
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT ON CONVICTION AND ORDER ON SENTENCE DATED 26.05.2012 AND 28.05.2012 RESPECTIVELY DATE OF INSTITUTION : 03.07.2012 DATE OF ARGUMENTS : 06.08.2012 DATE OF ORDER : 06.08.2012 ORDER ON APPEAL
1. This appeal has been preferred by the convict in a Section 138 NI Act matter against the judgment of conviction dated 26.05.2012 and order on sentence dated 28.05.2012 whereby convict was sentenced to undergo SI for one year apart from payment of compensation of Rs. 1.25 lacs within 30 days ID 2 months SI.
2. I have heard arguments of Ld. Counsel for appellant/convict Sh.
Mohd. Iqbal and Ld. Counsel for respondent/complainant Sh. S.C. Jain and have perused the appeal file as well as TCR.
ORDER ON APPEAL NARINDER KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE PAGE 1/16 CA NO: 53/2012 U/s: 138 NI Act PS: Pahar Ganj DATED: 06.08.2012
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal, as borne out of the complaint preferred by respondent before Ld. MM on 02.08.02 , are that the complainant and the convict had friendly relations and convict was accorded financial assistance by the complainant from time to time. In order to repay the loan convict issued a cheque worth Rs. 74,900/- on 24.05.02. Upon presentation, this cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. No payment was made despite issuance of legal demand notice. As such complainant was constrained to prefer a complaint U/s 138 NI Act.
4. After leading of pre summoning evidence, convict was summoned as an accused on 02.07.04 . Accused entered appearance on 20.12.04. He was served with a notice U/s 251 Cr. P.C. on 13.10.06 to which he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter complainant led the post notice evidence by way of affidavit. Reply sent by the convict with a legal demand notice was also filed according to which the cheque in question is a "stolen (signed) cheque". Complainant was cross examined at length wherein he conceded that he had not disclosed the specific dates of claimed advancement of loan. It was also admitted that both the sides were next door neighbourers at Pahar Ganj. He conceded that other than signatures other columns of the cheque were filled up by him. The complainant did not deny that his wife had filed a police complaint against him alleging theft of certain cheques including the cheque in question. He conceded to have filed a complaint U/s 406/420 IPC before a Magisterial Court alleging therein that convict and his wife had illicit relations. A suggestion was put to the complainant that his brother in law had stolen the cheques from the custody of the accused.
5. Separate 313 Cr. P.C. statement of the accused was recorded wherein he conceded that the cheque in question bears his ORDER ON APPEAL NARINDER KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE PAGE 2/16 CA NO: 53/2012 U/s: 138 NI Act PS: Pahar Ganj DATED: 06.08.2012 signature but other particulars were not filled up by him. He concedes that he know the complainant but denied the issuance of cheque in question to him. As per him he used to leave signed blank cheque leaves with his employee Raju, who happens to be brother in law (Sala) of complainant. He accepted receipt of legal demand notice but denied any financial liability. The demand notice was also replied.
6. In his defence accused examined Smt. Reshma, wife of complainant as DW-1. She tendered her evidence in chief by way of affidavit wherein she stated that she married complainant as per Hindu Rites on 30.09.95 and started living at Pahar Ganj. Her matrimony was not smooth as complainant used to consume liquor and demand dowry. Her brother Raju used to serve accused Narender Rana in his firm M/s. Vindhyavasini & Co. at Pahar Ganj in the same building where she used to reside. Since accused Narender Rana used to go out of town often, her brother Raju used to manage the office and accused had left signed blank cheques with Raju for office needs. As per her, the cheque in question was stolen by her complainant / husband from her almirah when she and her brother Raju had gone to Bihar and Raju had left three signed cheques with her. In this regard a complaint was made by DW-1 with PS Pahar Ganj as Mark 1/1. Owing to her matrimonial discord with complainant, the complainant had filed several cases against her and the accused Narender Rana in different courts as Mark 1/2 to 1/6. As per her the Section 138 NI Act complaint has been filed by complainant only to harass her and Narender Rana on the basis of a stolen blank cheques.
7. In her cross examination she conceded that her marriage with the complainant has been annulled and since then she has been residing in Bihar. She conceded that the ground of passing of decree ORDER ON APPEAL NARINDER KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE PAGE 3/16 CA NO: 53/2012 U/s: 138 NI Act PS: Pahar Ganj DATED: 06.08.2012 of divorce in this case is adultery between her and the accused. She accepted that accused has a transport business. She denied that accused and her husband ever had money transactions.
8. Second witness examined by DW-2 Jafar Iqbal @ Raju, brother in law of complainant. He deposed on the lines of his DW-1 sister.
9. After the conclusion of evidence on both the sides Ld. MM heard the matter at length followed by passing of impugned judgment and order of conviction. Hence this appeal.
10. While opening the submissions first plea taken by Ld. Counsel for appellant is that the complaint preferred by respondent Kamlesh Kumar is an abuse of process of law in so far as complainant had used stolen/lost signed cheque of accused in filing a false Section 138 NI Act Complaint. It is argued that there was absolutely no disbursal of any friendly loan as stated in complaint and same is evident from the fact that neither quantum of any such disbursal is mentioned nor any date, time , place or mode thereof has been specified.
11. Although it is true that once a dishonoured cheque is found to be carrying signature of accused and such a cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and no payment was made despite issuance of legal demand notice, by virtue of Section 118 and 139 of NI Act , presumption of existence of legally recoverable debt comes into play as ruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled, "Anil Hada Vs. Indian Acrylic Ltd.", AIR 2000 SC 145, but legally such presumption is only preliminary and is also rebuttable. It would be handy to have a glance to statutory provisions.
ORDER ON APPEAL NARINDER KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE PAGE 4/16 CA NO: 53/2012 U/s: 138 NI Act PS: Pahar Ganj DATED: 06.08.2012
12. Section 118 of NI Act runs as under:
118 Presumptions as to negotiable instruments
- Until the contrary is prove, the following presumptions shall be made:-
(a) of consideration - that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;.........................
13. Section 138 NI Act runs as under:-
Section 138 NI Act : Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account:-
Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to credit of that that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [ a term which may be extended to two year], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque , or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a ORDER ON APPEAL NARINDER KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE PAGE 5/16 CA NO: 53/2012 U/s: 138 NI Act PS: Pahar Ganj DATED: 06.08.2012 demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [ within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and ( c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
14. Section 139 of NI Act runs as under:-
Section 139 Presumption in favour of holder - It shall be presumed , unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
15. As per the statute as well as legal precedents, once the presumption of existence of legally recoverable debt comes into foreplay , the primary onus to rebut this presumption shifts upon the accused. In the case in hand as well, the complainant having per se proved the circumstances leading to initial presumption, the burden of rebuttal was supposed to be discharged by the accused.
16. As far as the rebuttal is concerned, record reveals, that it has consistently been the case of the accused that he has not availed any loan from the complainant . Right from his reply Ex. PW 1/4 to the Legal Demand Notice Ex. PW 1/3 accused has specifically claimed that the cheque in question Ex. CW 1/1 was a stolen cheque and that complainant Narender Kumar Rana has prayed a fraud upon him. When the facts were put to him while framing Section 251 Cr. P.C. notice he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As detailed supra during cross examination of complainant, he ORDER ON APPEAL NARINDER KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE PAGE 6/16 CA NO: 53/2012 U/s: 138 NI Act PS: Pahar Ganj DATED: 06.08.2012 specifically suggested that he did not owe any money to complainant. The plea of having enemical relations has not been denied by the complainant in so far as he accepted that accused had an office in the same building where the complainant used to reside.
17. The complainant categorically accepted that his wife had illicit relations with the accused and that on this ground alone complainant got divorce on the ground of adulterous relations between accused & Smt. Reshma. The complainant also accepted the factum of his prosecuting his wife DW-1 Reshma alongwith the accused jointly in other Criminal Cases. All this lays the foundation of existence of per se motive of launching of this criminal complaint. It is next to impossible that a person would extend friendly loan to another man despite that man having illicit relations with his wife.
18. Even the circumstances and the manner in which the signed cheque in question was lost by accused has been elucidated by accused in his defence evidence, as detailed supra . Admittedly, accused was running a flourishing transport business while the complainant was a small time tailor and it is highly improbable that complainant would extend loans to the accused and that too without any documentation what so ever.
19. It is interesting to observe that even though specific statements qua the cheque in question being a stolen cheque from the custody of PW-1 was made both by DW-1 Smt. Reshma and DW-2 Sh. Jafar Iqbal @ Raju but neither of them were questioned pointedly about this positive statement. No suggestion was given/made to them in order to deny this plea of stolen cheques. It is a settled legal preposition that when a witness is not cross examined qua a fact deposed in examination in chief, then , such a fact is deemed to be admitted by ORDER ON APPEAL NARINDER KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE PAGE 7/16 CA NO: 53/2012 U/s: 138 NI Act PS: Pahar Ganj DATED: 06.08.2012 the opposite side.
20. In case titled, " Babu Lal Vs. Caltax (India Ltd.)" A 1967 C 2005 it was ruled, "generally speaking, when cross examining, a party's counsel should put to each of his opponents witness in turn, so much of his case as concerns the particular witness or in which he had a share............if asks no questions, he will be taken to accept the witness account."
21. Accused has placed and marked copies of complaint made to the police qua theft of the cheque apart from other litigation between the parties but evidently owing to procedural lapses, the same were not proved legally during evidence. Be that as it may, it is a settled legal preposition that the burden of proof of rebuttal on the shoulders of the accused is not as heavy as that on the prosecution/complainant under mentioned catena of cases establishes it .
22. In case titled, " Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. Vs. Amin Chand Payrelal " (1999) 3 SCC 35 while interpreting Section 118
(a) of the Act, Hon'ble Supreme Court opined, " Upon consideration of various judgments as noted hereinabove, the position of law which emerges is that once execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118 (a) would arise that it is supported by a consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was ORDER ON APPEAL NARINDER KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE PAGE 8/16 CA NO: 53/2012 U/s: 138 NI Act PS: Pahar Ganj DATED: 06.08.2012 illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the defendant of proving the non-existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In such an event, the plaintiff is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the plaintiff as well. In case, where the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under Section 118 (a) in his favour. The court may not insist upon the defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by leading direct evidence as the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated and even if led, is to be seen with a doubt."
23.In another case titled, " Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee" (2001) 6 SCC 16 Hon'ble Supreme Court held, " 22 Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, because by the latter, all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. the obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law or fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the non-existence of the presumed fact."
ORDER ON APPEAL NARINDER KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE PAGE 9/16 CA NO: 53/2012 U/s: 138 NI Act PS: Pahar Ganj DATED: 06.08.2012
24. In case titled," K.N. Beena Vs. Muniyappa" (2001) 8 SCC 458 Hon'ble Supreme Court held, " Provided the facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law exist, no discretion is left with the court but to draw the statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the person against whom the presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving the contrary. A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the court in support of the defence that the court must either believe the defence to exist or consider his existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of reasonability being that of the "
prudent man."
25. In another case titled, " M. S. Naryana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kereala & Anr." (2006) 6 SCC 39 Hon'ble Supreme Court held, "Once the accused is found to discharge his initial burden, it shifts to the complainant. "
26. The law has been settled in case titled, " K. John Vs. Tom Vargese & Anr." JT 2007 (13) SC 222 wherein the Apex Court has observed as under : -
"...............The High Court was entitled to take notice of the conduct of the parties. It has been found by the High Court as of act that the complainant did not approach the court with clean hands. His conduct was not that of a prudent man. Why no instrument was executed although a huge sum of money was allegedly paid to the respondent ORDER ON APPEAL NARINDER KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE PAGE 10/16 CA NO: 53/2012 U/s: 138 NI Act PS: Pahar Ganj DATED: 06.08.2012 was a relevant question which could be posed in the matter. It was open to the High Court to draw its own conclusion therein. Not only no document had been executed, even no interest had been charged. It would be absurd to form an opinion that despite knowing that the respondent even was not in a position to discharge his burden to pay installments in respect to the prized amount, an advance would be made to him and that too even after institution of three civil suits. The amount advanced even did not carry any interest. If in a situation of this nature, the High Court has arrived at a finding that the respondent has discharged his burden of a proof cast on him under Section 139 of the Act, no exception thereto can be taken."
27. In another case titled, " K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surenderan "
2007 IX AD (S.C.) 334 Hon'ble Supreme Court opined, " The Act raises two presumptions; firstly in regard to the passing of consideration as contained in Section 118 (a) therein and, secondly, a presumption that the holder of cheque receiving the same of the nature referred to in Section 139 discharged in whole or in part any debt or other liability. Presumptions both under Sections 118 (a) and 139 are rebuttable in nature. Having regard to the definition of terms proved and disproved as contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act as also the nature of said burden upon the prosecution vis a vis an accused it is not necessary that the accused must step into the witness box to discharge the burden of proof in terms of the aforementioned provision. It is furthermore not in doubt or dispute that whereas the standard of proof so far as the prosecution is concerned is proof of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt; the one on the accused is only mere preponderance of probability. "
ORDER ON APPEAL NARINDER KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE PAGE 11/16 CA NO: 53/2012 U/s: 138 NI Act PS: Pahar Ganj DATED: 06.08.2012
28. In case titled, "M.K. Rao Vs. T. Ramulu" 2008 (7) SCC 655 Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled, " By virtue of clause (a) of Section 118 Court is obliged to presume that the promissory note was made for consideration until the contrary is proved. Initial burden lies on the defendant to prove to non existence of consideration which would lead the Court to believe the non existence of consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful or illegal. "
29. In another case titled, "Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde" AIR 2008 SC 1325 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed, " ................ The courts below, as noticed hereinbefore, proceeded on the basis that Section 139 raises a presumption in regard to existence of a debt also. The courts below, in our opinion, committed a serious error in proceeding on the basis that for proving the defence the accused is required to step into the witness box and unless he does so he would not be discharging his burden. Such an approach on the part of the courts, we feel, is not correct.
An accused for discharging the burden of proof placed upon him under a statute need not examine himself. He may discharge his burden on the basis of the materials already brought on records. An accused has a constitutional right to maintain silence. Standard of proof on the part of the accused and that of the prosecution in a criminal case is different..........
He did not produce any books of accounts or any other proof to show that he got so much money from the Bank. He admittedly did not have any written document pertaining to the accused. He accepted that there was no witness to ORDER ON APPEAL NARINDER KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE PAGE 12/16 CA NO: 53/2012 U/s: 138 NI Act PS: Pahar Ganj DATED: 06.08.2012 the transaction. He, of course, denied certain suggestions, but the suggestions put to him were required to be considered by the court below in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the case.... The courts below failed to notice that ordinarily in terms of Section 269-SS of the Income Tax Act, any advance taken by way of any loan of more than Rs. 20,000 was to be made by way of an account payee cheque only.
Section 217- Do of the Income Tax Act reads as under :
" 271 -D. Penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 269-SS. (1) If a person takes or accepts any loan or deposit in contravention of the provisions of Section 269-SS, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit so taken or accepted.
(2) Any penalty imposable under sub-
section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner.
30. In case titled, "S.K. Mittal Vs. M/s. Saree Mahal", 2012 III AD (Delhi) 771 , Hon'ble Delhi High Court while dealing with identical facts observed, " Petitioner/Complainant did not furnish any details regarding the payment of the loan amount. He has neither produced his bank statement of the relevant period showing payment of amount of Rs. 36,500/- by cheque nor any other document reflective of the part- payment in cash...........
Further, nowhere in the complaint has ever mentioned that the payment was partly by cheque and partly by cash. The said fact has come out for the first time in the cross examination of the complainant. Even the date of the alleged transaction has nowhere been brought out clearly and complainant could not recollect the exact date of loan transaction, when specifically asked about the same by the opposite party in cross ORDER ON APPEAL NARINDER KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE PAGE 13/16 CA NO: 53/2012 U/s: 138 NI Act PS: Pahar Ganj DATED: 06.08.2012 examination.............
This goes on to show that the cheque was not handed over to the complainant by the accused himself and it is highly improbable and strange for complainant to have got the name of payee filed in by another person than the accused himself."
31. In case titled, " SS Chouhan Vs. State & Anr. " in Crl. L.P. No. 164/2012 2012 III AD (DELHI) 545 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed , " Prosecution must prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt, standard of proof so as to prove defence on part of accused is "preponderance of probabilities"- Once accused is found to discharge his initial burden, it shifts to complainant- Courts must be on guard to see that merely an application of presumption as contemplated U/s 139 , same may not lead to injustice or mistaken conviction-
Principles of legal jurisprudence, namely presumption of innocence as human rights and doctrine of reverse burden introduced by S. 139 should be delicately balanced."
32. Furthermore in cases titled, "Narender Singh Vs. State of MP" (2004) 10 SCC 699 & "Rajesh Ranjan Yadav Vs. CBI" (2007) 1 SCC 70 Hon'ble Supreme Court highlighted the fact that presumption of innocence is basic human right and that everyone charge with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until prove guilty according to Law.
33. In case titled, "Raj Kumar Khurana Vs. State of Delhi" (2009) 6 SCC 72 while dealing with a case under 138 NI Act Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled, "no offence can be made out in case it is found that the cheque dishonoured was a ORDER ON APPEAL NARINDER KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE PAGE 14/16 CA NO: 53/2012 U/s: 138 NI Act PS: Pahar Ganj DATED: 06.08.2012 lost cheque. "
34. In case titled, "M/s. Kumar Exports Vs. M/s. Sharma Carpets"
AIR 2009 SC 1518 Hon'ble Supreme Court held, "The accused in a trial under Section 138 has two options. He can either show that consideration and debt did not exist or that under the particular circumstances of the case the non-existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent man ought to suppose that no consideration and debt existed. To rebut the statutory presumption an accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the complainant in a criminal trial."
35. In the light of above discussion and case laws , I have no hesitation in concluding that the convict was successful in discharging the initial technical burden of dispelling the presumption of existence of Debt. Having done so, as ruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court supra, the burden shifts back upon the complainant.
36. Evidently enough the complainant has not brought even an iota of evidence to show that he ever extended any loan as claimed by him, to the accused. No documentary or oral evidence of claimed disbursal of loan was brought on record. Nothing like Income Tax Return or Book of Accounts was filed in support of his plea by the complainant. Thus it is evident that upon shifting of burden back on him, complainant has not done anything to establish that he ever extended any loan to the accused. Unless positive evidence in this regard is given, the mere accusation that complainant some how laid his hand over a signed cheque of accused, does not mean that Accused owe complainant any money. It has to be borne in mind that a cheque itself is not a liability, rather it is a mode of ORDER ON APPEAL NARINDER KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE PAGE 15/16 CA NO: 53/2012 U/s: 138 NI Act PS: Pahar Ganj DATED: 06.08.2012 discharging of an pre existing financial liability. Once an accused has successfully rebutted initial presumptions, the complainant has to establish & prove beyond shadow of doubt that drawer of the cheque owed him money. NI Act is a criminal Case and thus Courts are not expected to be casual in recording judgment of conviction U/s 138 NI Act as a matter of routine. Sans any cogent and legally admissible positive evidence of existence of legally recoverable debt. Else it would lead to remain miscarriage of justice as happened with the accused in this matter.
37. In the absence thereof I have no hesitation in concluding that Ld. MM has committed a grave error in convicting the accused. As such impugned judgment of conviction dated 26.05.2011 and order on sentence dated 28.05.2011 cannot be sustained both in facts and law. As such both stands set aside. Appeal stands allowed. Bail bonds cancelled. Surety stands discharged. File be consigned to RR. TCR be sent back with copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED & DICTATED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.08.2012 (SURINDER S. RATHI) ASJ-02:CENTRAL:DELHI 06.08.2012 ORDER ON APPEAL NARINDER KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE PAGE 16/16