Delhi District Court
State vs Om Parkash & Ors. on 29 August, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. KAPIL KUMAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE05, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DL CT020001011999
CIS No. 301782/16
State Vs Om Parkash & Ors.
FIR No. 492/1995
PS. IP Estate
U/s. 199/200/420/468/471/120B IPC
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission of offense : 28.04.1995
2) The name of the complainant : Sh Ranbir Singh District Excise Officer, Delhi.
3) The name & parentage of accused : 1. Om Parkash Devian S/o. Kanahiya Lal(since expired)
2. P.M Kariapa S/o P.K Muthina R/o Preeth Estate, Mathikad Post, Coorg, Karnataka.
3. M/s Karam Chand Thapar & Bros(CS) Ltd, Distillery Division,through its representative.
4) Offence complained of : U/s. 199/200/420/468/471/120B IPC 5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. 6) Final order : Acquitted. 7) The date of such order : 29.08.2019 Date of Institution : 14.09.1999 Judgment reserved on : 04.07.2019 Judgment announced on : 29.08.2019 THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT: 1) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a criminal conspiracy
was hatched by the accused persons to get the L1 license renewed dishonestly for some brands of liquor and in pursuance to that conspiracy false documents/affidavits were filed with the Excise Department of Delhi for the renewal of L1 License in the NCT of Delhi, with respect to two brands of whisky and one brand of rum wherein the false sale figures of those liquors were shown for the years 199394 and 199495. On the basis of those documents the Excise Department was dishonestly induced to renew the L1 License. The information supplied to the Excise Department was got verified through a physical inspection made at the distillery and it was found that the sale figures were wrongly mentioned in the documents filed before the Excise Department. The license was thereafter canceled. FIR was registered and after investigation chargesheet were filed for the alleged offences U/s 199/200/420/468/471/120B IPC.
2) In compliance of Sec. 207 Cr.PC, documents supplied to the accused persons. Arguments on point of charge were heard. Vide orders dated 14.03.2008, separate charges for the offences U/s 199/200/420/468/471/120B IPC were framed upon the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It is pertinent to mention here that the company M/s Karam Chand Thapar was also arrayed as accused and charges were framed upon the company.
3) In support of its case, prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses. After conclusion of prosecution evidence statement of accused persons were recorded in which accused persons denied all the allegations and opted to lead DE. Sh Shiv Kumar who was working as accountant in the accused company was examined as sole defence witness.
4) I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel for accused persons. I have also perused the record carefully.
5) The testimony of prosecution witnesses is being touched upon, in brief, as follows: 5.1) PW1 Smt Partibha deposed that the affidavit and SPA dated 28.04.1995 and the declaration of distillery dated 08.05.1995 do not bear her notary stamp or her signature.
5.2) PW2 Retired Inspector S.P Gupta; PW3 Sh Raj Pal Singh, Assistant Collector, Weights and Measures and PW4 Sh T.S Rana Senior Accountant, Pay and Accounts Office, NCT of Delhi deposed on the same lines that on 12.09.1995 they were posted in Excise Department of Government of NCT of Delhi and there they along with Mr Khullar went for inspection of the distillery known as Karam Chand Thappar at Unnao. They deposed that they demanded the record as to the sale of liquor qua the brands for which L1 license got renewed but no record was produced and it was found that there was no sale in the year 199394 and 199495 of those liquors at all. They deposed that the inspection report Ex.PW2/A was prepared. In the testimony of PW3 the letter dated 12.09.1995 on the letter head of the accused company as to the 'NIL' sale figures of the brands of liquor for which the license got renewed was proved as ExPW3/A. 5.3) PW5 Sh Ranvir Singh Retired GM Excise deposed that in the year 1995 he was working as District Excise Officer and there the accused company applied for renewal of L1 license qua three brands of liquor namely bond street whisky, Lord Jim Whisky and Marco Polo XXX Rum. It was deposed on the basis of the figures given by the accused company regarding the sale of these liquors the L1 license was renewed however on the basis of inspection report it was found that there was no sale in preceedings two year qua the abovementioned liquor and therefore L1 license was canceled.
5.4) PW6 Sh Jyoti Parkash, UDC posted in Excise Department deposed that the accused company applied for renewal license qua three brands of liquor and they annexed several documents along with that application including the certificate of CA, affidavit, appendixB etc. He deposed that those documents were found fabricated and police seized those documents vide Ex.PW6/A. In his testimony the original declaration was proved as Ex.P1, SPA as Ex.P2, affidavit as Ex.P3, another affidavit Ex.P4, certificates as Ex.P5 to Ex.P7.
5.5) PW7 Retired Inspector Inder Singh deposed that on 22.02.1996 he had issued the notice U/s 91 Cr.PC to the collector of Excise to produce original documents pertaining to the present case. He deposed that he seized those documents (ExP1 to Ex.P7) vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A. 5.6) PW8 SH Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal deposed that in the year 1999 he was posted as Excise Inspector at M/s Karam Chand Thappar Distillery at Unnao and on 27.06.1999 IO asked him to produce the sale figures qua Bond Street Whisky, Lord Jin Whisky and Marco Polo XXX Rum for the year 199394 and 199495. He deposed that he checked the records of the department and found that complete record was not handed over to him when he took over the charge. He proved his report Ex.PW8/A. 5.7) PW9 Sh Satish Chander deposed that in the year 1999 he was working as UDC in Excise Department of NCT of Delhi and there on 19.08.1999 he gave the copy of the application for renewal of L1 license for the year 199596 to the police which was submitted by accused company. He deposed that the said documents was seized by the police vide Ex.PW9/A. 5.8) PW10 Sh Gautam Parkash Singh deposed that in the year 1999 he was stamp vendor at MBlock, Vikas Bhawan, ITO. He deposed that on 27.09.1999, IO of the present case met him and shown him the stamp paper for verification and he told the IO that the stamp paper was sold by him. He proved his report on that aspect as Ex.PW10/A. 5.9) PW11 Sh Ram Harsh Ram, Inspector Incharge in the Unnao Distillery from the period 199295 deposed that on 12.03.1999 IO produced before him a certificate qua the accused company bearing the sale figures of liquor of the year 199394 and 199495 and asked him whether that certificate bears his signatures or not. PW11 deposed that the certificate Ex.P7 bears his signature at point A. 5.10) PW12 Retired ACP R.S Yadav deposed that in the year 1998 the investigation of the present case was marked to him and there he recorded the statement of SP Gupta who was retired Inspector from Delhi Excise Department qua the present case.
5.11) PW13 Inspector Raj Kumar deposed that the investigation of the present case was marked to him and there he recorded the statements of G.N Shirvastav, Ram Harsh Ram, Sant Ram and Satish Chugh and also seized two documents vide Ex.PW13/A. He deposed that he took the specimen signature of Ram Harsh Ram and G.N Shirvastav vide Ex.PW13/B and Ex.PW13/C respectively.
6) It is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery system that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. No matter how weak the defence of accused is but the golden rule of the criminal jurisprudence is that the case of prosecution has to stand on its own legs.
7) If the case of the prosecution is to be summarized than it can be said that the case of the prosecution is that the accused company through its MD and attorney dishonestly got the L1 license renewed for two brands of whisky and one rum by quoting false figures of sales of liquor for the last two preceedings years. Thus the genesis of the present case lies as to the sale figures of company/distillery for the applied brands of alcohol for the year 199394 and 199495. It is to be ascertained from the evidences as brought on record as to whether the sales figures as claimed by the company during the renewal of L1 license were true figures or not. As per the eligibility criteria, sale of more than 60,000 cases of whisky and 25,000 cases of rum throughout India excluding Delhi during the year 199394 and 199495 was mandatory.
8) Before proceedings further it is to be seen as to what were the terms and condition for the grant of L1 license for the year 199596(01.05.1995 to 31.03.1996) in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The requirement was as under: L1 license shall be granted only to a company incorporated under the Indian Company Act/A Partnership or Firm/A Society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act having licensed manufacturing units (Distillery/Brewery/Bottling Plants). The existing license of the year 199495 will be renewed for 199596 of Distillery/Breweries/Bottling Plants only as the case may be. The Distillery/Breweries/Bottling Plants, however can have the some person to act as their attorney/authorized representative and also to use the same godown being operated by the same attorney. Attorney once nominated shall not be changed during the currency of the license without the prior intimation to the Collector of Excise. The Distillery/Breweries/Bottling Plants shall be responsible for any act of omission or commission done by the said attorney/authorized representative. Apart from the affidavit filed by the applicant for L1 license regarding sale figures, applicants for L1 license will have to furnish along with the application a certificate from the Excise Authorities of the concerned State countersigned by an officer not below the rank of an Excise Officer as regards the sales figures. The applicant will also be required to furnish attested photocopies of the export pass/EVC issued by the Excise authorities as a further proof of the sale figure. The manufacturing unit and attorney both will be responsible for providing any wrong information in this regard.
9) At this stage it is to be referred as to what were the figures which were cited by the accused company while applying for renewal of L1 license and the figures as came out during the inspection conducted. These figures are revealed in the complaint Ex.PW5/A. The accused company claimed following sale figures of the IMFL brands for the year 199394 and 199495 as under: Brand Name 199394 199495
1. Bond Street 147321 142032 Whisky
2. Lord Jin 106016 108113 Whisky
3. Marco Polo 81639 90061 XXX Rum
10) As per the case of prosecution, the inspection was conducted at the distillery but the accused company was not able to provide any document/record substantiating the abovementioned figures. As per the prosecution it was revealed during the inspection that there was no sale at all of the abovementioned liquors and to that effect a certificate was given by the higher officials of the company which is Ex.PW3/A.
11) The entire case of the prosecution revolves around the alleged fact that the company has given the wrong figures while applying of renewal of L1 license and thus cheated the excise department and committed various ancillary offences during the course of main offence of cheating. Thus it was required to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts that the figures which was cited by the accused company were wrong figures.
12) The prosecution is relying heavily upon the documents Ex.PW3/A. This document was given exhibit number as the original was produced during the testimony of PW3. Sh Raj Pal Singh who was one of the member of inspection team. This document was allegedly issued by Lieutenant Gen N Foley, Chief General Manager and Sh B.Ghosh General Manager of accused company. It is pertinent to mention here that the prosecution not took any steps to bring the author of these documents in the witness box. The accused persons did not get any opportunity to cross examine the persons who had allegedly issued Ex.PW3/A on behalf of the company that there was no sale of the liquors for the preceedings two years from the year 199697 qua the brand of liquors for which the renewal of L1 license was sought. In the considered opinion of this court the prosecution was required to bring the author of Ex.PW3/A in the witness box to prove that document. A person who has issued a document in favour of the prosecution and against the interest of accused persons must be brought into the witness box so that the document be proved and the author of that document be crossexamined as to the basis/reasons for issuing that document. Merely giving the exhibit number on a document is of no consequence. Reliance could be placed upon judgment titled as Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs Suk Kumar Mukherjee & Ors AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1162 wherein it is held that if a party to an action does not object to a document being taken on record and the same is marked as exhibit, he is estopped and precluded from questioning the admissibility thereof at the later stage, however it is trite that a document become inadmissible in evidence unless author thereof is examined; the contents thereof cannot be held to have been proved unless the author is examined and subjected to crossexamination in the court of law. In the present case also the author was not brought for the crossexamination and merely exhibiting the documents is not a proof the contents of the same and thus accused persons cannot be estopped from challenging the admissibility of document. On this aspect aid could be drawn from judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the judgment titled as Om Parkash Berlia and Another Vs Unit Trust of India and Others, AIR 1983, Bombay1 wherein it was held that the expression contents of a document refers only to content and not truth thereof. Reliance could be placed upon on this aspect upon the judgment titled as Achuthan Pillai Vs Marikar(Motors) Ltd AIR 1983 Kerala 81. In these circumstances, and being guided by the abovementioned precedents no reliance could be placed upon Ex.PW3/A.
13) Another reason for not believing Ex.PW3/A as such is that there is no evidence on record that the authors of the document Ex.PW3/A were actually authorized to issue that letter. The one author has been referred as Chief General Manager of the company while the other as General Manager. There is nothing on record to prove that the authors of Ex.PW3/A were actually Chief General Manager and General Manager of the company. No presumption as to the designations of the alleged authors of Ex.PW3/A and there capacity to issue Ex.PW3/A could be raised. No appointment letters of the authors of ExPW3/A have been proved on record nor any steps were taken by the prosecution to prove the Memorandum of Association of the accused company on record.
14) If it is taken as proved, for the sake of arguments, that the authors of the document Ex.PW3/A were authorized to give any statement regarding the company as to the sale figures of liquor than it was required to be proved by the prosecution that the document Ex.PW3/A actually bears the signatures of Lieutenant General N.Foley and Sh B.Ghosh. There are no admitted signatures of these persons on record for comparison of the signatures. This documents is disputed by accused persons. The contents of documents and signatures of authors not proved on record. Accordingly, Ex.PW3/A does not have any evidentiary value to prove that there was no sale of the accused company for the brand of liquors as per the requirement of renewal of L1 license.
15) The prosecution is relying upon the alleged inspection report prepared by the inspecting team members after the alleged inspection. This inspection report was proved as Ex.PW2/A in the testimony of PW2. Ld Defence Counsel vehemently argued that there is no inspection at all and the document Ex.PW2/A is a false and frivolous document. Ld Defence Counsel made various submissions on this aspect which was opposed by Ld APP for the State. To have the clear picture on this aspect it is necessary to deal the arguments advanced on this aspect one by one.
16) The first argument challenging the inspection report is that no document was seized from the local excise officer posted at distillery. It is not in dispute that at every distillery there is a local excise officer who is a government servant and he was required to keep the entire record as to the movement of liquor from the distillery. Inspecting team members(PW2, PW3 and PW4) deposed that there was no document at the distillery regarding the sale of brands of liquor for which the renewal of license was sought and the local excise officer was not able to produce any document. It is to be reminded at this stage that it was the requirement of renewal of L1 license that a certificate issue by the excise officer was required to be attached with the application. One such certificate Ex.P7 is also on the record. It was simply deposed by the inspecting team member that the local excise officer was not able to produce any document regarding the sale of liquor. If that be so than why that local excise officer was not made as accused in the present case rather he has been cited as prosecution witness. If there was no sale record with the local excise officer than he must have issued a false certificate qua the sale of liquor than in those circumstances that local excise officer should have been booked for the offence of cheating, conspiracy and preparation of false documents but nothing of this sort was done by the prosecution.
17) No effort was made to collect the export verification certificates from the local excise officer. At the risk of repetition it is required to be mentioned that if local excise officer avoided giving of documents to the inspecting team members that it was the dereliction on the part of the duty of the local excise officer and he should not have been left unpunished. If the case of the prosecution is that the certificate filed along with the application for renewal of license is a forged one than this forgery was required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was required to be proved by the prosecution that the certificate does not bear the signatures of the local excise officer but against the prosecution on this aspect. Shocking to mention here that the witness PW11 Sh Ram Harsh Ram, the than inspector incharge of the distillery, deposed on oath that the certificate Ex.P7 bears his signature and the prosecution did not cross examine that witness. By virtue of this deposition of PW11 it will not be wrong to state that the case of the prosecution falls flat on the ground. If the excise officer is saying that the certificate Ex.P7 bears his signatures and the State is not disputing that document than it is the implied admission on the part of the state as to the authenticity or correctness of the certificate and the contents thereof. If a government officer is saying that the particular certificate was issued by him than nothing remains to be proved by the accused persons to prove the sale of liquor as to the preceeding two years. In the considered opinion of this court the testimony of PW11 is against the case of the prosecution but even than the State accepted his testimony as correct by not putting that witness to cross examination.
18) Accordingly, there is no EVC on record and it is came on record that ExP7 was issued by the inspector incharge of distillery. Accordingly it is not proved on record that there was no sale of liquor in the distillery for the preceedings two years from the year for which the license was got renewed. No conclusive proof is on record that sales figures were incorrect.
19) It is not believable that no document was shown by the local excise officer at the time of alleged raid. It is because of the reason that no statement of such officer was recorded by the inspecting team members. Secondly if that local excise officer not cooperated in the inspection than why his misconduct was not brought into the knowledge his superior officials for necessary action against him. PW2 deposed in cross examination that they had not seized any record of sale of liquor from the local excise officer present at the distillery. He deposed that they had requested him to produce the record but he left the distillery by saying that he will come back but he did not return. PW2 admitted that they did not prepare any memo against that excise officer nor they made any complaint regarding the conduct of excise officer. All these facts clearly reveals that no inquiry was made from local excise officer and the alleged inspection is not believable.
20) It was argued by Ld Defence Counsel that what to say about the inspection report as there was no inspection at all at the distillery. Ld APP for the State however rebutted this argument. Perusal of testimony PW2, PW3 and PW4 reveals that there are material contradictions in their testimony as to the alleged inspection and those contradictions are going to the roots of the present case. PW2 deposed that though they left from Delhi on 12.09.1995 for conducting the inspection but the inspection was not done on that day. He deposed that he does not remember as to whether the inspection was done on the next day, day next day, day after next day or thereafter. Hence as per the testimony of PW2 there was no inspection of distillery on 12.09.1995. Contrary to that PW3 deposed that inspection was done on 12.09.1995 and they met the local excise officer on 12.09.1995 only. PW4 deposed that inspection was not done on 12.09.1995. Besides that PW2 deposed that they reached Unnao in the evening while PW3 deposed that they reached Unnao in the day time while PW4 deposed that they reached Unnao on the next day. Thus three government officials who allegedly conducted inspection jointly deposed contrary as to the day when they reached at the distillery, the time they reached at the distillery and the day when they reached at Unnao. These facts are not so trivial that they could have been washed away from the memory of the witness. Every fact revolving around alleged inspection is crucial to the present case. If the inspecting team members are not aware as to when the inspection was conducted and the contradictions are not of hours rather the contradictions are of days than certainly these contradictions is crucial for the facts of the present case and gives strength to the arguments of Ld Defence Counsel that there was no raid at all.
21) Moreover PW2 deposed that they had not reached the distillery on the day they left Delhi i.e 12.09.1995 and they spent night in the hotel. Contrary to that PW3 deposed that they reached Unnao on the same day in the day time only. Contrary to that PW4 deposed that they reached Unnao on the next day and they stayed at Lucknow in the night at a hotel. Thus three inspecting team members are deposing contrary facts as to the their stay on 12.09.1995 and consequently there time of reaching at the distillery. If inspecting team members first went to Lucknow and remained at hotel at overnight than why this fact was not in the notice of other two inspecting team members. It is not possible that one of inspecting team member that two of inspecting team members forgot that they first went to Lucknow before going to Unnao. The entire inspection is under cloud of doubt.
22) PW4 deposed that they came late in hotel at Lucknow as their vehicle got broke down at deserted place before the city and they check out from the hotel next morning. None of the other two witnesses as to the alleged inspection i.e PW2 and PW3 deposed as to visit at Lucknow or breaking of car at a deserted place. In brief, PW2 deposed that the hotel was taken at Kanpur, PW4 deposed that hotel was taken at Lucknow while PW3 deposed that no hotel was taken. Three witnesses to the inspection deposed on their own stories as to their visit at the distillery and this certainly carves out voids in the case of the prosecution and the authenticity/truthfulness as to the alleged factum of inspection.
23) Besides this the testimony of PW2, PW3 and PW4 reveals that they were not aware as to on what fact they had to done the inspection. They were no sure as what they wanted to confirm in the inspection. PW2 deposed that they demanded the record of sale of whisky which was supplied to Delhi but there was no record as to supply of whisky in Delhi. In the crossexamination PW3 deposed that the officers at the distillery were not able to show any document regarding the sale figures of the liquor sold in Delhi. He further deposed that on their inquiry it was revealed that there was no sale in Delhi. As per the complaint the material figures was the sale of liquor for the preceeding two years in all over the country except Delhi. Thus the figure which was relevant was the sale figures except Delhi, however two of the inspecting team members were digging into the figures of sale of liquor in Delhi. Again this fact is a crucial one as inspecting team member were not even aware about their roles and the assignment given and this certainly leads to doubt in the inspection report.
24) Another reason for not placing much reliance on the inspection report is that in view of the abovediscussion it is came on record that there was no inspection on 12.09.1995 being admitted by two of the inspecting team members. However the inspection report Ex.PW2/A, mentions that "as per the inspection conducted on 12.09.1995" the report is prepared. If there was no inspection on 12.09.1995, how could a report be prepared for inspection of that day. This reveals that this report is contrary to the facts as to the inspection as proved on record.
25) Another relevant fact which is required to be discussed at this stage is that no order of Commissioner of Excise has been proved on record thereby forming any team to conduct the inspection. The complainant is not a private individual rather a government institution. Four government servants are leaving the station for inspection at a place which was around 500 km from Delhi without any order of superior authority is not believable. That order of the Excise Commissioner thereby authorizing any inspection/raid at the distillery would have been a corroborating evidence for the prosecution as to the alleged inspection. It is beyond comprehension as to why this important document has been withhold by the prosecution.
26) Ancillary to the above facts is the fact that there is no other documentary evidence also as to the alleged inspection by four government officials. It was admitted by inspecting team member that the local police was not informed nor the local excise office. There is no signature on the report or any proceedings as to the inspection of any official of the accused company/distillery to show that any inspection was ever conducted. There is no statement of local excise officers or local police officers or any other independent witness that the inspection was conducted at a particular place at a particular time. There is nothing on record as to the claim of any TA/DA by inspecting team members as to their expenses on inspection. No record of the hotel/guest house proved on record that the inspecting team members visited a particular hotel on particular day. Merely because PW2 to PW4 are government officers no extra sanctity could be given to their testimony. It seems that inspection report was prepared without any inspection while sitting in the office. It is trite that in criminal law everything is to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. In view of the abovediscussion and the material contradictions which cropped up in the testimony of inspecting team members as to the date, time and the place of stay during the inspection the alleged inspection in itself is not proved. If inspection is not proved than it is not proved that there was no sale of liquor and as such nothing remains qua the offence of cheating, preparation of false documents and other consequent alleged offences.
27) To sum up following facts came on record:
a) Ex.PW3/A is not a reliable document and the same cannot be read in evidence;
b) Ex.P7 proved to have signatures of PW11 and this fact is against the case of the prosecution;
c) Inspection report Ex.PW2/A is not trustworthy document;
d) It is not proved beyond reasonable doubts that any inspection was conducted.
e) There is no conclusive proof on record that the sale figures as cited while moving the application for renewal of license were false. If sale figures are not proved to be false than none of the document annexed with the application for renewal of license could be said to be containing wrong information and it cannot be said that any deception was caused due to that information. No offence of cheating or forgery or using forged documents for the purpose of cheating and genuine made out. No offence U/s 420/468/471 IPC made out.
f) Consequent to the above cannot be said that any false statement was made in the declaration before a public servant or a false declaration was corruplty used as genuine. No offence U/s 199/200 IPC is made out.
g) Since none of the main offences is made out the ancillary offence of criminal conspiracy to commit the abovementioned main offences conseqently not proved. Thus the offence U/s 120B IPC is also not made out.
28) It is well settled law that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof and there is huge difference between something that 'may be proved' and 'will be proved'. In criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. The large gap between ' may be true' and 'must be true', must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution before the accused could be condemned as convict. Reliance could be place upon Judgments titled as Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & anr. Vs State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622; Subhash Chand Vs State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 702; Ashish Batham vs State of MP AIR 2002 SC 3206; Narendera Singh & Anr Vs State of MP., AIR 2004 SC3249; State through CBI Vs Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017; and Ramesh Harijan Vs State of U.P AIR 2012 SC 1979.
29) In view of above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, accused persons are hereby acquitted of the charges framed in the present case. File be consigned to record room subject to compliance of section 437 A Cr.PC.
Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2019.08.29
15:14:48 +0530
Announced in open court (Kapil Kumar)
on 29.08.2019 MM5/Central District
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi,