Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/95/2009 on 12 October, 2012
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-09,
SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Manika
State v. Pradeep Sharma
FIR No. 95/2009
Police Station : Chhawla
Under Section : 25 Arms Act, 1959
Unique Case ID Number: 02405R0118052012
Date of institution : 09.04.2010
Date of reserving : 11.10.2012
Date of pronouncement: 12.10.2012
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case 54/01
b) Date of commission of offence 15.04.2009
c) Name of the complainant Head Constable Raj Pal
d) Name, parentage and address Sh. Pradeep Sharma
of the accused S/o Sh. Madan Lal
R/o H. No. 299, Gali No. 13,
Hanuman Mandir, Paprawat
Road, Prem Nagar, New Delhi
e) Offence complained of Section 25 Arms Act, 1959
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order Acquitted
State v. Pradeep Sharma
FIR No. 95/2009 P.S.: Chhawla Page 1 of 19
h) Date of final order 12.10.2012
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Vide this judgment the accused is being acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') in this case FIR No. 95/2009 police station Chhawla by giving benefit of doubt for the reasons mentioned below.
CASE OF PROSECUTION
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') is that on 15.04.2009 at about 09.00 p.m. at Gali No. 13 in front of house No. C-291, Prem Nagar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of police station Chhawla the accused was found in possession of one country-made pistol (katta) made of iron metal in contravention of the notification issued by the Delhi Administration.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
3. Upon completion of investigation, police report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was filed and the accused was consequently summoned.
4. The copies of the police report and annexed documents were supplied to the accused in due compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
State v. Pradeep Sharma FIR No. 95/2009 P.S.: Chhawla Page 2 of 19 CHARGE
5. Vide order dated 02.11.2011, charge for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
6. Vide order dated 31.07.2012, in compliance of the provisions of Section 294 Cr.P.C., the accused was called upon to admit or deny the Copy of FIR No. 95/09 dated 15.04.2009 Police Station Chhawla under Section 25 Arms Act, FSL report No. 2009/F-2021 dated 27.08.2009 and sanction order No. 2612/SO-DCP South West District dated 11.03.2010. All the said documents were admitted by the accused and the same were accordingly exhibited as Ex. P/A/1, Ex. P/A/2 and Ex. P/A/3 respectively. In view of the admission made, the evidence of the duty officer Head Constable Ravinder Pal, Sh. V.R. Anand, Senior Scientific Officer (Ballistic), FSL Rohini, Delhi and S.O./DCP/South West was dispensed with.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
7. To prove its case, the prosecution in all examined seven witnesses.
8. PW-1 Constable Krishan Dutt is one of the recovery witnesses. He deposed that on 15.04.2009 he was posted at PCR South West Zone as constable and on that day at about 08.50 p.m. he alongwith State v. Pradeep Sharma FIR No. 95/2009 P.S.: Chhawla Page 3 of 19 Head Constable Rajpal and Constable Rajpal went to C-Block, Gali no. 13, Hanuman Mandir, Paprawat Road to attend a call of quarrel. He stated there they met a person namely Pradeep. He deposed that during cursory search of the accused one country-made pistol was recovered from his possession. He stated that they informed the police station Chhawla and Assistant Sub-Inspector Jagpal alongwith Head Constable Ompal Singh reached there. He stated that they produced the accused and case property to the investigating officer. He stated that investigating officer prepared sketch of the katta Mark A and seized the katta in a white pullanda with the seal of VK vide seizure memo Mark X-1. He stated that thereafter investigating officer was registered case FIR No. 95/09. He deposed that his statement was recorded by the investigating officer. He correctly identified the accused. He correctly identified the case property Ex. P-1.
9. PW-2 Head Constable Rajpal Singh is another recovery witness. He deposed that on 15.04.2009 on receipt of a call regarding quarrel at Gali no. 13, Paprawat Road near Hanuman Mandir, C-Block at about 08.50 p.m., he alongwith gunman Constable Krishan and driver Constable Rajpal reached at the spot. He stated that at the spot they met one lady namely Bimla Devi and her aunty Beena. He deposed that mother of Ms. Bimla told them that the accused Pradeep gave beating to Ms. Beena. He stated that they apprehended the accused Pradeep and took his cursory search during which one katta was recovered from his right dub. He stated that the said information was given by them to command room. He stated that Assistant Sub- Inspector Jagbir Singh and Head Constable Ompal reached at the State v. Pradeep Sharma FIR No. 95/2009 P.S.: Chhawla Page 4 of 19 spot and they produced case property and accused to investigating officer. He deposed that investigating officer recorded his statement Ex. PW2/A, prepared sketch of the katta Ex. PW2/B, seized the katta in a pullanda with the seal of VK vide memo Ex. PW2/C, prepared tehrir and handed over to Head Constable Ompal for registration of the FIR. He stated that after registration of the FIR Head Constable Ompal returned at the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR and original rukka to the investigating officer. He deposed that accused Pradeep was arrested vide memo Ex. PW2/D, personal search was conducted vide Ex. PW2/E. He correctly identified the accused in court. He deposed that investigating officer recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Mark XP1 and prepared site plan at his instance Ex. PW2/F. He correctly identified case property Ex. P-1 as that recovered from the possession of the accused.
10. PW-3 Head Constable Ompal Singh is the police official who had accompanied the investigating officer to the spot. He deposed that on 15.04.2009 on receipt of DD entry No. 53B regarding quarrel at Prem Nagar by Assistant Sub-Inspector Jagbir, he alongwith Assistant Sub-Inspector Jagbir reached at Prem Nagar, where PCR staff alongwith accused Pradeep met them. He stated that Head Constable Rajpal produced a katta stated to have been recovered from the possession of the accused. He deposed that investigating officer recorded the statement of Head Constable Rajpal, prepared a sketch of the katta Ex. PW2/B, seized the katta vide memo Ex. PW2/C and handed over the seal of VK to him after use. He deposed that investigating officer prepared a rukka and handed over the same to State v. Pradeep Sharma FIR No. 95/2009 P.S.: Chhawla Page 5 of 19 him for registration of FIR. He stated that after registration of FIR, he returned to the spot and handed over a copy of FIR and original rukka to the investigating officer. He deposed that accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/D. He correctly identified the accused in Court. He deposed that investigating officer recorded the disclosure statement of accused and also recorded his statement. He correctly identified the case property Ex. P1.
11. PW-4 Constable Suresh is the police official who deposited the case property at the Forensic Science Laboratory. He deposed that on 25.05.2009 he collected the exhibit vide memo 793/R/SHO Chhawla and deposited the same at Forensic Science Laboratory vide No. FSL/2009/F-2021. He deposed that the exhibit was not tampered with while in his custody.
12. PW-5 Constable Rajpal is also a recovery witness. He deposed that on 15.04.2009 at about 08.50 p.m. he alongwith Head Constable Rajpal and Constable Krishan received a call regarding quarrel at C-299, Prem Nagar, Gali no. 13 near Hanuman Mandir. He stated that he was the driver of the PCR van and he stopped the said PCR van outside the gali and remained in the PCR van while Head Constable Rajpal and Constable Krishan went to the gali. He deposed that after about 20 minutes Constable Krishan and Head Constable Rajpal returned to the PCR van and informed him that the investigating officer had arrived. He stated that thereafter they returned to their base.
13. PW-6 Sub-Inspector Sanjeev Sharma is the second State v. Pradeep Sharma FIR No. 95/2009 P.S.: Chhawla Page 6 of 19 investigating officer. He deposed that on 12.05.2009, investigation of the present case was marked to him. He stated that on 25.05.2009 he had sent the case property to FSL, Rohini. He stated that after obtaining result from FSL Ex. P/A/2, he sent a letter to DCP, South- West for obtaining sanction under Section 39 Arms Act, which is Ex. P/A/3. He stated that he prepared the challan.
14. PW-7 Assistant Sub-Inspector Jagbir Singh is the first investigating officer in the present case. He deposed that on 15.04.2009 on received of DD No. 53 B, he alongwith Head Constable Ompal reached at the spot where he met the accused Pradeep alongwith PCR staff. He stated that Head Constable Rajpal produced one country-made pistol before him. He stated that he prepared sketch of the katta Ex. PW-2/B, seized the katta in a white pullanda sealed with the seal of VK vide memo Ex. PW-2/C, recorded the statement of Head Constable Rajpal Ex. PW-2/A, prepared rukka Ex. PW7/A and handed over the same to Head Constable Ompal for registration of FIR, prepared site plan at the instance of Head Constable Rajpal Ex. PW-2/F, arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW-2/D and recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Ex. PW-7/B. He however did not identify the accused or case property.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
15. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the entire evidence put to him. He categorically stated that he is innocent, that he was lifted by the police from house No. C-291, Prem Nagar, which belongs to his maternal aunt and that he has been State v. Pradeep Sharma FIR No. 95/2009 P.S.: Chhawla Page 7 of 19 falsely implicated in the present case. The accused preferred not to lead any evidence in his defence.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
16. The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused. The respective submissions of Sh. Brijesh Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sh. Chander Prakash, Advocate, learned counsel for the accused, have been considered.
17. The case of the prosecution is that on the fateful day the accused was found in possession of a country-made pistol (katta) in contravention of the notification issued by the Delhi Administration. In order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of the illegal arm (country-made pistol) from the possession of the accused.
Re: Absence of independent witnesses
18. Evidently, no public witness to the recovery of the country-made pistol has been either cited in the list of witnesses or examined by the prosecution. As per the complainant/PW-2, who is a recovery witness, when he reached at the spot, the mother of the accused namely Smt. Bimla Devi as well as his maternal aunt namely Smt. Beena were present there. The same is also maintained by the other prosecution witnesses. Further, in his cross-examination, PW-2 stated that the father of the accused Sh. Madan Lal was also present at the spot. As per the testimony of PW-2 besides the aforesaid persons, who are related to the accused, 8 to 10 other public persons were also present State v. Pradeep Sharma FIR No. 95/2009 P.S.: Chhawla Page 8 of 19 at the spot. Thus, at the place and time of the alleged recovery of illegal arm and apprehension of the accused, public persons were admittedly present/available at the spot. However, no explanation has been furnished by the prosecution for not having cited or examined the aforesaid persons, who had admittedly witnessed the recovery.
19. The testimony of all prosecution witnesses, except PW-2, is silent as to any effort at all having been made by the investigating officer to join public witnesses. In his cross-examination, PW-2 stated that the investigating officer had asked the mother of the accused to make statement, however, she refused to do so. He did not recall if the investigating officer had asked the maternal aunt of the accused namely Ms. Beena to join the investigation. Further, he did not recall if the investigating officer had recorded the statement of the father of the accused. With regard to the remaining 8-10 public persons, PW-2 stated that though the investigating officer had requested them to join the proceedings, no notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. had been served upon them. From a perusal of the record, no serious effort for joining public witnesses appears to have been made by the investigating officer.
20. It is a well settled proposition that non-joining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100 (4) of the Cr.P.C. also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. Same has, however, not been done in the present case. This casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation. Reliance is placed on State v. Pradeep Sharma FIR No. 95/2009 P.S.: Chhawla Page 9 of 19 paragraph 6 of the judgment in Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri.L.J. 127, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed as under:
" ... According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no public person was present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus stop near Subhas Bazar, there would be no person present at a crucial time like 07.30 p.m. when there is a lot of rush of commuters for boarding the buses to their respective destinations. Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the Police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation. At least one of them should deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the investigation. Here is a case where no effort was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused."
21. This Court is, however, conscious that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as public witnesses generally keep themselves away State v. Pradeep Sharma FIR No. 95/2009 P.S.: Chhawla Page 10 of 19 from the Court unless it is inevitable, as has been held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution version but there are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version.
Re: Duty record of recovery witnesses not proved
22. The present case rests entirely on the alleged recovery of illegal arm from the possession of the accused at the relevant time by police officials namely Head Constable Rajpal, Constable Krishan Dutt and Constable Rajpal. Since public persons were not joined in the investigation. It is important to see whether the prosecution had proved that the aforesaid officials, who allegedly reached the spot upon receipt of PCR call and apprehended the accused with case property were on duty in the concerned PCR van at the relevant time. No such record has, however, been proved. Proof of the said record is indispensable as the present case rests solely on the alleged recovery made by the aforesaid police officials.
Re: Possibility of misuse of seal of the investigating officer
23. As per the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the case property was sealed by the investigating officer with the seal of VK. As per the testimony of PW-3 Head Constable Om Pal Singh, the seal was handed over to him after use. However, no memo was prepared with respect to handing over of the aforesaid seal. Further, the seal in State v. Pradeep Sharma FIR No. 95/2009 P.S.: Chhawla Page 11 of 19 the present case was not handed over to any independent witness nor was it deposited in the malkhana to assail the possibility of its misuse. Thus, the possibility that the case property may have been tampered with cannot be ruled out. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Abdul Ghaffar v. The State, 1996 JCC
497. Re: Personal search of accused: Formalities not complied with
24. The testimony of all the prosecution witnesses is silent as to whether PW-2 Head Constable Rajpal Singh, who had conducted the cursory search of the accused, had offered his search to the accused before searching him. In the absence of any affirmative testimony, it cannot be assumed that the police official, who had conducted the personal/cursory search of the accused, had offered his search to the accused before searching him.
25. In paragraph 10 of the judgment in Rabindranath Prusty v. State of Orissa, 1984 Cri L. J. 1392, the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa observed as under:
"The next part of the prosecution case is relating to the search and recovery of Rs. 500/- from the accused. One of the formalities that has to be observed in searching a person in that the searching Officer and others assisting him should give their personal search to the accused before searching the person of the accused. ... This rule is meant to avoid the possibility of implanting the object which was brought out by the search. There is no evidence on record whatsoever that the raiding party gave their personal search to the State v. Pradeep Sharma FIR No. 95/2009 P.S.: Chhawla Page 12 of 19 accused before the latter's person was searched. Besides the above, it is in the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 5 that the accused wanted to know the reason for which his person was to be searched and the reason for such search was not intimated to the accused. No independent witness had witnessed the search. In the above premises, my conclusion is that the search was illegal and consequently the conviction based thereon is also vitiated." (empha- sis supplied)
26. In the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to establish that the police official, who searched and allegedly recovered the illegal arm from the possession of the accused, did offer his personal search before conducting the search of the accused. As noted by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa above, the possibility of the said illegal arm, which was brought out by the search, having been planted on the accused cannot be ruled out. Thus, this Court is hesitant in relying upon the version of the prosecution.
Re: Other infirmities in the prosecution case
27. PW-7 Assistant Sub-Inspector Jagbir Singh has deposed that he prepared sketch of the country-made pistol Ex. PW2/B, seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/C, recorded the statement of Head Constable Rajpal Ex. PW2/A and thereafter prepared the rukka Ex. PW7/A and sent the same to the police station for registration of FIR through Head Constable Ompal. It is, therefore, clear that the sketch of the country-made pistol as well as seizure memo were prepared at the spot before the rukka was sent to the police station for registration of the FIR. The FIR was, therefore, State v. Pradeep Sharma FIR No. 95/2009 P.S.: Chhawla Page 13 of 19 admittedly registered after the preparation of these documents Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C. Accordingly, it follows that the number of the FIR would have come to the knowledge of the investigating officer only after a copy of the FIR was delivered to him at the spot by Head Constable Ompal. Thus, ordinarily, the FIR number should not find mention in the seizure memo or sketch of country-made pistol which came into existence before registration of the FIR. However, interestingly, the seizure memo Ex. PW2/C as well as sketch of the country-made pistol and live cartridges Ex. PW2/B bear the FIR number and case details in the same ink and the same handwriting in which the said documents are prepared. The same indicates that FIR number was mentioned on the said documents while preparing the same. Reliance here is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri. L.J. 127, wherein it was observed in paragraph 5 as under:
"... Learned counsel for the State concedes that immediately after the arrest of the accused, his personal search was effected and the memo Ex. PW11/D was prepared. Thereafter, the sketch plan of the knife was prepared in the presence of the witnesses. After that, the ruqa EX. PW11/F was sent to the Police Station for the registration of the case on the basis of which the FIR, PW11/G was recorded. The F.I.R. is numbered as 36, a copy of which was sent to the I.O. after its registration. It comes to that the number of F.I.R. 36 came to the knowledge of the I.O. after a copy of it was delivered to him at the spot by a constable. In the normal circumstances, the F.I.R. No. should not find mention in the recovery memo or the sketch plan which had come into existence State v. Pradeep Sharma FIR No. 95/2009 P.S.: Chhawla Page 14 of 19 before the registration of the case. However, from the perusal of the recovery memo, I find that the FIR is mentioned whereas the sketch plan does not show the number of the FIR. It is not explained as to how and under what circumstances the recovery memo came to bear the F.I.R. No. which had already come into existence before the registration of the case. These are few of the circumstances which create a doubt, in my mind, about the genuineness of the weapon of offence alleged to have been recovered from the accused."
28. In paragraph 4 of Mohd. Hashim v. State, 1999 VI AD (Delhi) 569, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed:
"... Surprisingly, the secret information (Ex. PW7/A) received by the Sub-Inspector Narender Kumar Tyagi (PW-7), the notice under Section 50 of the Act (Ex. PW5/A) alleged to have been served on the appellant, the seizure memo (Ex. PW1/A) and the report submitted under Section 57 of the Act (Ex. PW7/D) bear the number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B). The number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) given on the top of the aforesaid documents is in the same ink and in the same handwriting, which clearly indicates that these documents were prepared at the same time. The prosecution has not offered any explanation as to under what circumstance number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) had appeared on the top of the aforesaid documents, which were allegedly prepared on the spot. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the contraband or number of the said FIR was inserted in these documents after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of State v. Pradeep Sharma FIR No. 95/2009 P.S.: Chhawla Page 15 of 19 doubt about recovery of the contraband in the manner alleged by the prosecution."
29. In the instant case as well, no explanation has been furnished on record as to how the FIR number and case details have appeared on the seizure memo Ex. PW2/C and sketch of country-made pistol Ex. PW2/B. The same leads one to only one inference that either the said documents were prepared later or that the FIR had been registered earlier in point of time. In both the aforesaid cases a dent is created and unexplained holes are left in the prosecution story, the benefit of which must accrue to the accused.
Re: Contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses
30. There are serious contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses on various aspects.
31. As per complaint Ex. PW-2/A, the spot to which PW-1 Constable Krishan Dutt, PW-2 Head Constable Raj Pal and PW-5 Constable Raj Pal had gone and where the accused was apprehended by them was 'C-291, Gali No.13, Hanuman Mandir, C- Block, Paprawat Road'. As per site plan Ex. PW-2/F, the illegal arm was recovered from the possession of the accused from in front of House No. 291, Gali No.13, Prem Nagar, 25 feet road'. While, in their testimony in Court, PW-1 and PW-2 did not state the house number, PW-5, who had allegedly accompanied them, stated the house number as 'C-299' and the locality as 'Prem Nagar', which does not find mention in the complaint. Further, though both PW-7/ investigating State v. Pradeep Sharma FIR No. 95/2009 P.S.: Chhawla Page 16 of 19 officer and PW-3 Head Constable Ompal, who had accompanied the investigating officer, stated that they went to a locality called 'Prem Nagar', however, as per PW-7 the house number was 'C-291' and as per PW-3, on the other hand, the same was 'C-299'. Thus, there is contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses inter se, as well as with the other evidence brought on record by the prosecution, as to the spot from where the accused was apprehended and illegal arm was recovered from his possession.
32. While as per PW-2, street light was burning at the spot, PW-3 stated that he did not remember as to what was the provision/arrangement for lighting in the gali. On the other hand, while PW-3 claimed that he had seen the katta in the light emitted by the head light of the PCR van, PW-5/driver of the PCR van stated that he had stopped the van outside the gali and the head lights of the PCR van had remained off during the period of their halt at the spot.
33. As per the complaint Ex. PW-2/A, when the police officials reached that the spot, a lady Ms. Bimla met at the spot told them that her son (accused) had caused hurt to her sister Beena. However, in his examination-in-chief, PW-2/complainant stated that the mother of Bimla told them that the accused Pradeep had beaten Beena.
34. As per the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Of PW-1 Constable Krishan Dutt Mark XD1, he was posted as a driver in the PCR concerned. However, in his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he was posted as a gunman.
State v. Pradeep Sharma FIR No. 95/2009 P.S.: Chhawla Page 17 of 19
35. The aforesaid contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses raise doubt on the credibility of the prosecution story.
CONCLUSION
36. The fact that no independent witness was cited or examined, the possibility of misuse of the seal of the investigating officer, the appearance of FIR number and case particulars on the sketch of the weapon and seizure memo of the case property, and the contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, when kept in juxtaposition to each other, cast a cloud of suspicion over the prosecution version. In view of the aforesaid, the possibility of the country-made pistol having been planted upon the accused and false implication of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out.
37. It is trite in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be allowed to the accused.
38. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the benefit of doubt ought to be granted to the accused, who is entitled to be exonerated of the charges against him in the present case. The accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Act. Case property be confiscated to State as per rules.
State v. Pradeep Sharma FIR No. 95/2009 P.S.: Chhawla Page 18 of 19
39. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on 12.10.2012.
(MANIKA) Metropolitan Magistrate-09 (South-West), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi 12.10.2012 State v. Pradeep Sharma FIR No. 95/2009 P.S.: Chhawla Page 19 of 19