Delhi District Court
Rakesh Kumar vs State on 30 October, 2023
-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI SHARMA:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02( NORTH ):
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
New CA No. 147/2023
Rakesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Umrao Singh
R/o VPO Rohna Teh. Kharkhoda
Distt. Sonipat (Haryana)
..... Appellant
Versus
The State
..... Respondent
Date of institution 08.06.2023
Arguments concluded on 27.10.2023
Judgment Pronounced on 30.10.2023
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/convict under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction dated 23.12.2022 and order on sentence dated 02.06.2023 passed by Ld. MM, North, Rohini Courts thereby convicting the appellant/convict to undergo 06 months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 420/511 IPC and in default of payment of fine to CA No. 147/2023 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement Page No. 1 of 21 -: 2 :- undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. A cost/ expenses of Rs.5,000/- was awarded to the prosecution, out of the fine imposed upon the convict.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2012 Delhi Police had published an advertisement in the two leading newspapers namely Hindustan times and Employment News on 30.05.2012 and 02.06.2012 respectively, advertising 752 vacancies for the post of Constable (Driver) in the departmental of Delhi Police. In response to the said advertisements the accused (applicant herein) applied for the post of Constable (Driver) through an application form bearing registration no.25015629. Through this duly filled application form submitted by him with the department, he furnished details of a driving licence bearing no. 12002/MTH and claimed that the said driving licence was issued to him by the Manipur Transport Authority, located at Thoubal, Manipur authorised him to drive an HTV (Heavy Transport Vehicle). Relying on the information supplied by him in the application form regarding the driving licence and the copy of his driving licence , he was permitted to take the written test scheduled by the department of Delhi Police for 11.11.2012. The result of the written test was declared on 17.12.2012 and the accused cleared the same.
According to the prosecution, when the said driving licence was got verified by the Special Branch of Delhi Police, it CA No. 147/2023 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement Page No. 2 of 21 -: 3 :- was found to be issued in the name of another person namely Elangbam Rajendro Singh and not in the name of accused. On getting report of Special Branch of Delhi Police regarding forged driving licence of accused, FIR bearing no. 667/16 was registered at PS Mukherjee Nagar against the accused on the ground that he tried to seek employment in Delhi Police by adopting deceitful means by submitting details of a fake driving licence. The investigating agency commenced investigation against him and he was served with the notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, instead of arresting him. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court.
CHARGE
3. Vide order dated 31.01.2018, charge for the offence punishable under Section 420/511/468/471 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence and in order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 06 witnesses.
EVIDENCE
4. PW-1 Dr. Joy N. Tirkey, DCP, Crime Branch, New Delhi, who has deposed that on 08.04.2016 he was posted as Additional DCP, Recruitment Cell, Delhi. He deposed that on that day he had given a written complaint to DCP (N/W) District CA No. 147/2023 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement Page No. 3 of 21 -: 4 :- regarding taking of legal action against one Rakesh Kumar who had applied for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police 2012 in pursuance to the advertisement issued. He deposed that the abovesaid accused had qualified the trade test for the above- said post and furnished copy of heavy transport vehilce driving licence which was required for the above-said post. He deposed that on the basis of verification conducted by the Special Branch, Delhi Police from the concerned issuing authority of Driving Licence, the driving licence furnished by the above-said accused was found to be fake/forged. He further deposed that Rakesh Kumar had tried to seek employment with Delhi Police by adopting deceitful means through malafide intention by submitting a fake/forged driving licence, upon which he gave his complaint Ex.PW1/A. PW-2 is Sh.R.K. Jayantkumar Singh, DT/RTO Thoubal, Manipur, who has brought the original register containing the record relating to the driving licence bearing no. 12002/MTH. He deposed that the said driving licence was issued in the name of Mr. Elangbam Rajendro Singh S/o Sh.E.Dhaman Singh R/o Hiyaglam Awang Leikai, Manipur on 26.07.1995 and initially was having its validity till 25.07.2000 and thereafter was renewed on 07.12.2004 to 06.12.2009. He further deposed that as per the original record the said licence was not issued in the name of any Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh.Umrao Singh. He further deposed that the proforma regarding the verification of the CA No. 147/2023 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement Page No. 4 of 21 -: 5 :- above-said driving licence is Ex.PW2/A. He has also proved the attested copy of the above-said relevant portion relating to the above-said driving licence as Ex.PW2/B. PW-3 is Inspector Deepak Chandra deposed to have brought the original file relating to letter bearing no.10272/ Rectt. Cell (R-VI)/NPL dated 06.10.2016, related documents, copy of advertisement, employment news dated 30.05.2012 and 02.06.2012 containing the advertisement for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police and certified copy of the result relating to the above-stated post declared on 17.12.2012. He further proved to have brought copy of letter no.10272/Rectt. Cell (R-VI)/NPL dated 06.10.2016 as Ex.PW3/A. He further proved that as per the record, the above-said letter was accompanied with an original application form Mark X-1 and original verification report Ex.PW2/B of driving licence relating to the candidate Rakesh Kumar, Roll No.809892. He further deposed that the photocopy of advertisement relating to the vacancy in question published in Hindustan Newspaper on 30.05.2012 has been proved as Ex.PW3/B. Witness also proved the photocopy of advertisement relating to the vacancy in question published in Employment News on 02.06.2012 as Ex.PW3/C. Witness proved that the result of the written test for the above-said post conducted on 11.11.2012 (running to 16 pages) as Ex.PW3/D (colly). Witness deposed that the roll number of candidate Rakesh Kumar S/o Umrao Singh, Roll No. CA No. 147/2023 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement Page No. 5 of 21 -: 6 :- 809892 is at page no.3 of the above-said result.
PW-4 HC Baljeet Singh deposed that on 19.03.2017, he was posted as HC at DIU/North-West. He
deposed that on that day, upon the instructions of the IO, he proceeded for District Transport Office, Thoubal, Manipur and he reached there on 24.03.2017. He deposed that he handed over copy of one notice u/s 91 of the Cr.P.C. marked as Mark A1 at the DTO, Thoubal, Manipur and obtained the report Ex.PW4/A relating to driving licence bearing no. 12002/MTH. He deposed that he handed over the said report to the IO on 03.04.2017 at the office of DIU, North West.
PW-5 HC Prashant Kumar deposed that on 11.08.2015 he was posted at PS Mukherjee Nagar as DO and on that day, SHO handed over one rukka to him and he made endorsement on the rukka and on the basis of the same, he registered FIR bearing no. 667/2016 which is in his handwriting. He further deposed that thereafter, he handed over the copy of the FIR and rukka. Witness proved the FIR as Ex.PW5/B, the endorsement made on the rukka as Ex.PW5/A, certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW5/C. PW-6 SI Vikas Kumar deposed that on 24.08.2016, he was posted at DIU North West. He deposed that the present case file was marked to him for investigation and he took the charte and started to investigate the matter. He deposed that during investigation he wrote letter to Additional DCP CA No. 147/2023 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement Page No. 6 of 21 -: 7 :- Recruitment Cell in order to take the original application form and verification report of driving licence. He deposed that the said documents were received in the due course. He further deposed that his letter is Ex.PW6/A. He further deposed that he directed the accused to join the investigation when accused came on 25.11.2016 and accused was interrogated and his interrogation report was prepared. Witness further deposed that the interrogation report was prepared in the presence of Ct.Virender. He further deposed that the interrogation report is Ex.PW6/B. He deposed that upon inquiry accused was served with notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. He stated that one HC namely Baljeet was sent to Manipur, Thoubal District Transport Officer for conducting verification of driving licence of accused. He further deposed that aforesaid notice/letter was proved as Ex.PW6/C. He further deposed that HC Baljeet brought the report and gave it to the witness and it was mentioned in the report that the driving licence was not issued in the name of accused Rakesh Kumar but in the name of some other person. Witness deposed that during investigation accused told him that his driving licence was got prepared by Amit and he had given Rs.6000/- to Amit who managed to prepare one driving licence for him. Witness further deposed that all the reports were collected by him and they were annexed in the judicial file. He deposed that thereafter he completed investigation, recorded statement of accused.
CA No. 147/2023Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement Page No. 7 of 21 -: 8 :-
5. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 30.05.2022 in which appellant pleads innocence and false implication. Accused opted not to lead DE.
6. I have heard Mr. Neeraj Bansal, ld. Counsel for the appellant/convict and Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the record carefully.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
7. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 23.12.2022 and order on sentence dated 02.06.2023 passed by Ld. MM, North, Rohini Courts, the present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the said judgment has been passed in mechanical manner. It is stated that the findings of the Ld. Trial Court are contrary to the record and the facts / evidence placed on the record does not warrant conviction, as there are number of contradictions in the testimonies of the material witnesses. Therefore, it is prayed that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence are liable to be set aside and appellant is liable to be acquitted.
8. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has strongly controverted the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant/convict and has argued that there is no illegality or CA No. 147/2023 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement Page No. 8 of 21 -: 9 :- infirmity in the judgment under challenge, which has been passed after considering all the evidence on the record.
9. Heard. Trial Court Record perused.
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
10. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime. The principle finds its genesis in the Declaration of Human Rights under Article 11 Section 1 incorporated by the United Nations in 1948. It is also mentioned in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in Article 6 Section 2 and United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under Article 14, Section 2.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
In Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 06.07.2018 relying on judgment of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of UP passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2018, it was held that:
CA No. 147/2023Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement Page No. 9 of 21 -: 10 :- "the freedom of an individual is utmost important and cannot be curtailed specially when guilt if any, is yet to be proved. It is settled law that till such time guilt of a person is proved, he is deemed to be innocent........ A fundamental postulate of criminal juris prudence is a presumption of innocence meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty..........
Thus, the inference which is culled out from the above is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
11. In this backdrop, I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
12. The accused had been convicted for the offence under Section 420/511 IPC. The essential postulates of the penal provisions are as follows:
SECTION 420 IPC
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person de-
ceived 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, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine".
CA No. 147/2023Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement Page No. 10 of 21 -: 11 :- SECTION 511 IPC
511. Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.--Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with 1[imprisonment for life] or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with 2[imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence], or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both."
FINDINGS
13. Prosecution has levelled the allegations of making an attempt to cheat the department of Delhi Police to secure employment with it, against the accused Rakesh Kumar. It is the case of the prosecution that the Delhi Police published an advertisement in two leadings newspapers having circulation in Delhi namely Hindustan News and Employment News, in which the department had advertised 752 vacancies for the post of Constable (Driver) on 30.05.2012 and 02.06.2012, respectively. Both the advertisements in both the newspapers have been proved by PW3 Inspector Deepak Chandra Ex.PW3/B (OSR) and Ex.PW3/C (OSR) who produced the photocopy of both newspapers containing the advertisement. Neither the advertisement nor the newspapers were challenged by the CA No. 147/2023 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement Page No. 11 of 21 -: 12 :- defence side. From both the documents it stands proved beyond doubt that vacancies for the post of Constable (Driver) were advertised by the department.
Pursuant to the advertisement, the accused applied for the post of Constable (Driver) through his application form brought in evidence as Mark X-1. The application form Mark X- 1 containing the personal details of the accused and also details of the driving licence bearing no. 12002/MTH which was admittedly issued in his name, has also been proved in evidence by prosecution. The application form also stands duly proved as the accused has admitted to have himself filed the said application form Mark X-1 even in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It is further prosecution's case that relying on the information supplied by accused in the application form regarding the driving licence, he was permitted to take the written test conducted by the department on 11.11.2012 and the accused qualified the said test, for which the result was declared on 17.12.2012. The said result which accused also cleared has been proved as Ex.PW3/D (colly). It was proved through the official record maintained by the office of the District Transport Office, Thoubal, Manipur that the said driving licence was issued in the sanem of another person namely Elangbam Rajendro Singh. The record maintained by the office of District Transport Office, Thoubal, Manipur showing the driving licence maintained CA No. 147/2023 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement Page No. 12 of 21 -: 13 :- in the name of Elangbam Rajendro Singh has been proved as Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B by the District Transport Officer/ Regional Transport Officer, Thoubal, Manipur Shri R.K. Jayantkumar Singh. The official from the office of District Transport Office produced the original register containing the record pertaining to the licence bearing no. 12002/MTH and proved that the same had not been issued in the name of accused Rakesh Kumar. Thus, the entire official record proved in its evidence by prosecution showed that the licence bearing no. 12002/MTH which had been officially and lawfully issued in the name of Elangbam Rajendro Singh had been wrongfully and dishonestly shown by accused to be issued to him for the purpose of obtaining employment with Delhi Police.
The essential ingredients for proving the offence of cheating have been enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy vs. Suda Seetharam decided on 15.02.2019, as follows:
i) A person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and
ii) The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to
(a) deliver property to any person; or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security.
Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act of constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC.
CA No. 147/2023Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement Page No. 13 of 21 -: 14 :-
14. In Samir Sahay @ Sameer Sahay vs The state of Uttar Pradesh Hone, (decided on 25 August, 2017), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the law related to cheating observed:
"14. On a reading of the section it is manifest that in the definition there are set forth two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first place he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the doing of omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest.
As observed by this Court in Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney vs State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 575, a guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating. In order, therefore, to secure conviction of a person for the offence of cheating, 'men rea' on the part of that person, must be established. It was also observed in Mahadeo Prasad v State ofW.B. AIR 1954 SC 724, that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was offered.
15. A meaningful reading of the law discussed in the afore-given decisions indicates that for constituting the offence of CA No. 147/2023 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement Page No. 14 of 21 -: 15 :- cheating, the accused should be proved to have had the intention to deceive or the mes rea at the time when he is making the inducement to another person, meaning thereby that the intention to cheat existed from the very inception of the act.
16. The existence of accused's intention to cheat the department of Delhi Police from the very inception, stood clear from his own admission recorded in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement where he admitted that he had got the driving licence bearing no.12002/MTH made from one person namely Amit whom he had met at the Sonepat Court. Accused's admission is proof of the fact that he never visited the District Transport Authority, Thoubal at Manipur and that he had only paid a sum of Rs.6000/- for getting a licence prepared which was allegedly issued by the Manipur District Transport Authority, whereas he himself was a resident of Haryana. He never submitted his application form personally before the Manipur District Transport Authority nor appeared in any driving test for getting the driving licence prepared.
The accused has stated that he had been issued the driving licence for driving a heavy transport vehicle. Heavy transport vehicle inter alia involve buses, trucks and other big vehicles which are used for transporting people and goods in large and heavy, number and quantity, respectively. Such vehicles are commercial vehicles for which the procedure for CA No. 147/2023 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement Page No. 15 of 21 -: 16 :- issuance of licence is more stringent. He ought to have known the lawful manner of getting a driving licence prepared from the transport authority and accordingly has to bear the liability for furnishing wrong details of a licence which was never issued to him.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhayanandn Mishra vs The State of Bihar on 24 April, 1961, which is a similar case where the accused had applied to the Patna University for permission to appear in the M.A. Examination in English as a private candidate representing that he was a graduate having obtained his B.A. Degree and that he had been teaching in a certain school. Believing his statements, the University gave him the necessary permission and issued an admission card to him which was dispatched to the Headmaster of the School. But as a result of certain information received by the University, an investigation was made and it was found that the appellant was neither a graduate nor a teacher as represented by him and that in fact he had been debarred from taking any University examination for a certain number of years on account of his having committed corrupt practices at a University examination. The accused was prosecuted and convicted under Section 420 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code, for the offence of attempting to cheat the University by making false represent ion i.e. by inducing the detected would have been CA No. 147/2023 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement Page No. 16 of 21 -: 17 :- ultimately delivered to him.
18. It is argued by ld. Counsel for the convict that he is the sole bread earner of the family and has dependent parents upon him. That he is working as Vice Principal in a private school and maintain decent reputation in the society. Convict is facing trial for more than 06 years. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any material infirmities. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is found to be credible and stands corroborated with each other.
19. Thus, after perusal of the record and the findings given, there is no illegality in the judgment dated 23.12.2022 and the ld. Trial court has thus rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420/511 IPC and the judgment dated 23.12.2022 is upheld.
COMING TO THE POINT OF SENTENCE
20. The Court is mindful of the sentencing policy and its impact on all the stakeholders.
"......The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims an demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict where living law must find CA No. 147/2023 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement Page No. 17 of 21 -: 18 :- answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a corner-stone of the edifice of "order"
should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his "Law in Changing Society" stated that, "State of criminal law continues to be - as it should be - a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society". Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration.
Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991 (3) SCC 471).
CA No. 147/2023Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement Page No. 18 of 21 -: 19 :- The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are determined largely by other considerations. Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence. Sometimes the desirability of keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even the tragic results of his crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a departure from just desert as the basis of punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are serious and widespread.
Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure from the principle of proportionality has disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction drastic sentences are imposed. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But in fact, quite apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences."
CA No. 147/2023Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement Page No. 19 of 21 -: 20 :-
21. Reliance is placed upon Shailesh Jasvantbhai & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors Appeal (Crl.) 118 of 2006 DOD by Supreme Court, 19 January, 2006.
22. The appellant has been convicted to undergo 06 months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 420/511 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. A cost/ expenses of Rs.5,000/- was awarded to the prosecution, out of the fine imposed upon the convict.
23. Normally the Appellate Court would not interfere in the discretion exercised by the Ld. Trial Court in awarding the sentence or fine. However, in the interest of justice, since the matter pertains to the year 2012 and convict has already undergone trial for a considerable time, there is no other previous involvement of the convict which has been brought to the knowledge of the court. Accused is a man of poor means. Accordingly, as per Section 386(b) (iii) Cr.P.C. without altering the finding given by the ld. Trial court, the sentence is altered to the extent that the appellant Rakesh Kumar be sentenced to undergo TRC and fine of Rs.25,000/-. Fine paid. Receipt issued. Order on sentence passed by ld. Trial Court dated 02.06.2023 is modified to this extent.
A cost of Rs.5,000/- of the total amount of fine CA No. 147/2023 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement Page No. 20 of 21 -: 21 :- paid by the convict be realized by the State for the expenses incurred in prosecution, as per rules.
24. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is disposed off accordingly.
25. TCR, if any be sent back to the concerned court with copy of this order.
29. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in open (SHEFALI SHARMA)
Court on 30.10.2023 ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02,
NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CA No. 147/2023
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement
Page No. 21 of 21