Delhi District Court
State vs Ramnath Ors on 10 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. ARJINDER KAUR,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 06, CENTRAL
DISTRICT TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
FIR NO. 91/2009
PS - CIVIL LINES
U/S - 409 IPC
STATE VS. RAM NATH AND ORS.
JUDGMENT
(a) Criminal Case No. 293490/2016
(b) CNR No. DLCT02- 003946-2016
(c) Date of commission of June 2006 to September 2008
offence
(d) Name of the complainant Sh. Sampat Naik, MLO (HQ)
(e) Name of the accused (1)Ram Nath S/o Sh. Mussadi
person(s), his parentage and Lal R/o Sh. Mussadi Lal R/o residence Mohalla Khatikan, Infront of PS Pilukhwa, PS Pilukwa Distt Ghaziabad, UP. (Present address) Houseno. 5/7, Gajjukatra, MB Marg, Delhi Gate Shahdara, Delhi-32.
(2) Munish Mann S/o Sh. Lae Sh. Balbir Singh Mann, R/o H.No. 371, Prahladpur, Bawana, Distt, Outer Delhi, Delhi.
(3) Bhupender Malik, S/o Sh.
Ram Malik, R/o H.No. 125, PO Buana Lakhu, PS Ishrana, Distt Panipat, Haryana.
(4) Amit Jain S/o Late Sh.
Subhash Chand Jain R/o Qtr no. 316, Delhi Adminstration FIR No. 91/2009 State Vs. Ram Nath and ors. Page no.1-19 MM-06(C)/Central/10.11.2023 Flats, Nimri Colony, Ashok Vihar delhi 52.
(5) Prem Chand S/o Sh. Ram R/o VPO Bhawana Bhahadur Nagar, Ward no. DisttBuland Shahar, (Present address)B-
222 B Block, New Ashok Vihar Nagar, Delhi.
(6) Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh.
Inder Singh R/o Viilage Mungespur, Post Kutubgarh, PS Bawana Delhi.
(f) Offence(s) complained of or Section 409 IPC.
proved
(g) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
(h) Final Order Acquitted
(i) Date of institution of case 29.07.2015 (J) Date of judgement 10.11.2023 FIR No. 91/2009 State Vs. Ram Nath and ors. Page no.2-19 MM-06(C)/Central/10.11.2023 Prosecution story in brief
1. The genesis of the prosecution story is that during the period of June 2006 to September 2008, accused persons being public servant, being employed in the account Branch of Transport Authority in "Transport Department, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, 5/9 Under Hill Road, Delhi-110054, were entrusted with the duty to receive the cash fees from the purchasers of the vehicle and to deposit the same in the Government funds but they received the cash from the purchasers and gave them the copy of receipt, but in computer system, the cash receipts were shown as canceled by accused and thus accused persons kept those cash fees instead of depositing the same in Government funds and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of cash fees which was entrusted to accused persons during their service period at 5/9 Hill Road, Delhi (office of Transport Department) within jurisdiction of PS Civil Lines, and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 409 IPC.
The Charge and Plea of Accused
2. On finding a prima facie case to proceed against the accused persons, all accused were duly summoned. The provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C were duly complied with. Arguments on the point of charge were heard and a formal charge for commission of offence u/s 409 IPC was framed FIR No. 91/2009 State Vs. Ram Nath and ors. Page no.3-19 MM-06(C)/Central/10.11.2023 against accused persons to which the they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Admission/Denial of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C
3. The record transpires that during the course of trial, the accused persons were admitted the cash receipts which were issued to the following persons u/s 294 Cr.PC and the examination of following formal witnesses qua such documents was accordingly dispensed with. Satish Kumar S/o Sh. DharamPal Tuki Ram S/o Late Sh. Sita Ram Atma Ram Virdhi S/o Sh. Bishan ram Virdhi Atarwayami S/o Late Sh. Sardar Singh Aman S/o Sh. Jagdeep Singh.
Pyare lal S/o Dep Karan Ugrasen S/o Mohd Shagir Sanjeev Khatri S/o Sh. Raj Singh Ashok Kumar S/oLate Sh. Budami Baljinder Singh S/o Gurbax Singh Prem Kumar S/o Sh. Amar Nath Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Sher Singh Yadav Satender Mavi S/o Sulkeh Chand Mavi Brijesh Gupta S/o Late Sh. Budhsen Manoj Saini S/o Sh. Ram Kumar Saini KAVV Prasad S/o Satya Narayan Ramnarayan S/o Sh. Hira Singh Narender Sharma S/o Sh. Haridutt sharma Pritam Singh S/o Sh. Safari Ram FIR No. 91/2009 State Vs. Ram Nath and ors. Page no.4-19 MM-06(C)/Central/10.11.2023 Sumit Pal S/o Sh. Durga das Pal Puran Gauri S/o Late Khem Gauri.
Mahesh Kumar S/o Sh. Tejpal.
PradeedpKumar Dahiya S/o Sh. Randhir Singh dahiya Anis Kumar S/o Late Rajeshwar Ram Kishore S/o Mahender Singh Vijay prakash S/o Sh. Siya sharan Narender Kumar S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan Ritest Kumar S/o Sh. Sohan Lal S.S Dubey Navin Santoshi S/o Sh. Prem Narayan Santoshi Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Ram Jha S/o Sh. Jai Kant Jha Praveen Mangala S/o Sh. Bhagwan Swarup. Raj Pal S/o Sh. Prabhu Dayal.
Hari Chand S/o Ram Kishan Narender Kumar S/o Mahender Singh Prabodh Kumar S/o late Sh. Ayodhyaa Prasad Radheshyam Tiwari S/o Bishan Tiwari Sh. Janam Singh S/o Raghunath Singh Vikas Jaiswal S/o Kirishan Jaiswal. Sudhir Aatal S/o Mahender Parvesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Kumar Badri Prasad S/o Sukhram Pushpender S/o Sh. Harbir Singh Gaurav Arora S/o Sh. Harish Arora Badruudhin S/o Mohd Chuttan FIR No. 91/2009 State Vs. Ram Nath and ors. Page no.5-19 MM-06(C)/Central/10.11.2023 Arun Singh Phogat S/o Sh. Pratap Singh Ajman Ali S/o Late Sh. Noor Mohd.
Santosh Kumar Shoukin S/o Sh. Late Sh. Tejram. Witnesses (1) PW Dhawal Singh S/o Sh. Ram Phal Singh and (2) Rajesh S/o Sh. Satish Chand failed to appear despite being summoned through DCP concerned and were therefore dropped from list of witnesses.
Prosecution Evidence
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined following witnesses.
PW1 Sh. Madan Gopa(Formal witness). PW2 Sh.Joydeep Shome(Formal witness). PW3 Inspector Bhupender Kumar (IO). PW4 Sh. AP Gautam EDP Manager (Formal witness). PW5 Sh. N Smapat (Formal witness). PW6 Sh.Joginder Sharma (Formal witness). PW7 Sh. G.L Bundela (Formal witness). PW8 Sh. Bishamber Dayal (Formal witness). PW9 HC Kuljeet (Formal witness).
PW10 retired ASI Surjeet (Formal witness). PW11 Inspector Manish (IO).
PW12 Sh.Partap Chand Jain (Formal witness). PW13 Sh. Charandeep Singh (Formal witness). PW14 Sh.Rajesh Malik (Formal witness). PW15 Sh. Kamal Kumar (Formal witness). PW16 Sh.Rajat Grover (Formal witness). PW17 Sh. Jagdep Singh (Formal witness).
FIR No. 91/2009 State Vs. Ram Nath and ors. Page no.6-19 MM-06(C)/Central/10.11.2023 PW18 Sh.Amit Tyagi (Formal witness). PW19 Sh. Vishal Kumar Bajaj (Formal witness). PW20 ASI Ram Kumar (Formal witness). PW21 Inspector Ganga Ram (2nd IO ).
5. The prosecution also relied on the following pieces of documentary evidence:-
Seizure memo of cash receipt (Ex.PW1/A). Seizure memo of hard disk (Ex.PW3/A). Letter dated 24.12.2009 (Ex. PW-4/B) and letter dated 18.02.2010 (Ex. PW-4/C).
Complaint written of PW5 Sampat (Ex.PW5/A). Copy of FIR (Ex.PW5/B).
Details of the case (Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D).
Notices u/s 91 Cr.PC served upon PW5 (Ex.PW5/E, Ex.PW5/F, Ex.PW5/G and Ex.PW5/H).
Letter written by PW5 (Ex.PW5/J to Ex.PW5/N). Letters written to SHO (Ex.PW5/O and Ex.PW5/). Letter to System Analyst (Ex.PW5/Q). Seizure memo of permit/CF/other fees receipts (Ex.PW5/S). Letter written by PW 6 to SHO PS Civil Lines dated 17.07.2009 (Ex. PW6/A).
Reply to notice u/s 160 & section 91 Cr.P.C by PW-7 G.L. Bundela (Ex. PW-7A, Ex. PW-7B and Ex. PW-7C).
Reply of PW-8 Bishamber Dayal to letter dated 30.07.2009 ( Ex. PW-8/A).
Arrest memos of accused person Ram Nath (Ex. PW-9/A) and personal search memo (Ex. PW-9/B) and disclosure statement (Ex.
FIR No. 91/2009 State Vs. Ram Nath and ors. Page no.7-19 MM-06(C)/Central/10.11.2023 PW-7/C).
Arrest memo of accused Munish (Ex.PW11/G) and personal search (Ex.PW11/L) and personal bail bond ( Ex.PW11/Q). The prosecution sanction u/s 197 Cr.PC of letter dated 10.05.2013 (Ex.PW11/R). Arrest memo of Prem Chand (Ex.PW11/F) and personal search memo (Ex.PW11/K) and personal bail bond (Ex.PW11/R). The prosecution sanction u/s 197 Cr.PC for letter dated 19.03.2013 ( Ex.PW11/S).
Arrest memo of accused Amit Jain (Ex.PW11/E), personal search memo (Ex.PW11/J) and personal bail bond (Ex.PW11/O). The prosecution sanction u/s 197 Cr.PC letter dated 10.05.2013 (Ex.PW11/R).
Arrest memo of accused Bhupender (Ex.PW11/D) and personal search memo (Ex.PW11/J) and personal bail bond (Ex.PW11/N). Arrest memo of accused Rakesh Kumar (Ex.PW11/C) and personal search memo (Ex.PW11/I) and personal bail bond (Ex.PW11/M). PW-11 Inspector Manish (1st IO) made endorsement on complaint (PW-11/A).
PW 11 seized the cash receipts alongwith copy of notice u/s 91 Cr.PC (Ex.PW11/B).
The prosecution sanction u/s 197 Cr.PC for letters dated 19.03.2013 (Ex.PW11/T).
The case property is Ex.P1.
Seized memo of cash receipts alongwith copy of notice u/s 91 Cr.PC (Ex.PW11/B).
Entries made by PW20 in Register No. 19 & 21 (Ex. PW.20/A (OSR) and Ex. PW-20 (OSR).
CFSL report received by PW-21 Inspector Ganga Pal dated FIR No. 91/2009 State Vs. Ram Nath and ors. Page no.8-19 MM-06(C)/Central/10.11.2023 04.10.2013 (Ex.PW-21/ A).
6. All PWs were cross examined by the defence Counsel.
Statement of Accused Persons
7. After prosecution evidence was closed, the statement of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for which incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons but they denied all the allegations and pleaded that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
Defence Evidence
8. The accused persons opted not to lead evidence in defence.
Submissions made by the Prosecution and Defence Counsel
9. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. He stated that there is no evidence to establish that the alleged offence was committed by the accused persons. He argued that none of the prosecution witnesses deposed about involvement of accused persons in the alleged offence. On the force of these arguments, Counsel has prayed that accused should be acquitted.
On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that accused FIR No. 91/2009 State Vs. Ram Nath and ors. Page no.9-19 MM-06(C)/Central/10.11.2023 committed the offence charged. He contended that prosecution's case stands established beyond reasonable doubt.
Legal Benchmarks
10. Before proceeding with the appreciation of evidence, the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence to be borne in mind is, that prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. In order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have and accused is entitled to benefit of reasonable doubts in the prosecution story and any such doubts in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
11. 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 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 FIR No. 91/2009 State Vs. Ram Nath and ors. Page no.10-19 MM-06(C)/Central/10.11.2023 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 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..."
12. The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused was 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 the benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused.
Conclusion after appreciation of Evidence and reasons thereof
13. After due appreciation of the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution, this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving guilt of accused. This opinion of court is based on the following observations drawn by this court after due appreciation of the prosecution evidence.
14. Though the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses FIR No. 91/2009 State Vs. Ram Nath and ors. Page no.11-19 MM-06(C)/Central/10.11.2023 however, none of them minced a word about the culpability of the accused persons. None of the witnesses stated that it was actually the persons accused in this case who committed the alleged offence. The main complainant in this case Sh. N. Sampat Naik was examined as PW5. In his examination-in-chief, he just deposed about the complaints given by him to SHO Civil Lines and the IO and various notices received from and reply given to them. In his cross examination, he clearly stated that he had no personal knowledge about the present case and he lodged the complaint on the direction of transport department. I his cross examination, he further deposed as follows:-
".........In the year 2009, I was posted as MLO, at MLO (HQ), Rajpur Road, Transport Department, Civil Lines, Delhi. I made the complaint to the SHO, PS Civil Lines on 11.06.2009 which is now exhibited as Ex. PW5/A bearing my signature at point A. Consequently, an FIR was registered on 16.09.2009 which is now exhibited as Ex. PW5/B. On 19.06.2009, I sent a letter to SHO, PS Civil Lines regarding details of the case which is now Ex. PW5/C bearing my signature at point A. On 18.06.2009, I sent a letter to SHO, PS Civil Lines regarding details of the case which is now Ex. PW5/D bearing my signature at point A. I received a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C from SHO, Civil Lines on 16.09.2009 which is now exhibited as Ex. PW5/E. I received a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C from IO SI Manish, Civil Lines on 01.02.2010 which is now exhibited as FIR No. 91/2009 State Vs. Ram Nath and ors. Page no.12-19 MM-06(C)/Central/10.11.2023 Ex. PW5/F. I received a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C from IO SI Manish, Civil Lines on 06.12.2010 which is now exhibited as Ex. PW5/G (colly running into 3 pages). I received a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C from IO SI Manish, Civil Lines on 23.06.2009 which is now exhibited as Ex. PW5/H. I received forwarding letter from IO SI Manish, Civil Lines on 04.09.2009 which is now exhibited as Ex. PW5/I. I sent a letter to SHO on 05.01.2010 regarding analysis of exhibits in the present case which is now Ex. PW5/J bearing my signature at point A. I sent a letter to System Analyst, Computer Branch, Transport Department on 09.02.2010 regarding analysis of exhibits in the present case which is now Ex. PW5/K bearing my signature at point A. I sent a letter to Vigilance Officer, Vigilance Branch, Transport Department on 14.12.2010 regarding the present case which is now Ex. PW5/L bearing my signature at point A. I sent a letter to System Analyst, Transport Department on 14.12.2010 regarding the present case which is now Ex. PW5/M bearing my signature at point A. I sent a letter to System Analyst, Transport Department on 18.11.2009 regarding the present case which is now Ex. PW5/N bearing my signature at point A. I sent a letter to SHO on 24.02.2011 regarding the present case which is now Ex. PW5/O bearing my signature at point A. I sent a letter to IO on 10.07.2009 regarding the present case which is now Ex. PW5/P bearing my signature at point A. I sent a letter to System Analyst, Transport Department on 07.07.2009 regarding the present case which is now FIR No. 91/2009 State Vs. Ram Nath and ors. Page no.13-19 MM-06(C)/Central/10.11.2023 Ex. PW5/Q bearing my signature at point A. On 18.07.2009, hard disk of main server of transport department, Delhi which was seized vide seizure memo which is already exhibited as Ex. PW3/A bearing my signature at point B. On 17.06.2009, police seized permit/CF/other fees receipts vide seizure memo which is now exhibited as Ex. PW5/R bearing my signature at point A. On 26.06.2010, police seized original cash receipts vide seizure memo which is now exhibited as Ex.PW5/S bearing my signature at point A. My statement was recorded by the IO at our office.All accused are present in the Court and correctly identified by the witness. XXXXX by Sh. Sandeep Lohra, Ld. Counsel for all the accused.
I had no personal knowledge of the present case. I lodged the complainant in the present case on the direction of transport department. I do not know whether the 23 slips dt. 09/06/2009 and 10/06/2009 were officially passed through my office. On 16/06/2009 I was made a nodal officer in the present case one day before the lodging of the complaint in PS Civil Lines. No training regarding the functioning of computer resources is given in our department. It is correct that a particular password is given for each computer by the computer branch in-charge who was authorized person. The AAO/JAO (revenue) who is to give password of the computer to the counter clerks in our department. There was one password for each authorized person, knowledge of the password is only suppose to be with that person and FIR No. 91/2009 State Vs. Ram Nath and ors. Page no.14-19 MM-06(C)/Central/10.11.2023 the person who has authorized to generate. LDC/UDC (division clerk) provided password to the counter clerks. There is a possibility that creator of the password can also use the same. The computer of our department was not very advanced at that point of time but there was possibility of editing and deleting of the cash receipts in the computer resources. There was no system of online updation of the cash slips at that time (in 2009) in our department. The cash slips were only passed through account department to MLO department. After the registration of vehicle in our department, 2 copies of cash slips were generated. One copy was given to the owner of the registered vehicle and one copy was submitted to MLO department. MLO department use to write "USED" on the cash slip that were passed through our department, it was the routine practice in our department. It is correct that the cash slips on which "USED" was written and that are on record in the present case are passed through our office and collected from our office. It is correct that the fault in the present case was a computer generated fault and not of counter clerk. I do not know whether any official in our department knew about the above said fault or not. It is wrong to suggest that vigilance department made some illegal demands and deny to the said demands led to the inquiry in the present case. It is further wrong to suggest that because of these demand I was made the nodal officer one day before the lodging of the complainant. It is wrong to suggest that the cash slips in the present case were FIR No. 91/2009 State Vs. Ram Nath and ors. Page no.15-19 MM-06(C)/Central/10.11.2023 useless. It is further wrong to suggest that the accused person was framed using these useless cash slips..........".
15. In was infact PW6, Sh. Joginder Sharma, the then Deputy Commissioner Transport who witnessed at time the offence being committed but even he did not depose anything from which it can inferred that the present accused persons committed the alleged offence. Testimony of PW 6 is being re-produced hereunder:-
"..........In the year 2009, I was posted as Dy. Commissioner Transport Raj Pura Civil Lines, Delhi. I also charge of Vigilance Transport, during one of my visits to various sections of the Transport Department , I visited the computer section and there I found that large number of tax receipts were being cancelled, this arose my suspicion and I conducted further physical examination of the records and found that the tax receipts so cancelled were being utilised by giving manual diary no. in another counter in the Accounts Branch. The tax money involved the tax receipts was being misappropriated by the dealing assistant. On further investigation, it was revealed that many more tax receipts were cancelled and the physical copy of the receipts was utilised in the files of the respective vehicles maintained by the MLO, HQ. I come to know that at this modus operandi of misappropriating of tax receipts was going on from the last many years. All the cases of misappropriation was brought in the notice of the FIR No. 91/2009 State Vs. Ram Nath and ors. Page no.16-19 MM-06(C)/Central/10.11.2023 Higher Officials of the Transport Department and their approval for making a complaint to the police. Consequently, FIR was registered in the present case. I had send a letter to SHO, PS Civil Lines regarding misappropriation of government revenue on 17.07.2009 bearing my signature at point A which is now Ex. PW6/A bearing my signature at point A. I remember the name of one of the accused was Prem Chand who was DTC conductor at that time. In May, 2012 I took VRS on health grounds. I can not identify the accused today due to lapse of time. XXXXX by Sh. Sandeep Lohra, Ld. Counsel for all the accused.
Nil, opportunity given..............."
16. Eight public witnesses (PW12 to PW19) were examined the receipts issued to whom were allegedly canceled and used at cash counter. Persual of testimony of PW 12 to PW 19 and the testimony of IO PW11, makes it clear that the purpose for which the fee was deposited by PW 12 to PW PW 19 and receipts were issued was fulfilled. IO/PW19 categorically stated in his cross examination that no complaint was received from any public person. IO/PW19 stated that accused persons used to issue cash receipts to vehicle owner in lieu of collection of fee and after the officials duty hours, the accused persons used to cancel some of the payment receipts on their computer systems and did not deposited the collected amount in the account FIR No. 91/2009 State Vs. Ram Nath and ors. Page no.17-19 MM-06(C)/Central/10.11.2023 branch of STA and appropriated the said amount to themselves for own use. However, none from accounts branch of STA examined to prove any discrepancy in the amount collected and deposited and neither any documentary proof has been furnished by the prosecution to that effect
17. PW 19 also deposed that the computer systems of accused persons were operated only by their personal login ID and password which was given to them by the concerned department for official purpose. However, it has not been proved by the prosecution that the alleged receipts have been generated by which computer system and whether the same was seized or not. The system analyst who had responsibility of smooth working of hardware in the department was Sh. A.P Gautam and he was examined as PW4. He did not depose anything incriminating against the accused persons. He could not state anything which could have linked the accused persons with commission of alleged offences. Also the complainant MLO Sh. Sampat Naik, PW 5 deposed in his cross examination that there was a possibility that creator of password can alsoused the same. He further admitted it to be correct that the fault in the present case was a computer generated fault and not of the counter clerk Conclusion
18. In view of prosecution evidence analysed above, there is FIR No. 91/2009 State Vs. Ram Nath and ors. Page no.18-19 MM-06(C)/Central/10.11.2023 nothing on record to suggest that alleged offences u/s. 409 IPC was committed by accused persons. Hence, I have no hesitation in holding that prosecution has failed miserably to prove guilt of accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. Accused persons, namely (1) Ram Nath, (2) Munish Mann , (3) Bhupender, (4) Amit Jain , (5) Prem Chand and (6) Rakesh Kumar deserve to be acquitted for the charges levelled against them. Ordered accordingly. Announced in the open Court today i.e. on 10.11.2023 .
Digitally signed by ARJINDER KAUR ARJINDER Date:
KAUR 2023.11.10
15:27:40
+0530
(ARJINDER KAUR)
MM-06(C)/THC/Delhi/10.11.2023
FIR No. 91/2009 State Vs. Ram Nath and ors. Page no.19-19
MM-06(C)/Central/10.11.2023