Delhi District Court
In Re vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 13 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MR. DHARMESH SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 82/2020
CNR No. DLWT01-001620-2020
In re:
Munish Kumar Gaur
S/o N. R. Sharma
R/o BA-8H, DDA Flats
Munirka, New Delhi-110070. .... Petitioner/Revisionist/Accused
Versus
1. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through SHO, PS Hari Nagar
2. Smt. Swapna Karve
D/o Sh. V. M. Karve
R/o 1080/43, DDA Flat
Kalkaji, New Delhi. ...... Respondents
Date of Institution : 27.02.2020
Date of hearing arguments : 25.11.2021
Date of order : 13.12.2021
Appearances:
Sh. Divya Darshan Sharma and Sh. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Advocates for the
petitioner/revisionist/accused.
Sh. Atul Kumar Shrivastava, Addl. PP for the State / respondent no.1.
Sh. Ramji Pandey, Sh. S. B. Shaily and Sh. Vivek Kumar, Advocates for
the respondent no.2 / complainant.
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Petition Under Section 397 read with Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by CR No. 82/20 M. K. Gaur vs. State & Anr. Page 1 of 16 the petitioner/revisionist assailing the order on charge dated 18.01.2020 passed against him by the Court of Ms. Sonam Gupta, Ld. MM (Mahila Court -02), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (in short, 'Ld. MM') in FIR No.200/2018 u/s 354A/506/509 of IPC PS Hari Nagar, New Delhi, in the case titled 'State vs. M. K. Gaur & Another'.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. In a nutshell, the complainant, who is referred as Ms. 'X' to protect her identity, lodged a complaint dated 16.04.2018 with SHO PS Hari Nagar, Delhi, which reads as under:-
"To The SHO Police Station Hari Nagar Delhi Sub:-Harassment by Sh.M.K.Gaur Joint Labour Commissioner South west District And Sh.H.N.Singh ALC. Respected Sir, I Swapna Karve working as a contract staff in DBOCWWB. prior to south west district I have worked in DBOCWWB office Civil Lines and South District Pushpa Bhawan Delhi. on 1/11/17 I was transferred to South west District Hari Nagar Delhi. Since 27/12/2017 to 10/2/2018 I am doing renewal of construction workers, in between several times I was called by joint labour commissioner and assistant labour commissioner in their rooms and was instructed to cancel all the renewal cards of construction workers. When I said will do according to DBOCWWB rules 2002 then they threatened.
Several times Mr.M.K.Gaur asked me to stay late in office when I refused he used very abusive language. I am raising my voice against M.K.Gaur and H.N.Singh on below mentioned points.
1. Mental harassment:- M.K.Gaur and H.N.Singh are mentally harassing me without any appropriate reason.
2. Derogatory remarks:- He started talking me in disrespectful and started insulting me with abusive languages.CR No. 82/20 M. K. Gaur vs. State & Anr. Page 2 of 16
3. Intimidation:- He deliberately frightened me to do what I did not want. He tried to touch me.
4. Threats:- He said me to call him on Saturday and Sunday to fix a meeting outside office when I did not call him on Saturday and Sunday then on Monday he threatened me that if you want to continue in this job then you have to support me and full fill all his sexual desires. I am so disgusted .
5. Using abusive language:- whenever M.K.Gaur called me in his chamber he used very abusive language. He did not maintain the dignity of a woman.
6. Telling offensive jokes:- After calling me in his chamber he used to pass offensive and double meaning jokes to lure me.
7. Bullying:- He is misusing his power. He openly says no body can do anything for me as I am more powerful.
8. Uncomfortable workplace:- South west district Headed by M.K.Gaur and H.N.Singh is very much uncomfortable specially for ladies. As they are not human. They treat as animal and they want to blackmail ladies and girls.
I am very much frightened they have threatened us that if I do not support them, then M.K.Gaur and H.N.Singh will hire goons for acid attack and gang rape. I am writing this letter because M.K.Gaur and H.N.Singh needs proper punishment for their activities. one my colleague Bhawana Mishra has also lodged a complaint but after making pressure on her they have withdrawn her complain(may be) Please do justice with me. Please register my F.I.R against M.K.Gaur Joint Labour Commissioner and H.N.Singh Assistant Labour Commissioner.
Regards 'X'"
3. On the basis of the said complaint, a preliminary inquiry was conducted and the present FIR No. 200/18 was lodged on 27.04.2018 u/s 354A/506/509 IPC and on the completion of investigation, final police report was filed before the Court on 12.03.2019 upon which cognizance of offence was taken and appellant CR No. 82/20 M. K. Gaur vs. State & Anr. Page 3 of 16 was summoned along with the co-accused H.N.Singh. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld. MM vide impugned order dated 18.01.2020 passed the following order :-
"Allegations levelled against the accused persons are that the accused persons are seniors of complainant in her office i.e. Labour Court, Hari Nagar, Delhi, when complainant joined there office as a Contract staff, accused persons asked her to cancel the renewal cards of construction worker but complainant said that she will do as per rules and regulations of DBOCWWB Rules 2002, on this accused persons got angry and they started harassing and threatening her daily. It is further alleged that the accused M. K. Gaur used to call her in his chamber, make calls to her on holidays, asked her to work on holidays and demanded sexual favours from her. It is further alleged that the accused persons used to mentally harass the complainant by criminally intimidating her and saying that they will get her killed or throw acid on her face and by insulting her proficiency and abusing her. It is further alleged that when complainant got fed up, she made a complainant at PS Hari Nagar and got her FIR registered. The said allegations have also been reiterated in the statement of the victim recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. the counsel for the accused persons have sought to rely on the report of the internal committee dated 07.12.2018 w.r.t. the allegations of sexual harassment levelled by the complainant against the accused, which has also been filed on behalf of IO today and which gave a clean chit to the accused herein, however, I am of the view that at this stage, where a commission of prima facie offence has to be seen, the said report does not help the accused persons."
4. Accordingly, the Ld. MM vide impugned order dated 18.01.2020 framed the charge against the accused Munish Kumar Gaur @ M. K. Gaur u/s. 354A/506/509 IPC whereas charges were framed against the accused H. N. Singh @ Hari Narayan Singh u/s. 506/509 IPC, which order is assailed by the former in the present criminal revision.
CR No. 82/20 M. K. Gaur vs. State & Anr. Page 4 of 16GROUNDS FOR CRIMINAL REVISION
5. The impugned order on charge dated 18.01.2020 passed by the Ld. MM is assailed in the present criminal revision petition inter alia on the grounds that the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that the petitioner has been performing quasi-judicial functions holding Courts under several labour laws and retired from the post of Joint Labour Commissioner, Group A Class-I Gazetted Officer after rendering 39 years of unblemished service carrear. It is stated that Ms. 'X' was appointed as PA to the then Secretary, Delhi Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board (in short, "DBOCWW Board') as a contract employee at the age of 56 years through the outsourced agency viz., M/s. ICSIL and she was transferred on charges of corruption from South District to South West District vide order dated 31.10.2017 and took charge on 01.11.2017; and that the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that the allegations were levelled by respondent no.2 / complainant only after a poor performance report was prepared by the then A.L.C on 02.04.2018 and sent to the DBOCWW Board on 03.04.2018 and it is only when an order dated 23.04.2018 was issued under the signature of Mr. H. N. Singh, Assistant Labour Commissioner thereby relieving the respondent no.2 to join her duties in the DBOCWW Board, that she raised hue and cry by writing on the relieving order itself that "what reason Sh.H.N. Singh, ALC relieving me w.e.f. ?, unless and until I am not getting the reason I will not handover my responsibility to any other staff".
6. The impugned order is further assailed on the ground that the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that the complaint vide DD No. 54B was CR No. 82/20 M. K. Gaur vs. State & Anr. Page 5 of 16 lodged with PS Hari Nagar on 16.04.2018 and the FIR was registered after a delay of 11 days bearing No. 200/2018 dated 27.04.2018; and that the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that a Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Working Women at Work Place (ICC) was constituted vide order dated 02.05.2018 and the Committee examined as many as eight witnesses and ultimately, the ICC vide detailed report dated 07.12.2018 rejected all the allegations and ordered that none of the four charges are sustainable on account of the following reasons :-
"(i) The complaint seems to be an afterthought, may be due to fear of losing her job, since her performance report was not up to the mark.
(ii) On her complaint dated 04/03/2018 and 07/03/2018 she did not make any mention of sexual harassment by the respondent. Therefore, it seems to be afterthought.
(iii) As per rule the complainant should provide factual statements, date, time and place of incident in chronological order whether small or shameful to establish the sequence of incidents which affects the victim. She failed to mention the date and time over and above that she could not prove about the phone calls of the respondent inviting her to meet outside the office, since she did not have his phone number in her mobile.
(iv) Regarding allegation of threat of acid throwing and gang rape, when questioned by the committee, her reply was that the respondent did not tell her directly but she overheard him talking to someone on the phone. This allegation also does not stand.
(v) Regarding the lewd remarks made by the respondent to the aggrieved women, the committee unanimously felt that the circumstantial evidence does not prove any such situation or allegation."
7. It is further stated that after submission of the inquiry report by the ICC as per provisions of Section 13 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (in short, 'SHWWP Act), no appeal was preferred by the respondent no.2 / complainant; and hence the impugned order on CR No. 82/20 M. K. Gaur vs. State & Anr. Page 6 of 16 charge has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and would abuse the process of law, causing undue harassment and anguish to the petitioner / revisionist in facing the trial on such ill-motivated charges.
LEGAL SUBMISSIONS:
8. It was urged by the ld. Counsel for the petitioner / revisionist that the allegations levelled by the respondent no.2 / complainant in her complaint dated 16.04.2018 was by way of an afterthought and malicious to reach a lesson to the petitioner / revisionist in as much as no allegations of sexual harassment was levelled by her in her complaint uploaded on the website of the Public Grievance Monitoring System, GNCTD dated 04.04.2018, which reads as under:
"Mental Harassment by JLC & ALC. My self Swapna Karve working in South West Distt. Since 11 August 2017. Mentally Harassment By the Officers. Every alternate day Officers Called me in their Chambers and humiliating, threatening me and saying that we will surrender you in ICSIL, alone and in front of public. Union and other dignitaries also. Which I told them several times please maintain the decorum of the Office. Do not misbehave in this manner to a lady in the Office Please. Still continuing from January till date. (1) Officers over burdened me like 27th December till 10th February Renewal in window 10.00 am to 1.30 pm and again after to 2.00 pm yo 6.00 pm dealing with all the claims (Maternity, Marriage, Death & Funeral, Pension and Scholarship) which is very difficult for any single person. (2) On 7th March 2018, I sent a mail to HQ about the work allocation. On 9 th March by JLC/ALC work allocated to Board Staff which again not equally divided and again all burden given on my shoulder purposely. (3) We 6 Staff working in South West Dist.. from DBOCWWB. (4) Three staff engaged with JLC & ALC. (5) Three Staff busy in deficiency memo. (6) I am only answerable for PGMs, Workers Bringing Deficiency memo taking out the Claim filed and completing the documents, sending the claim filed to HQ, receiving the files from HQ, whoever bringing any query to higher CR No. 82/20 M. K. Gaur vs. State & Anr. Page 7 of 16 Officers every time I am on my tow. (7) At last, I am doing the work which allocated by Secretary (Board) in November, 2017 but, How my work has not appreciated by JLC/ALC and negative report has sent to HQ (lowest mark given to me in the work performance report, whereas the ____ was has not worked in Board he has got highest marks How & Why? Minimum 5 staff work, I am doing South West District when no manager is here from October then how I am incapable and less mark ____ performance report."
9. The impugned charge framed by the Ld. MM is further assailed on the ground that it is in violation of Section 212 Cr.P.C. in as much as no specific date, time or place of alleged harassment has been indicated in the charge, which is a sweeping one and not enabling the petitioner / revisionist to understand the implications thereof. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner / revisionist relied on the decision in Hari Kishen Sharma vs. State & Anr., Crl. M. C. 692/2014 decided by Hon'ble Judge, High Court of Delhi dated 24.09.2018 and also in the case Bharat vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2019 SCC Online Bombay 1602.
10. Per contra Sh. Ramji Pandey, ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 / complainant urged that the complainant had made categorical assertion against the petitioner / revisionist who was sexually harassing her vide complaint dated 16.04.2018, which was supported by her in statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C during the investigation that prima facie disclose commission of such offences. It was further urged that the documents relied upon by the petitioner / revisionist are in the nature of defence and at this stage extraneous to the consideration of framing of charge, which could only be proved during CR No. 82/20 M. K. Gaur vs. State & Anr. Page 8 of 16 the trial. In this regard, reference was invited to decision in Om Wati & Anr. vs. State & Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 333. He has also vehemently urged that the report of the ICC dated 22.11.2018 cannot be a determining factor to allow the present revision petition in as much as the complainant was not given full opportunity to present case before the ICC and all the Committee members were rather junior to the Delinquent Official / present petitioner.
11. I have heard the rival submissions advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner / revisionist and the Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent no.1 besides Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2/ complainant. I have also perused the records including the Trial Court Record.
DECISION
12. First thing first, it must be indicated that the co-accused Hari Narayan Singh, son of Sh. Lakhmi Singh had also assailed the impugned order on charge in CR No. 48/2020 and this Court vide order dated 05.12.2020 allowed the revision petition and found that the impugned order dated 18.01.2020 was perverse and not in conformity with the law particularly when the complainant had withdrawn her grievance against him, and accordingly the impugned charge u/s. 506/509 IPC against the petitioner therein, namely Hari Narayan Singh was set aside.
13. Secondly, there is substance in the plea of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner / revisionist that the charge under Section 354A r/w Section 506/509 IPC framed vide the impugned order dated 18.01.2020 CR No. 82/20 M. K. Gaur vs. State & Anr. Page 9 of 16 is grossly ambiguous as it is not framed in terms of Section 211 & 212 of the Cr.P.C since it is not indicating the time, date, month or place of alleged commission of offence by the petitioner / revisionist. To that effect, the reliance has been placed on decision for which reliance is placed on decision in Hari Kishen Sharma vs. State(supra). However, the said aspect is a curable error that can be rectified in terms of Section 216 of Cr.P.C.
14. What turns the table against the prosecution case is the main plank of the argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner / revisionist that since the petitioner / revisionist has been exonerated of charges of Sexual Harassment on a complaint filed by respondent by the Internal Complaints Committee (hereinafter referred as the ICC) vide order dated 07.12.2018, there is a serious challenge to the continuance of criminal proceedings on the same accusation against the petitioner/revisionist. It is a matter of record that the ICC conducted detailed quasi judicial proceedings examining as many as three witnesses from the side of respondent no. 2 / complainant as also five witnesses for the petitioner / revisionist and ultimately exonerated the petitioner revisionist.
15. At this juncture, this Court invites reference to the decision in the case titled Radhey Shyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal 2011 (3) SSC 581, wherein a bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court of India discussed the entire gamut of law with regard to effect of discharge of accused in parallel civil proceedings and its consequences in the criminal proceedings / trial in respect of the same CR No. 82/20 M. K. Gaur vs. State & Anr. Page 10 of 16 accusation. It observed that there was some conflict between the views in Standard Chartered Bank (1) [(2006) 4 SCC 278 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 221] and L.R. Melwani [AIR 1970 SC 962 : 1970 Cri LJ 885 :
(1969) 2 SCR 438] holding that adjudication proceedings and criminal proceeding are two independent proceedings and both can go on simultaneously and finding in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the criminal proceeding contrasted with the earlier judgments by the Supreme Court in Uttam Chand [(1982) 2 SCC 543 :
1982 SCC (Tax) 150], G.L. Didwania [1995 Supp (2) SCC 724] and K.C. Builders [(2004) 2 SCC 731 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1092] wherein a view was taken that when there is categorical finding in the adjudication proceedings exonerating the person which is binding and conclusive, the prosecution cannot be allowed to stand. It was held that "the judgments of this Court are not to be read as a statute and when viewed from that angle there does not seem any conflict between the two sets of decisions. It will not make any difference on principle that latter judgments pertain to cases under the Income Tax Act".
16. Accordingly, after examining the law on the subject, the ratio that has been culled out is as under:
(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;
(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;
(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other;
(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;CR No. 82/20 M. K. Gaur vs. State & Anr. Page 11 of 16
(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and
(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.
17. Thus, it was held in Radhey Shyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal (supra) that "the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court".
18. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, reverting back to the instant case, it is significant to consider that the following observations were made by the ICC with regard to the facts coming out of the cross examination of the witnesses :-
(1) The Board staff sits at the 2nd floor of the district. (2) Mrs. Bhavna Mishra stated that the respondent never called her alone and she has not seen Smt. Swapna Karve sitting alone in the chamber of the respondent and there were complaints by union workers CR No. 82/20 M. K. Gaur vs. State & Anr. Page 12 of 16 against her.
(3) Similar statement was given by Sh. Ram Avtar Meena, MTS.
(4) Smt. Asha Sakhuja Steno stated that the room of the JLC has two doors and any one can freely enter any time from any door. She further admitted that JLC has never used any abusive language or asked any female staff to sit after 6:00 p.m. (5) Similar views were expressed by Mrs. Rajni, DEO and Sh. Parveen, DEO during their cross examination. (6) The cross examination of Sh. Parveen, DEO was again conducted by the respondent on 31.08.2018 which is marked at annexure-RWCE wherein he reiterated his earlier statement adding that there were complaints against Smt. Swapna Karve and whenever someone is called by the respondent it is through Sh. Meena MTS and Sh. Ansan, Home Guard.
The respondent cross examined the complainant on 31.08.2018. The cross examination is marked CCE-I. The cross examination revealed the following:-
(1) There were written complaints of union against her in respect of her work and conduct. However on query she replied that she is not aware of complaint by Sh. Sanjay and sh. Mohan Kumar against her. She was also questioned about the video recording of construction worker, sent by a union member regarding examination in respect of construction worker for membership / its renewal, on which she replied that a construction worker could not have video recorded for the length of 7 minutes.
(2) She had earlier made complaint to Secretary (Board) on 04.03.2018 and 07.03.2018 however there was no mention of sexual harassment in those complaints.
(3) She said that she did not mention it as she did not know that it is to be mentioned.
(4) She mentioned that first time the complaint of sexual harassment was made on 16.04.2018 before the Police Authorities.
(5) She did not share sexual harassment details with other five ladies working in the office.
(6) She did not want to discuss reporting system for Board in the district when inquired by the Committee.
(7) She mentioned that the JLC signed first page of registration card for construction worker.
(8) She was not aware of any complaint against her by Sh. Ajay and Sh. Mohan Kumar, Union members.
(9) She was not aware of Labour court being held in Distt. for 3 CR No. 82/20 M. K. Gaur vs. State & Anr. Page 13 of 16 days in a week.
(10) The respondent had asked her several times to meet to meet outside the office in January and February 2018. (11) She also alleged sexual harassment and inappropriate touching.
(12) The complainant could not intimate the dates of 1st harassment stated to have been made somewhere in the month of January and February 2018. She also could not intimate the date of third harassment.
(13) She was not aware of the month she was sexually harassed 2nd time though she said that she was wearing saree and the respondent had used double meaning words. (14) She also alleged that sh. H. N. Singh, ALC called her and told to satisfy Mr. Gaur. She has withdrawn the complaint against sh. H. N. Singh, ALC as to her it was a common complaint of sexual harassment though he asked her to fulfill the desire of Sh. Gaur.
(15) She went to police several times and did not make sexual harassment complaint on 04.04.2018 on PGMS. (16) Police called her on 16.04.2018 telephonically when she gave a statement of sexual harassment in writing. (17) The respondent has used disrespectful language and not derogatory one.
19. At the cost of repetition, the conclusions that were drawn by the ICC in its report have been reflected in paragraph (7) hereinabove and it clearly shows that the ICC found that respondent no. 2 / complainant had made false allegations of sexual harassment by way of afterthought for fear of losing her job as her performance was not up to mark. Shorn of all details, no iota of evidence was found with regard to the allegation to kill and throw acid on her face and for that matter about any lewd remarks against her except that the Committee felt that respondent i.e. petitioner / revisionist often lost temper during the proceedings and perhaps did not have the sensitivity to deal with female employees and it was recommended that Gender Sensitization Program be undertaken and organized at work place including the lady staff so that they able to understand the difference between the sexual harassment and the work related harassment.
CR No. 82/20 M. K. Gaur vs. State & Anr. Page 14 of 1620. A fortiori such decision was made by the ICC on merits and not on technicalities, and therefore, without further ado, the criminal proceedings or the trial against the petitioner / revisionist, based on the same accusations, which have been found to be untrue, cannot be sustained in law. Before parting with this case, the submission of Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 2 / complainant that Smt. Nita Sharma, Chairperson of the ICC was Junior to the petitioner / revisionist cannot be sustained in law as it is no requirement of law that chairperson and /or members in the ICC should be senior in hierarchy than the delinquent official. It is admitted position that no appeal has been filed by the complainant under Section 18 of SHWWP Act. There is not protest in these proceedings either that ICC did not adhere to the principle of natural justice or that she was deprived of the right of cross examination of the delinquent official and / or any other witnesses in any manner. It is pertinent to mention that he final police report in the matter lists of seven witnesses four of whom are police officials, one official from the department with regard to transfer and posting order and apart from the complainant Ms. 'X', there is one more witness, namely Ms. Ruby Neeraj Kumar who was not cited as witness by the complainant in proceedings before the ICC and in any case there is nothing to suggest that she supports the version of the complainant. Lastly, the allegations levelled in the complaint dated 16.04.2018 were not espoused in the complaint lodged by her on 04.04.2018. Hence, there is nothing on the record to cast a cloud on the detailed report by the ICC dated 07.12.2018.
CR No. 82/20 M. K. Gaur vs. State & Anr. Page 15 of 1621. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.01.2020 is hereby set aside. The petitioner/revisionist is set at liberty. He shall execute personal bond-cum-surety bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- in terms of Section 437-A Cr.P.C, which will remain in force for a period of six months from today.
22. A copy of this order be given to the Ld. Counsel for the complainant free of costs. The Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of this order. The criminal revision file be consigned to the record room. Digitally signed by DHARMESH DHARMESH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2021.12.14 22:23:19 +0530 Announced in the open Court (DHARMESH SHARMA) th on 13 December, 2021 Principal District & Sessions Judge (West) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi CR No. 82/20 M. K. Gaur vs. State & Anr. Page 16 of 16