Delhi District Court
State vs . Yash Pal Goel & Anr. on 27 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHETNA SINGH:ACMM-02
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. Yash Pal Goel & Anr.
FIR No. 267/95
New Case No. 293673/16
U/s : 468/120B IPC & Section 50 of Sales Tax
P.S. : Lahori Gate
Date of Institution : 10.09.1997
Date on which case reserved for Judgment : 27.06.2018
Date of judgment : 27.06.2018
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 267/95
2.Date of the Commission : During November 1995
of the offence
3.Name of Complainant : SI Om Prakash
4.Name of the accused : Yash Pal Goel
S/o Late Sh. Nanu Ram Goel
R/o H. No. RZ 138-39, T Extension,
Viswas Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi-
110059.
2. Gian Chand
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass
R/o BC-10, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-
110034.
5.Offence complained of : Section 468/120 IPC & 50 of Delhi
FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 1/23
Sales Tax.
6.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Acquitted
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that during November 1995 or there about accused Yash Pal Goel alongwith co-accused Gian Chand entered into criminal conspiracy and prepared forged sales Tax Forms for cheating Govt. and pursuant to which forged sales tax forms were prepared out of which, 72 sales tax forms were recovered from their possession on 09.11.1995 at bout 07:00 PM at H. No. 1897, Kucha Challan Khari Bawli, Delhi and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 468 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and accused persons were also found in possession of fake sales tax Form and committed offence punishable under Section 50 of Delhi Sales Tax.
2. On the basis of the chargesheet, charges of offences under section 468/120 IPC and Section 50 of Sales Tax were framed against both accused persons namely Yash Pal Goel and Gian Chand and the charges were duly explained to them in vernacular to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 25.09.2000. Thus, the matter was put to FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 2/23 trial.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
3. In order to prove the above said allegations against the accused, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in total.
4. PW-1 HC Ravinder deposed that on 09.11.1995 he and inspector Satish Yadav, SI Om Prakash and HC Om Prakash, HC Shiv Kumar, Ct. Pradeep Kumar were present at Khari Bawli at about 04:00 PM. They received an information that sales tax forms are being sold at Khari Bawli at 1857, Kucha Challan Khari Bawli, Delhi. Thereafter, he was made a decoy customer and HC Om Prakash was made a shadow witness. SI Om Prakash has given him 6 currency notes of Rs. 100/- each and asked to purchase the sales tax forms from accused Yash Pal Goel. He came to know that the charges Rs. 300/- to Rs. 500/- for one Form. He alongwith Om Prakash reached at the above said address and met with accused and asked for two sales tax form i.e. one C Form and another ST 35 and accused demanded Rs. 600/- in consideration of those forms. He gave Rs. 600/- to accused Yash Pal Goel and accused delivered the above said forms to him. At the same time, HC Om Prakash FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 3/23 gave a signal to the police party and all the police party reached there and apprehended accused and the forms were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A bearing his signature at point A. Above said currency notes were recovered from accused and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at point A. Accused Yash Pal Goel was interrogated and 72 form from his almirah were recovered and the same were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, SI Om Prakash prepared a rukka and he took the same to PS and got case registered and copy of FIR and original rukka handed over to him vide Ex. PW1/D bearing his signature at point A. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel, however his cross examination is not being repeated for sake of brevity.
5. PW-2 Sh. Shankar Tiwari, Retd. Sales Tax Officer deposed that on 21.11.1996, he was posted as Sales Tax Officer with Sales Tax Department. On that day, on request of IO, he after verifying the records of M/s Jyoti Trading Company having registration No. LC/10/15070/0192 have handed the verified copies to IO of Central as well as Local Sales Tax office which were duly attested by him which is Ex. PW2/A and Ex. FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 4/23 PW2/B bearing his signatures at point A respectively. He further deposed that the registration certificate of the said Firm was cancelled w.e.f. 31.01.1995.
This witness was not cross-examined by the defence despite opportunity given.
6. PW-3 HC Om Prakash deposed that on 09.11.1995, he was posted as HC in Tax Fraud Section, Crime Branch Delhi and on that day he joined the investigation of the present case alongwith Inspector Satish Yadav, SI Om Prakash, HC Ashok Kumar, Ct. Ravinder and Ct Pradeep. On the said day, SI Om Prakash received secret information that accused persons were indulging in sale of unauthorized ST-35/C-Forms from office at 1897 Kucha Challan, Khari Bawli, Delhi on heavy premium. After receiving the said information, a raiding party was constituted and reached office at Khari Bawli at 04:00 PM. Thereafter, Ct. Ravinder was made a decoy customer and HC Om Prakash was made a shadow witness and the said information was reduced in writing by SI Om Prakash vide memo Ex. PW3/A bearing his signatures at point X and currency was handed over to decoy customer Ct. Ravinder. Before handing over of the said currency, his formal search was conducted and FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 5/23 thereafter 6 notes of Rs. 100/- denomination each were handed over to him. Both the decoy customer and shadow witness approached accused to make a deal when accused were sitting in office cum bed room and were asked about the rate of the paper and accused told them that the rate of each paper is Rs. 300/- and on negotiations agreed to sell two forms, one ST -35 and another C-Form to Ct. Ravinder for a total consideration of Rs. 600/-. Thereafter, on signal given by the shadow witness i.e. HC Om Prakash to the raiding party, office was raided and various other C-Forms and ST -35 were recovered from Almirah and the currency notes handed over to purchase the said forms were recovered from accused Yash Pal Goel's left side pocket of his shirt. Apart from these forms, 30 rubber stamps having impression of Delhi Sales Tax Officer were recovered from under bed. The two forms purchased by Ct. Ravinder were seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW1/A and 72 other forms were seized vide memo Ex. PW1/C. The recovered seals were seized vide memo Ex. PW3/B and the currency notes were sealed with the seal of OPK. Thereafter, a rukka was prepared and handed over to Ct. Ravinder for registration of the case and the present case FIR was registered and after the copy of FIR was received back. Accused Yash Pal Goel was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 6/23 memo Ex. PW3/C. On that day, accused Gian Chand already arrested by P.S. Lahori Gate in case FIR No. 92/97 was formally arrested in the instant case and his disclosure statement was recorded in his presence vide memo Ex. PW3/E bearing his signature at point X. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel, however his cross examination is not being repeated for sake of brevity.
7. PW-4 HC Manohar Lal deposed that on 28.03.1997 he was posted with Crime Branch and joined investigation in the present case. He correctly identified accused Gian Chand in the court and deposed that accused was arrested in case FIR No. 92/97 and made disclosure statement regarding his involvement in the present case which was recorded by SI S.S. Rathee which is Ex. PW3/E bearing his signature at point A. This witness was cross-examined by Defence, however his cross examination is not being repeated for sake of brevity.
8. PW-5 HC Kirpal Singh deposed that on 09.11.1995 he was posted as duty officer at Lahori Gate and on receiving rukka from Ct. Ravinder Kumar he registered the present case FIR. Copy of the same is FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 7/23 Ex. PW5/A and endorsement on the rukka is Ex. PW5/B. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel, however his cross examination is not being repeated for sake of brevity.
9. PW-6 Sh. Kalyan Singh deposed that in the year 1995-96, he was posted as Assistant Sales Tax Officer and he joined the investigation with IO SI Om Prakash on 17.01.1996 and on demand of the IO he handed over the documents in connection with firm M/s Ranjeet Electronics including the issue sheet of Form ST-35 and also form ST-1 where details of Form ST-35 and ST-1 issued to M/s Ranjeet Electronics have been mentioned which are Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW6/B respectively and which were taken into possession by the IO vide memo Ex. PW6/C. He also produced the original records regarding registration certificate of M/s Ranjeet Electronics which are Ex. PW6/D and Ex. PW6/E respectively.
This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel, however his cross examination is not being repeated for sake of brevity.
10. PW-7 Sh. D.P. Verma deposed that on 12.01.1996 he had given details report to the IO in respect of C-Form No. 02V181593, FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 8/23 029467, 029468, 029469 and 029470 which are marked as Q1, Q4, Q5, Q2 and Q3. As per the said records, the detailed report Ex. PW7/A was prepared and the forwarding letter Ex. PW7/B was sent to Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch. The relevant entries at the original issue register are at page No. 132 and 246 which is Ex. P1 (colly).
This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel, however his cross examination is not being repeated for sake of brevity.
11. PW-8 Sh. P.P. Grover deposed that in the year 1993, he was running an Oil Company in the name and Style of M/s Grover Oil Pvt. Ltd., Bari Brahmana, Industrial Complex, Jammu. During the said year, he made purchasing of oil from M/s Jyoti Trading Co., Frashkhana, Delhi vide bill No. 152 dated 13.02.1993 No. 153 dated 13.02.1993, bill No. 154 dated 26.02.1993 and Bill No. 156 dated 27.02.1993. All these purchasing were made against C-Forms and after making the purchase he handed over four C-Forms bearing No. 029467 to 029470 to the firm in lieu of the said purchase. In the year 1996, police officials from Delhi Police made inquiries from him in respect of the above facts and he confirm the same in him letter dated 30.10.1996 which is Ex. 8/A bears FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 9/23 my signature at point A. He also handed over the photocopy of the counterfoils of the C-form to the police and the same are Ex. PW8/B to Ex. PW8/E. The photocopies of the bills are Ex. PW8/F to Ex. PW8/I. The original C-Forms are Ex. PW8/J to Ex. PW8/M bearing his signature at point X. This witness was not cross-examined by the defence despite opportunity given.
12. PW-9 Sh. Ejaz-Iqbal deposed that on 04.03.1996, he was posted as Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax Head quarters J&K, Jammu. On that day, in pursuance of the letter of Sh. S.S. Maan, Asst. Commissioner of Police, EOW with respect to the verifications of supply of C-Forms No. 02V 181593, 029467, 029468, 029469 and 029470. The photocopy of bills of M/s Grover Oil Pvt. Ltd. are already Ex. PW8/F to Ex. PW8/I and Amar Roller is Ex.PW9/A. These bills were provided to investigating agency under his letter No. 90-ST/4270/CST dated 04.03.1996 and the said letter is Ex. PW9/B which bears his signature at point A. The utilization register is Ex. P1.
This witness was not cross-examined by the defence despite opportunity given.
FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 10/23
13. PW-10 Retd. ACP Sh. Sukhvir Singh Rathee deposed that from the year 1995 to 2000, he was posted as SI/Inspector in Crime Branch, Delhi. In the year 1996, the investigation of present case was assigned to him. During investigation, he received a letter sent by Grover Oils Pvt. Ltd. to The C.P. Delhi which is already Ex. PW8/A. He had received the sanction order given by Baleshwar Rai, Commissioner of Sale Tax and filed the same before the court which is Mark S. On 28.03.1997, he arrested accused Gian Chand and recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex. PW3/E bearing his signature at point C. He correctly identified accused Gian Chand in the court.
This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel, however his cross examination is not being repeated for sake of brevity.
14. PW-11 Sh. Balwant Singh deposed that in the year 1995, he was posted as STO in Ward No.84, I.P. Estate, New Delh. In the month of December, 1995, he handed over photocopy of documents to IO and IO seized the same vide memo Ex. PW11/A bearing his signature at point A. The documents i.e. Registration Certificate in the name of M/s Aarti Enterprises which he handed over to IO is Mark 11/A (colly).
This witness was not cross-examined by the defence despite FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 11/23 opportunity given.
15. As 11 witnesses were examined in total by the prosecution, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 08.05.2018. Statement of the accused persons U/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded on 22.05.2018 and as no defence evidence was lead, matter was listed for final arguments. Final arguments were heard on 26.06.2018.
16. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
REASONS FOR DECISION
17. In order to prove its case, the prosecution was required to examine 17 witnesses in total out of which only 11 witnesses have been examined. The complainant in the present matter is SI Om Prakash who has been examined as PW-3. The main allegation of the prosecution against the accused Yash Pal Goel is that he cheated the Government by forging Sales Tax Form and 72 Forged sales forms were recovered from his possession on 09.11.1995. It is further alleged that accused Yash Pal Goel was found in possession a fake Sales Tax forms. He also FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 12/23 committed an offence punishable under Section 50 of Delhi Sales Tax Act. As against accused Gian Chand, it has been alleged that he entered into a conspiracy with accused Yash Pal Goel for preparation of forged sales tax forms and thus committed offence punishable under Section 468/120B of IPC as well as offence punishable under Section 50 of Delhi Sales Tax Act.
18. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined PW-3 HC Om Prakash as the complainant who was examined in chief as he was a member of the raiding party which was formed on the basis of the secret information received against the accused Yash Pal Goal who was indulged in sale of unauthorized sales tax form i.e. 35-C Forms at his office situated at Kharibawli. The details of the raid conducted have been mentioned in the examination in chief of PW-3 and the same are not required to be mentioned here for the sake of brevity. It is primarily deposed that accused Yash Pal Goel handed over forged sales tax forms to the decoy customer and was apprehended by his office and thereafter 72 other forms were recovered as per seizure memo Ex. PW1/C hence were also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW3/B and currency notes recovered from the possession of the accused were seized vide FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 13/23 memo Ex. PW1/B and sealed with the seal of OPK.
19. As regards the other accused namely Gian Chand, this witness has merely stated that accused Gian Chand has made a disclosure statement in case FIR No. 92/97 and was formally arrested in the present case on the basis of his disclosure statement Ex. PW3/E. As far as accused Gian Chand is concerned, PW-3 and PW-4 merely stated that his disclosure statement was recorded after his arrest in case FIR NO. 92/97. It is a matter of record that no recovery was affected in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by accused Gian Chand. On perusal of testimony of PW-5 reveals that he was the duty officer who recorded the present case FIR.
20. PW-1 HC Ravinder was a member of the raiding team who was examined in chief however his examination was deferred and thereafter he was never examined further. Even through, on 10.09.2008, PW-1 HC Ravinder was recalled for further examination in chief however he was straightaway cross examined and it is clear that his entire testimony could not recorded. Thus, the testimony of this witness cannot be relied upon. The main case of the prosecution is that the raiding party FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 14/23 was constituted for a raid to be conducted in the area of Kharibawli. There is no explanation on record as to why no public witness were examined or joined into investigation despite the area of Kharibawli being a heavily crowded area. There is no evidence on record what so ever that any notice were given to any neighbouring shopkeepers etc. for joining investigation as public witness.
21. It is a settled law that the failure to join public witness in case of recovery on the basis of secret information can prove fatal to the case of the prosecution.
22. In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi V/s State, 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop-keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 15/23 later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC''.
23. Roop Chand V/s The State of Haryana,1999 (1) C.L.R 69, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:-
"It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. 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 the fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 16/23 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 non- joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful''.
24. On perusal of the testimony of all the witnesses on record reveals that except from the disclosure statement of accused Gian Chand there is no other evidence on record to prove that he was responsible for forging the Sales Tax Forms in conspiracy with accused Yash Pal Goel, recovery if any has been made from accused Yash Pal Goel and accused Gian Chand was arrested merely on the basis of his disclosure statement as stated by PW-10 Retd. ACP Sukhbir Singh. There is no other evidence of conspiracy under Section 120B of IPC. The law with regard to proving conspiracy is clear.
25. The offence of criminal conspiracy is statutorily defined under Section 120A IPC. Section 120A IPC is reproduced herein for ready reference:-
Section 120A Definition of Criminal Conspiracy- "When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done-FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 17/23
(1) an illegal act, or (2) An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy;
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. "
26. The necessary ingredients required to bring home charge for commission of offence of criminal conspiracy are enlisted herein as under:-
(A) That there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire:
(B) That the agreement should be: (i) for doing of an illegal act, or (ii) for doing by illegal means an act which may not itself be illegal.
27. Thus, it is necessary to analyse the prosecution evidence with respect to the above said ingredients.
(A) Agreement between parties The gist of the offence of conspiracy is an agreement to break the law. To constitute conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing illegal act or an act by illegal means is the first and primary FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 18/23 condition. The existence of an unlawful agreement is the sine qua non for commission of offence of criminal conspiracy.
However, it is a settled proposition of law that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness. Direct evidence for the offence of conspiracy is seldom forthcoming.
28. Coleridge, J. while summing up the case to the jury in R Vs Murphy (1873) 173 ER 502 states:
"...... although the common design is the root of the charge, it is not necessary to prove that these two parties came together and actually agreed in terms to have this common design and to pursue it by common means, and so to carry it into execution. This is not necessary, because in many cases of the most clearly established conspiracies there are no means of proving any such thing, and neither law nor common sense requires that it should be proved. If you find that these two persons pursued by their acts the same object, often by the same means, one performing one part of an act, and the other another part of the same act, so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the object which they were pursuing, you will be at liberty to draw the conclusion that they have been engaged in a conspiracy to effect FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 19/23 that object. The question you have to ask yourselves is, had they this common design, and did they pursue it by these common means- the design being unlawful?"
29. Thus, considering the above case laws, it is clear that a perusal of the record of the entire case no where reveals that accused Gian Chand conspired with the accused Yash Pal Goel as alleged by the prosecution and thus none of the ingredients to prove offence under Section 120B of IPC qua accused Gian Chand have been proved. There is no iota of evidence of both accused conspiring with each other.
30. It is also alleged that accused Gian Chand and accused Yash Pal Goel committed forgery of Sales Tax Forms which was recovered from accused Yash Pal Goel.
31. In order to prove offence under Section 468 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients:-
1. That the document is a forgery;
2. That the accused forged the document;
3. That he did as above intending that the forged document would be used for the purpose of cheating.FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 20/23
32. It is clear from the bare perusal of the above mentioned ingredients that the prosecution has not examined any witness to prove that the recovered Sales Tax Forms from accused Yash Pal Goel were forged or that accused Yash Pal Goel was the persons who had forged the said forms. It has also not been proved that the said allegedly forged Sales Tax Forms were used by either of the accused persons for the purpose of cheating. Thus, it is clear that none of the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC have been proved against either of the accused namely Yash Pal Goel and Gian Chand.
33. Even the alleged recovery from accused Yash Pal Goel have not been proved by the prosecution as the original Sales Tax records was not traceable and despite repeated issuance of process by this court the said records was not found traceable as per a written report filed by Assistant Commissioner VAT.
34. Another factor which proved fatal to the case of prosecution is that the main IO being SI Om Prakash has not been examined who effected the recovery and received the secret information. The IO who filed the challan has neither been cited as a witness nor examined by the FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 21/23 prosecution. All the documents exhibited on record were prepared by SI Om Prakash who has not been examined and hence all the said documents remain unproved as their executor could not be examined.
35. Thus, it is clear from the above mentioned observations that none of the witnesses have been able to prove the allegations of forgery or criminal conspiracy against the either of the accused. Material witnesses have not been examined and the main record has not been traced out. The case of the prosecution remains unproved and hence both the accused persons are required to be given the benefit of doubt.
36. It has been held in case of Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55 the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court :-
"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."
37. Thus considering the above mentioned reasons, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 22/23 Thus, none of the ingredients of Section 468/120B IPC and Section 50 of Sales Tax Act have been fulfilled by the prosecution and thus accused persons are required to be acquitted. Hence, accused Yash Pal Goel and Gian Chand are acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 468/120B IPC and Section 50 of Sales Tax Act.
38. Ordered accordingly.
CHETNA Digitally signed by CHETNA
SINGH
Announced in the open SINGH Date: 2018.06.29 16:38:16 +0530
Court on 27.06.2018
(Chetna Singh)
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Central/Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.06.2018 FIR No. 267/95 State Vs Yash Pal Goel PS: Lahori Gate Page No. 23/23