Delhi District Court
State vs . Ranvir Singh & Anr. on 20 March, 2018
FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar
U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC
State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF MS MANU GOEL KHARB
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DWARKA COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No. : 318/14
U/s : 419/420/120B IPC
PS : BHD Nagar
State Vs. Ranvir Singh
Date of Institution of case: 22.07.2014
Date of Judgment reserved: 26.02.2018
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 20.03.2018
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. : 425784/16
Date of Commission of offence : 24.05.2014
Name of the complainant : SI Pradeep Singh
Name and address of the accused : (1) Ranvir Singh
persons S/o Sh. Rajnandan
R/o VPO Daniwawa, Distt. Patna,
Bihar.
(2) Satpal, S/o Sh. Jagdish
R/o Village Bidawas, PO Nagal
Shabazpur, Distt. Rewari,
Haryana.
Offence complained of : 419/420/120B IPC
Plea of accused persons : Not guilty
Date of order : 20.03.2018
Final Order : Acquitted
Page 1 of 24
FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar
U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC
State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 24.05.2014 at unknown time and place, accused Ranvir and Satpal (hereinafter called the accused persons) hatched a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Delhi Police Department by accused Ranvir pretending to be accused Satpal, S/o Jagdish, having roll no. 136349 in Delhi Police Constable (Executive) Examination, being conducted on 24.05.2014 and thereby induced the Delhi Police Department to believe accused Ranvir to be Satpal and allow him to fraudulently appear in the examination and thus they both cheated the Delhi police Department. Thereafter, the present case FIR No.318/14, P.S. BHD Nagar was lodged under Section 419/420/120B IPC against both the accused persons.
2. After the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the court on 22.07.2014 against the both the accused Ranvir and Satpal for the alleged commission of offence u/s 419/420/120B IPC.
3. After hearing arguments, charge was framed against both the Page 2 of 24 FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
accused persons for the offences u/s 419/420/120B IPC vide order dt. 29.08.2014, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses in all.
5. PW1 is W/HC Kaushalya Devi. She deposed that on 24.05.2014, she was posted at PS BHD Nagar as Duty Officer and received a call through SI Pradeep that a candidate was apprehended by the police at PTSL ground during exam. She recorded the said information vide DD no. 21A as Ex. PW1/A. On the same day, at 10.45 am, on basis of tehrir brought by Ct. Rajesh, she recorded FIR no. 318/14 u/s 419/420/120B IPC in the present case and proved the computer generated copy of the same as Ex. PW1/B and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW1/C.
6. PW2 ASI Jagdev Singh proved the original memo no.
38796036 dated 16.04.2014 of roll no. 136340 issued to Satpal on 16.04.2014 as Ex. PW2/A wherein applicant Satpal was informed Page 3 of 24 FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
about cancellation of the date of examination and about the fresh date of examination.
In his crossexamination by the defence Counsel, he stated that he has not brought the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act with regard to document Ex. PW2/A and that he has not brought the dispatch register to show whether the said letter was dispatched from his office or not.
7. PW3 Ct. Rajesh deposed that on 24.05.2014, on receiving DD no. 21A, he alongwith SI Rajesh reached at PTS, Jharoda Kalan where SI Pradeep Singh produced accused Ranvir Singh before them. On the basis of complaint of SI Pradeep Singh, IO prepared a tehrir and handed over to PW3 for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, witness came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to the IO. Accused Ranvir was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/A, was personally searched vide memo Ex. PW3/B and his disclosure statement was recorded as Ex. PW3/C. SI Pradeep produced before the IO the driving licence of Satpal seized by vide Page 4 of 24 FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
memo Ex. PW3/D and Rs. 10,000/ recovered from accused Ranvir seized by IO vide Memo Ex. PW3/E with the seal of RK. Admission card in the name of Satpal having roll no. 136340 for written test recruitment of temporary constable (executive Delhi Police) was seized vide memo Ex. PW3/F. Original admission card is Ex. PW3/F.1. Witness correctly identified the case property i.e. currency notes of Rs. 10,000/ as Ex. P1.
In his crossexamination, witness deposed that case property was sealed in his presence. When they reached at the spot, other candidates were busy in their exams and no other candidates were cited as witness on the seizure memo as they were busy in their exam. He further denied that the recovered Rs. 10,000/ from the possession of accused Ranvir was for the purpose of his coaching fee and that accused Ranvir found original admit card of accused Satpal or that he went to PTC Jharoda Kalan for return to accused Satpal. PW3 admitted that the original admit card bear the photo of accused Satpal and that no OMR sheet was given to accused Satpal in his presence. Witness admitted that accused satpal did not sign the attendance sheet Page 5 of 24 FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
in his presence.
In his crossexamination by the defence counsel, PW3 admitted that there is no alteration on admit card of the accused Satpal.
8. PW4 ASI Sadan Kumar deposed that on 24.05.2014, he was performing duties at PTS, Jharoda Kalan with complainant/ SI Pradeep. He deposed that on that day, during checking SI Pradeep apprehended accused Ranvir who had sat on behalf of other candidate, and informed the DO of PS BHD Nagar. Thereafter, SI Pradeep took cursory search of accused Ranvir and recovered one pen drive and Rs. 17,030/ from the possession of accused Ranvir. Witness deposed that accused Ranvir disclosed that out of Rs. 17,030/, Rs. 10,000/ were given to him by one Laddoo Singh as an advance for appearing in Delhi Police Constable Examination on behalf of the accused Satpal. In the meantime, SI Rajesh alongwith Ct. Rajesh reached at the spot and the accused was produced before SI Rajesh. SI Pradeep gave his complaint to SI Rajesh, upon which SI Rajesh prepared a rukka and handed over to Ct. Rajesh for registration of FIR. After registration of Page 6 of 24 FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
FIR, Ct. Rajesh came back at the spot and handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to SI Rajesh. PW4 proved the arrest and personal search of accused, disclosure statement of accused, seizure memo of driving licence of Satpal, seizure memo of Rs. 10,000/, admission card of Satpal and the original admission card vide Ex. PW3/A to Ex. PW3/F.1.
In his crossexamination by counsel for accused Ranvir, witness deposed that exam was written exam and of objective type. No booklet series or OMR sheet was handed over in his presence. Witness is unable to tell whether accused attempted any question or signed on the attendance sheet. He deposed that the case property was not seized in his presence but currency notes were seized in his presence and no other candidate was made a witness on the seizure memo. In his crossexamination by counsel for accused Satpal, PW4 deposed that there is no alteration on admit card of accused Satpal. Accused Satpal was apprehended by the biometrics staff and IO recorded the statement of private persons who were deployed by the Delhi police at the point of biometric entry. He further denied that Page 7 of 24 FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
accused Ranvir reached at examination centre for handing over the original admit car to accused Satpal as he found the same near the examination centre.
9. PW5 complainant/ SI Pradeep Kumar Singh deposed that on 24.05.2014, his duty was in PTS Jharoda, in "L Ground", PTS Jharoda as invigilator for the written exam for the post of Ct. (Executive) 2013 in Row no. 78 from Roll no. 136323 to 136348. When witness was taking attendance, the candidate sitting on Roll no. 136340 told his name as Satpal S/o Jagdish and showed his Admission Card which had roll no. 136340 but he had no Biometric Band and Stamp on his hand. On enquiry from him by the witness, the candidate gave absurd answers and also produced driving licence of one Satpal. Thereafter, witness took him to Biometrics Help Desk / Experts in order to get his Biometrics identity established but biometrics of that candidate got mismatched with the biometrics particulars of the actual candidate who conducted the physical examination. On further enquiry, the said candidate told his name as Ranvir S/o Raj Nandan. Page 8 of 24
FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
Thereafter, he made a call at PS BHD Nagar and SI Rajesh came on that call. Witness handed over the accused Ranvir, admit card and DL of Satpal to the IO. IO recorded his statement which is already Ex. PW1/C. IO seized the driving licence of Satpal and the admission card of candidate Satpal vide seizure memo already Ex. PW 3/D and Ex. PW3/F. Thereafter, IO started verifying other particulars from the accused and witness got busy in my invigilator duty. The accused Ranvir Kumar came to gave written exam in place of accused Satpal by not revealing his correct identity as Ranvir Kumar but in the garb and name of Candidate Satpal.
In his cross examination by counsel for accused Satpal, he deposed that he was not present at the time of arrest of accused or seizure of DL and admit card and deposed that he handed over the accused Ranvir to the IO and thereafter, got busy in invigilator duty. He further testified that he was not present at the time of recovery of money from the accused Ranvir. IO did not obtain his statement at any point of time. Witness further denied that the accused went to give one plastic bag to one police officer at the entry point of Exam Hall or that Page 9 of 24 FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
the accused Ranvir was not sitting for written examination or that the biometric staff handed over the accused to the police. In his cross examination by counsel for accused Ranvir, he admitted that the exam had not yet started when accused Ranvir was caught without biometric band and stamp and process of distribution of copies start after the checking is complete. Witness is unable to depose whether the accused wrote his role number/ other particulars on the answer sheet. Witness deposed that he did not click any photograph of accused Ranvir while he was sitting on the seat of Satpal.
10. PW 6 Constable Jasbir Singh deposed that on 14.07.2014 SI Rajesh got an information that the accused Satpal will surrender in the court. Witness accompanied SI Rajesh to Dwarka court. IO formally arrested accused Satpal vide arrest memo Ex. PW6/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW6/B. IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Satpal vide memo Ex. PW6/C. IO also took one day police custody of accused Satpal and recorded his statement on 14.07.2014.
Page 10 of 24
FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
In his crossexamination, he deposed that nothing was recovered from accused Satpal during one day police custody. Further, he cannot tell where IO took the accused Satpal during the police custody as he was not alongwith IO on that day. Witness further denied that during police custody, IO took the signatures of the accused Satpal on disclosure statement involuntarily.
11. PW7 SI Rajesh Kumar, deposed that on 24.05.2017, he received a call vide DD No. 21A and he alongwith Constable Rajesh went to the spot i.e. Ground 'L', PTS, Jharoda Kalan and met one SI Pradeep Singh there. SI Pradeep Singh gave a written complaint to him which is Ex. PW7/A and handed over one person whose name was Ranvir Singh but he was pretending himself to be Satpal. Accused Ranvir Singh was correctly identified by the witness. PW7 met HC Sadan already present in PTS on emergency duty and thereafter joined him in the investigation. SI Pradeep Singh gave to the witness the admission card of Satpal, one roll number of Satpal, one photocopy of admit card and one driving licence of Satpal which is already Ex. PW Page 11 of 24 FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
3/A, Ex. PW7/B, Mark A and Ex.P1 respectively. PW7 conducted enquiry from the accused Ranvir and thereafter, he prepared the rukka and sent Constable Rajesh to P.S. for registration of FIR who came back after sometime alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka. Witness searched for the accused Satpal in PTS but could not find him anywhere. Thereafter, he arrested the accused Ranvir, conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex. PW 3/A, Ex. PW3/B and Ex. PW3/C. He further deposed that upon search of accused Ranvir, Rs.17,030/ were found from him and the accused told that Rs.10,000/ have been given to him by one Laddu Singh as advance payment for appearing in the said exam and Rs. 7030/ were his personal savings. He further deposed that one driving licence was alos found during his personal serach which was seized vide Ex. PW3/D and Rs.10,000/ were seized vide memo already Ex. PW3/C. He seized the admission card of Satpal vide memo Ex. PW 3/F. Search the Laddu Singh and accused Satpal was made but they were not found. Accused Satpal surrendered in the court on 14.07.2014 where witness arrested him and conducted his personal Page 12 of 24 FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
search vide arrest memo Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW6/B and recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex. PW6/C. Supplementary disclosure statement of accused Satpal was recorded on 15.07.2014 in the presence of Constable Devender vide memo Ex. PW7/C. Witness recorded the statements of all the witnesses and gave a letter to recruitment cell in New Police Lines Mark PW7/D. PW7 correctly identified both the accused and the case property Ex. P1 in the court. In his crossexamination, he deposed that he had recorded the details of Rs.10,000/ in the seizure memo already Ex PW3/C but did not record the serial number of the notes. He did not obtain the initials or signatures of the accused/witness on the notes or on the pullanda. He deposed that he had obtained the signatures of witnesses on the seizure memo. He had not prepared any handing over or taking over memo of the seal, which was used to seal to pullanda. There was no public witness inside PTC Jharoda Kalan. Further, he had not obtained the statement of any staff, who was operating the Biometrics. He also voluntarily deposed that there was no stamp of Biometrics check on the accused when he was caught, meaning thereby that the accused never Page 13 of 24 FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
went to the Biometrics test.
12. PW8 Constable Devender deposed that on 15.07.2014, he was posted as constable at P.S BHD Nagar and joined investigation with SI Rajesh. Witness alongwith SI Rajesh and accused Satpal went to search one Laddo Singh at the instance of accused Satpal but could not find him. He got the medical examination of accused Satpal conducted and thereafter produced him in the court alongwith SI Rajesh Court sent the accused to JC. IO recorded his statement. In his crossexamination, he deposed that he did not remember the DD number of Rawangi from P.S.
13. Thereafter, Prosecution Evidence was closed on 06.10.2017.
14. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C on 15.11.2017 wherein both the accused persons pleaded innocence and stated that accused Ranvir found a polythene bag containing original documents in a tea shop and Page 14 of 24 FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
went at the main gate reached at examination centre for handing over the same to accused Satpal. The amount of Rs. 10,000/ recovered from the accused Ranvir was his coaching fee. They further stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and that they do not want to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
15. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also perused the case file carefully.
16. It is to be seen that accused persons have been charged with for the offences u/s 419/420/120B IPC.
17. Section 419 IPC provides punishment for cheating by personation. Section 416 IPC defines cheating by personation. For bringing home the guilt of the accused for offence punishable u/s 419 IPC, prosecution was obliged to prove that :
(a) the accused had cheated by pretending to be some other person, or Page 15 of 24 FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
(b) by knowingly substituting one person for another, or
(c) representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.
18. Section 420 IPC provides punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Section 415 IPC defines Cheating.
Section 415 IPC postulates that whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat.
19. In order to prove the charge u/s 419/420/120B IPC, prosecution was required to prove that on 24.05.2014, both the accused Page 16 of 24 FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
persons conspired and cheated the Delhi Police Department by accused Ranvir pretending to be accused Satpal having roll no. 136340 in Delhi Police Constable (Executive) Examination.
20. First and foremost, it is pertinent to mention that the place of incident is PTS Jharoda Kalan and it is also admitted that other candidates were also present at the time of apprehension of the accused Ranvir as well as recovery of the case property i.e. the currency notes of Rs. 10,000/, however, no public witness was examined by the prosecution. The only witness examined by the prosecution is the complainant SI Pradeep, however, he deposed that the police officials never recorded his statement. Hence, doubt is created on the authenticity of the complaint recorded by the IO in this case. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that failure to join witnesses from the public, especially when they are available at their elbow, may cast doubt. It is well settled principle of law that the investigating agency should join independent witnesses if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of Page 17 of 24 FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
doubt on the prosecution case. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the investigating officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the investigating officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for nonjoining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together makes the prosecution case highly doubtful.
21. Furthermore, it is alleged by the prosecution that on search, Rs. 10,000/ were recovered from accused Ranvir but complainant SI Pradeep has not given any details regarding the number of the currency notes found from the possession of the accused. Thereafter, while seizing those currency notes from the possession of the accused Ranvir, Page 18 of 24 FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
IO has not mentioned the number of the currency notes in the seizure memo. In such a situation, the identity of the currency notes cannot be said to be proved and prosecution has failed to prove that money recovered from the accused Ranvir was the same which was received by the accused Ranvir from the alleged Ladoo Singh to appear in the examination.
22. It is also noteworthy to mention that PW3 deposed that case property i.e. currency notes of Rs. 10,000/ recovered from the accused Ranvir were sealed with the seal of RK. However, it has not come in the evidence of IO/ PW7 SI Rajesh that he handed over the seal to anyone and to whom. Assuming that IO handed over the seal to the accompanying officer Ct. Rajesh, but both are police officials and were posted in the same police station on the relevant date and time. Seal was not handed over to any independent witness. Further, no handing over memo of seal is filed on judicial record. In such a situation the possibility of tampering with the seal and the case property cannot be discarded outrightly.
Page 19 of 24
FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
23. Apart from the above loopholes, material contradictions can be seen in the statements of prosecution witnesses. As per the prosecution story, accused Ranvir was apprehended by the complainant when he was taking attendance and the said accused was found sitting on roll no. 136340 which was issued to the candidate Satpal, S/o Jagdish. SI Pradeep took accused Ranvir to Biometrics Help Desk to establish his Biometric identity but his particulars mismatched with the Biometrics particulars of the actual candidate who conducted the physical examination.
In the present case, both PW7 and PW3 deposed that PW5 handed over the accused Ranvir, driving licence of Satpal, currency notes of Rs. 10,000/ before the IO whereas it has come in the testimony of PW5 (complainant SI Pradeep) that he was not present at the time of arrest of the accused or seizure of driving licence or admit card or during the recovery of money from the accused. All this creates serious doubt on the prosecution story.
Page 20 of 24
FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
24. In the present case, no evidence has come on record to show that some wrongful loss was caused to the complainant or some wrongful gain has accrued to the accused or any other person. On a careful scrutiny of testimonies of PW4 and PW5, it emerges that the exam had not yet started when accused Ranvir was apprehended by PW5. It can be further seen that the accused Ranvir had neither written the roll number on the OMR Sheet nor marked his attendance on the attendance sheet. As per the prosecution story, accused Ranvir produced admit card and driving licence of accused Satpal but in the absence of any other corroborative piece of evidence, that does not itself prove that accused Ranvir was found impersonating accused Satpal. Even the complainant did not click any photograph of the accused Ranvir showing that he was found sitting in the examination centre in place of accused Satpal. So, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused Ranvir was found appearing in the examination in place of accused Satpal.
25. Most of the witnesses have not stated anything inculpatory qua the accused and the testimony of the witnesses who have deposed Page 21 of 24 FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
against the accused persons is contradictory to each other as well as the prosecution version. The chain of evidence is broken and does not point towards the guilt of the accused persons. So, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence in question
26. In the judgment titled as "S. L. Goswami v. State of M.P." reported as 1972 Cri.L.J. 511 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held :
"......In our view, the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be Page 22 of 24 FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. ..."
27. The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur reported as VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC).
28. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence the view which is Page 23 of 24 FIR No. 318/14, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 419/420/ 120-B IPC State Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
favorable to the accused should be adopted.
29. In the light of the above said discussion and appreciation of evidence, court is of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts, hence, both the accused Ranvir Singh and Satpal are acquitted for the offences u/s 419/420/120B IPC. Announced in open court today on 20th of March, 2018. (Manu Goel Kharb) Metropolitan Magistrate07 Dwarka District Court/Delhi Digitally signed by MANU MANU GOEL GOEL KHARB Date:
KHARB 2018.03.21
17:13:52
+0530
Page 24 of 24