Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak Chaudhary on 20 April, 2026
Page 1 of 16
IN THE COURT OF ASHISH KUMAR MEENA
JMFC-01, SAKET COURT (SOUTH) NEW DELHI.
FIR NO.: 485/2021
U/S: 33/52(2)/58 DELHI EXCISE ACT
PS: FATEHPUR BERI
STATE
VS.
(1). DEEPAK CHOUDHARY, S/O SH. SATBIR,
R/o H. No. A-7, Raju Park, Devli Road, Khanpur, Fatehpur
Beri, New Delhi.
(2). GIRRAJO, W/O SH. SATBIR,
R/o H. No. A-7, Raju Park, Devli Road, Khanpur, Neb
Sarai, New Delhi.
..... ACCUSED PERSONS
1. Sr. No. of the case : 7398/2022
2. The date of offence : 21.11.2021
3. The name of the complainant : Ct. Bijender
4. The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
5. The date of order : 20.04.2026
6. The final order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, Deepak Choudhary ("Accused no.1") is facing trial for the allegations that on 21.11.2021, at about 06:00 p.m., at near Baba Neem Karoli Mandir, Mandi Main Road, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS-Fatehpur Beri, was found Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 485/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Deepak Chaudhary KUMAR MEENA & Anr.
Date:
MEENA 2026.04.20
16:01:28
+0530
Page 2 of 16
carrying illit liquor in vehicle bearing registration no. DL-6SBF- 6305 ("Offending vehicle"), without any licence or permit or pass, thereby accused no.1 has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52/58 Delhi Excise Act.
2. It is also an allegation that Girrajo ("Accused no.2"), being owner of the offending vehicle, allowed co-accused Deepak Choudhary to carry illicit liquor in her vehicle. Thereby, accused no.2 Girrajo has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52 Delhi Excise Act.
3. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO. Consequently, accused persons were summoned after taking cognizance of offence. The accused persons were charged u/s 33/52(2)/58 of the Delhi Excise Act and accordingly, the charges were framed against the accused persons to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined total three witnesses. PW-1 HC Bijender (the then Constable) has deposed that on 21.11.2021, he alongwith Ct. Rajesh, was on area beat patrolling. At about 06:00 PM, when they reached near Baba Neem Karoli Temple, a person on a white scooty was coming from the side of Mandi Village. After seeing them, the person turned his scooty back and tried to flee. By following him, they apprehended the accused. Upon enquiry, the accused did not give any satisfactory answer and disclosed his name as Deepak Chaudhary. There was a groffer bag on the back side of the scooty and a katta was kept at the front footrest of the scooty. Upon searching, they found six petties of desi sharab Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
FIR No: 485/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Deepak Chaudhary 2026.04.20 16:01:32 & Anr. +0530 Page 3 of 16 meant for sale in Haryana only. He did not remember the brand name of the said liquor. There were two petties of English liquor inside the katta. Thereafter, he called the duty officer at PS. IO/HC Maan Singh arrived at the spot, and he handed over the accused along with the case property to the IO. The IO recorded his statement and prepared a Tehrir vide Ex.PW1/A. The IO handed over the Tehrir to Ct. Rajesh for registration of FIR. After registration of the FIR, Ct. Rajesh returned to the spot along with the original Tehrir and copy of the FIR. The IO prepared the site plan at his instance as well as at the instance of Ct. Rajesh vide Ex.PW1/B. The six petties of illicit liquor contained 48 quarters each, totaling 288 quarters, labeled as "Fresh Motta Orange Masaledar Desi Sharab For Sale in Haryana Only." The white katta contained two petties of English liquor, each having 48 quarters, totaling 96 quarter bottles labeled as "Royal Challenge Classic Premium Whisky, For Sale in Haryana Only, 180 ml". One quarter bottle from each petti was taken as a sample. The remaining 282 desi liquor quarter bottles were kept in an orange- colored groffer bag, and its mouth, along with the sample bottles, was tied with white cloth and sealed with the seal of "MS". Similarly, one quarter bottle from each English liquor petti was taken as a sample, and the remaining 96 quarter bottles were kept in a white katta, covered with white cloth and sealed with the seal of "MS". The sample bottles were also sealed with white cloth bearing the seal of "MS". The IO filled FSL Form No. 29 vide Ex. PW1/C. The samples were labeled as serial numbers 1 to 8, the orange groffer bag was labeled as serial no. 1-A, and the white katta as serial no. 1-B. The seizure memo of the illicit liquor vide Ex.PW1/D. The IO also seized the scooty bearing Digitally signed by ASHISH FIR No: 485/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Deepak Chaudhary ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.04.20 16:01:35 +0530 Page 4 of 16 registration no. DL6SBF6305, a white Honda Activa vide Ex.PW1/E. After use, the seal was handed over to Ct. Rajesh. Thereafter, he handed over the case property along with the accused Deepak Chaudhary to IO Maan Singh. It is to be noted that PW-2 HC Rajesh has deposed on the same lines as PW-1 HC Bijender. Both the witnesses were duly cross-examined by the accused persons.
5. PW-2 HC Man Singh (IO of this case) has deposed that on 21.11.2021, he was present at the PS when he received GD No. 63A. Thereafter, he went to the spot i.e. in front of Baba Neem Karoli Mandir, Main Mandi Road, where he met Ct. Bijendra and Ct. Rajesh. They handed over the custody of the accused and case property to him. He recorded the statement of Ct. Bijendra vide Ex. PW1/A. He asked four to five public persons to join the investigation, but none of them agreed, citing valid reasons. Due to paucity of time, no notice could be served upon them. Thereafter, he searched the scooty and the recovered bag and katta. The bag was orange in colour with "Groffers" written on it. Upon opening the bag, he found six petties of illicit liquor inside, each containing 48 quarter bottles labeled "Fresh Mota Orange Masaledar Deshi Sharab, For Sale in Haryana Only, 180 ml." The said bag was kept at the backside of the scooty. One white katta was kept at the footrest of the scooty, which, upon checking, was found to contain two petties of illicit liquor, each having 48 quarter bottles labeled "Royal Challenge Classic Premium Whiskey, For Sale in Haryana Only, 180 ml". Upon inquiry, the accused disclosed his name as Deepak Chaudhary, S/o Satbir, R/o Raju Park, Devli Road, Khanpur. He took out one quarter bottle as a sample from each petti in the Groffers bag, totaling six Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH FIR No: 485/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Deepak Chaudhary KUMAR KUMAR MEENA & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.04.20 16:01:37 +0530 Page 5 of 16 sample bottles, and the remaining 282 quarter bottles were kept in the same bag. The mouth of the bag and the sample bottles were tied with white cloth and sealed with the seal of "MS". Thereafter, he took out one sample bottle from each petti in the white katta, totaling two sample bottles, and the remaining 94 quarter bottles were kept in the said katta. The mouth of the katta and the sample bottles were tied with white cloth and sealed with the seal of "MS". He filled Form M-29 at the spot vide Ex. PW1/C. After use, the seal was handed over to Ct. Rajesh. He took the illicit liquor along with sample bottles into custody vide Ex.PW1/D. He also took the offending scooty into custody vide Ex.PW1/E. The sample bottles were marked as serial nos. 1 to 8, the bag as serial no. 1A, and the katta as serial no. 1B. Thereafter, he prepared a tehrir and handed it over to Ct. Rajesh for registration of FIR vide Ex.PW3/A. Ct. Rajesh went to the PS and got the FIR registered, and after registration, he returned to the spot and handed over the original tehrir and copy of the FIR to him. As further investigation was marked to him, he prepared the site plan at the spot vide Ex.PW1/B. He inquired from the accused Deepak and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW3/B. He served notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. to the accused Deepak vide Ex.PW3/C and bound him down vide Ex. PW3/D. He, alongwith his staff, brought the case property to the PS and deposited the same in the malkhana. During investigation, he obtained ownership details of the scooty and found that it was registered in the name of the mother of accused namely Girrajo W/o Satbir. He served notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. to the owner Girrajo vide Ex.PW3/E and bound her down vide Ex.PW3/F. Meanwhile, he received the result of the excise Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
2026.04.20 FIR No: 485/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Deepak Chaudhary 16:01:40 +0530 & Anr.Page 6 of 16
samples sent to the laboratory, which tested positive. He placed the result on record. He recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the investigation. After completion of the investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and submitted it before the concerned court. The witness was duly cross-examined by the accused persons.
6. It is pertinent to mention that the accused persons have also admitted the genuineness of FIR, Certificate u/s 65B IEA, GD No.68A, GD No.63A and Chemical Examination Report pertaining to offending vehicle without admitting the content of the same. Prosecution evidence was thereafter closed.
7. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 281 Cr.P.C r/w 313 Cr.P.C, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons, to which they stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case and all the exhibits are false and manipulated. Further, the accused persons did not wish to lead defence evidence.
8. Short point for determination before this court is as under:-
"Whether on 21.11.2021, at about 06:00 p.m., at near Baba Neem Karoli Mandir, Mandi Main Road, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS- Fatehpur Beri, was found carrying illit liquor in vehicle bearing registration no. DL-6SBF-6305 ("Offending vehicle"), without any licence or permit or pass, thereby accused no.1 has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52 Delhi Excise Act"
Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 485/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Deepak Chaudhary KUMAR MEENA Date:
& Anr. MEENA 2026.04.20 16:01:44 +0530 Page 7 of 16 "Whether Girrajo ("Accused no.2"), being owner of the offending vehicle, allowed co-accused Deepak Choudhary to carry illicit liquor in her vehicle. Thereby accused no.2 has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52"
9. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that the ocular and the documentary evidence on record has proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. APP for the state submitted that there is sufficient material available on record to convict the accused persons and hence prayed for conviction of accused persons as per the evidence produced by the prosecution witnesses.
10. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that no recovery was effected from possession of accused. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery. The Ld. Counsel for accused persons submitted that the accused persons are innocent and falsely implicated in the present matter. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has pointed out the material contradiction made during the examination of prosecution witnesses. Furthermore, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that be accused persons are liable to the acquitted in the present case.
11. Final arguments heard. Case file perused.
12. In the present case accused persons are charged under Section 33/52 of Delhi Excise Act. Before appreciating the evidence in hand, it is important to go through the relevant provision of the Act:-
Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 485/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Deepak Chaudhary MEENA Date:
2026.04.20
& Anr. 16:01:47
+0530
Page 8 of 16
Section 33. Penalty for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture, possession, sale, etc. (1) Whoever, in contravention of provision of this Act or of any rule or order made or notification issued or of any licence, permit or pass, granted under this Act--
(a) manufactures, imports, exports, transports or removes any intoxicant;
(b) constructs or works any manufactory or warehouse;
(c) bottles any liquor for purposes of sale;
(d) uses, keeps or has in his possession any material, still, utensil, implement or apparatus, whatsoever, for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy or tari;
(e) possesses any material or film either with or without the Government logo or logo of any State or wrapper or any other thing in which liquor can be packed or any apparatus or implement or machine for the purpose of packing any liquor;
(f) sells any intoxicant, collects, possesses or buys any intoxicant beyond the prescribed quantity, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
FIR No: 485/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Deepak Chaudhary MEENA 2026.04.20 & Anr. 16:01:50 +0530 Page 9 of 16 thousand rupees but which may extend to one lath rupees.
13. It is also significant to note that Section 52 of Delhi Excise Act presumes that accused persons have committed the offence (u/s 33 of the act) for the possession of which accused persons are unable to account satisfactorily. However, this presumption can be rebutted if proved contrary. It is further to be noted that initial still lies with the prosecution to show that accused persons were found with illicit liquor without any licence. Section 52 of the Act lays down as follows:
Section 52. Presumption as to commission of offence in certain cases:
(1) In prosecution under section 33, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the accused person has committed the offence punishable under that section in respect of any intoxicant, still, utensil, implement or apparatus, for the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily.
(2) XXXXXXX
14. In order to receive the benefit of Section 52 of the Act, the prosecution is duty bound to prove that the accused persons were found in the possession of illicit liquor. As per version of the prosecution, the same is proved by the recovery memo and testimony of the witnesses. However, the manner of conducting inquiry, seizure and search etc. on the spot at the time of detaining the accused persons were and alleged recovery of liquor in this case, makes the prosecution version highly doubtful as there are various material contradictions can be seen in Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 485/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Deepak Chaudhary KUMAR MEENA Date:
& Anr. MEENA 2026.04.20
16:01:53
+0530
Page 10 of 16
statement of prosecution witnesses.
15. It is the case of prosecution that the complainant/HC Bijender alongwith Ct. Rajesh apprehended the accused alongwith illicit liquor and offending vehicle. Thereafter, upon information IO/HC Maan Singh reached at the spot. He prepared rukka and got the present FIR registered. IO/HC Maan Singh took out sample bottles from bag and sealed the remaining case property with the seal of "MS". Upon registration of FIR, the IO seized the illicit liquor vide Ex.PW1/D and offending vehicle vide Ex.PW1/E. Careful perusal of both seizure memo categorically reflects that the illicit liquor and vehicle were seized as per the memo mentioned above. However, both memo mentions GD No. 63A dt. 21.11.2021 at the top of the memo. It is clear that the prosecution has failed to show if the offending vehicle and illicit liquor were seized prior to registration of FIR or after the registration of FIR. It is further to be noted that disclosure statement vide Ex.PW3/B and site plan Ex.PW1/B are also purported to be prepared after registration of FIR. However, both documentary evidence does not mention the GD No. 63A at the top of the memo. Such contradiction in making of the document clearly shows that the seizure memo were prepared prior to registration of FIR. The said lapse in investigation proves to be fatal to the case of prosecution.
16. Interestingly, all the witnesses have stated that no photographs of the case properties were taken at the time of recovery of property by them. It is to be noted that the prosecution has placed Ex.P3 (illicit liquor) and Ex.P4 (offending vehicle) were tendered in evidence before this Court. It is to be Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 485/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Deepak Chaudhary MEENA Date:
2026.04.20 & Anr. 16:01:57 +0530 Page 11 of 16 noted that Ex.P3 alleges that the illicit liquor was again sealed in the katta recovered from the possession of the accused. However, the prosecution has failed to show who is the author of said photographs, as all the witnesses have deposed that they have not taken any photographs of the case property. Further, the prosecution has failed to explain as to why the collective photographs of the case property was not taken prior to sealing of the case property. It is further to be noted that the prosecution has placed photograph of the offending vehicle, however, bare perusal of the photograph itself reflects that it was taken at the later state of investigation. In view of this court, the said lapse and contradiction in investigation proves to be fatal to the case of prosecution.
17. Further, it is deposed by all the witnesses that that they tried to join independent witnesses in the investigation but none of the joined citing personal reasons. As per site plan, the place of incident appears to be busy area and the said incident is stated to have taken place at around 06:00 PM. Further, it is evident from the testimony of the witnesses that accused persons were apprehended alongwith the alleged illicit liquor at public place, but still no public independent person was cited as a witness in this case. Though witnesses have stated in his testimony that some public persons were requested to join, but none of them agreed and it is not clear whether took any effort to give notice to passerby to join them as witnesses but witness did not disclose the names of any such witnesses. IO has also failed to show any effort to include public witnesses in order to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and inspire the confidence of this court.
Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 485/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Deepak Chaudhary KUMAR MEENA Date:
& Anr. MEENA 2026.04.20
16:02:00
+0530
Page 12 of 16
18. Regarding the importance of joining independent witness during investigation in a case like the present one, reliance may be placed on Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1999(2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), wherein, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"18. 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 shopkeepers 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 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".
19. Similarly, in Nanak Chand Vs. State of Delhi reported as DHC 1992 CRI LJ 55 it is observed as under:-
"That the recovery is proved by three police officials who have differed on who snatched the Kirpan from the petitioner and at what time. The recovery was from a street with houses on both sides and shops nearby. And, yet no witness from the public has been produced. Not that in every case the police Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 485/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Deepak Chaudhary MEENA Date:
2026.04.20 & Anr. 16:02:03 +0530 Page 13 of 16 officials are to be treated as unworthy of reliance but their failure to join witnesses from the public especially when they are available at their elbow, may, as in the present case, cast doubt. They have again churned out a stereotyped version. Its rejection needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at Arcola".
20. Also, in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1872, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and also examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the fact that these provisions have not been complied with and further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the non-compliance. It is well-settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent corroboration. This again depends on question whether the official has deliberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 485/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Deepak Chaudhary MEENA Date:
2026.04.20 & Anr. 16:02:06 +0530 Page 14 of 16 with the search and strictly comply with these provisions." [Emphasis supplied]
21. Considering the aforesaid observations made by the Higher Courts, the omissions / failure on the part of investigating agency to join independent public witnesses create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and substantiates the defence version that there is false implication of the accused in the present case and that the recovery has been falsely planted upon the accused. Further, considering facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of ratio in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC, there was no lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the above- mentioned facts create serious doubt on the case of the prosecution.
22. Further, as per evidence on record, the seal after use was not given to any independent public person. Hence, considering the legal position, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused, as tampering with case property in such a scenario cannot be ruled out. The reliance is placed on the judgment of Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) R.C.C. (Criminal) 452, wherein it is held that-
"7. The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the case property is not dispatched to the forensic science laboratory, the seal should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in the absence of such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband and Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
FIR No: 485/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Deepak Chaudhary 2026.04.20 16:02:11 & Anr. +0530 Page 15 of 16 the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out."
23. Similarly, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. State, 1993 (1) RCR (Criminal) 622, held that -
"10. The seals after use were kept by the police officials themselves. Therefore, the possibility of tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tampered with. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused."
24. Further, Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 , provides that the hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty shall be entered vide a separate entry and this entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by signature or seal. In the present case, all these departures or the arrival entries have not been proved on the record by the prosecution. In absence of such proof, the presence of the police officials at the spot cannot be believed. Reference can be made to on Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29.
25. Furthermore, it is to be noted that accused no.2 Girrajo has also been made accused in the present matter u/s 33/52(2) Delhi Excise Act. In this regard, it is admitted position that accused no.2 is the owner of offending vehicle, however, the prosecution Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 485/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Deepak Chaudhary MEENA Date:
2026.04.20 & Anr. 16:02:14 +0530 Page 16 of 16 has failed to prove the authenticity of seizure memo of illicit liquor and offending vehicle. Since, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations qua accused no.1 namely Deepak Choudhary, therefore, accused no.2 namely Girrajo cannot be held liable u/s 33/52(2) Delhi Excise Act.
26. From the aforesaid discussion, it is very clear that the manner in which the inquiry, seizure and search etc. has been conducted on the spot at the time of alleged recovery of liquor, it makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. 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.
27. Hence, accused persons namely (1). Deepak Choudhary, S/o Sh. Satbir and (2). Girrajo, W/o Sh. Satbir stands acquitted for the offence punishable under section 33/52(2)/58 of Delhi Excise Act, they have been charged with. Ordered accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.04.2026. IT IS CERTIFIED THAT THE PRESENT JUDGMENT RUNS INTO SIXTEEN PAGES AND EACH PAGE BEARS Digitally SIGNATURE signed ASHISH by ASHISH KUMAR OF THE UNDERSIGNED. KUMAR Date:
MEENA MEENA 2026.04.20 16:02:18 +0530 (ASHISH KUMAR MEENA) JMFC-01/SAKET COURT(SOUTH) NEW DELHI/20.04.2026 FIR No: 485/2021 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Anr.