Punjab-Haryana High Court
Abdul Rashid & Another vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRA No.1029-SB of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRA No.1029-SB of 2002
Date of Decision:-3.10.2013
Abdul Rashid & another
---Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
---Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Satish Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana for the State.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The pith and substance of the facts and evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, are that on 20.4.2000, a police party headed by SI/SHO Babu Lal (PW5) was present in Police Post, Bichore. A secret information was received to the effect that appellant-convicts Abdul Rashid son of Kamrudeen and Yunus (since deceased) son of Noor Mohd. (for brevity "the appellants") were indulging in illegal trade of kerosene. Even on that day, they would carry kerosene drums for sale in TATA 407 vehicle, bearing registration No.HR-38-C-8035 from village Naveda and would go to village Kossi in Uttar Pradesh. If the raid is conducted, then, they could be apprehended red handed. Treating the Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.10.24 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.1029-SB of 2002 2 information as reliable, C.Jai Singh was sent to bring an Inspector of Food & Supplies Department from Punhana. A raiding party was constituted. Inspector, Food & Supplies Department Jagdish Chander (PW4) had also reached there and was associated with the raiding party. In the meantime, a blue coloured TATA 407 vehicle came from the side of village Nai and was stopped there. Appellant Yunus was driving it, whereas appellant Abdul Rashid was seated by his side. In the wake of checking, 12 drums of the capacity of 220 litres (Ex.P1 to Ex.P12) of kerosene were recovered from their possession. Two bottles of kerosene were drawn as sample from each drum and sealed with the seal 'MS'. The drums of remaining kerosene were also separately sealed. The samples and the drums were taken into possession, vide recovery memo (Ex.PD) attested by the witnesses. The writing (ruqqa) (Ex.PA) was sent to the police station by SHO Babu Lal (PW5), on the basis of which, the formal FIR (Ex.PB) was registered by ASI Sabha Ram (PW1).
2. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that 12 drums of kerosene were recovered from the possession of the appellants without any permit or licence. Thus, they have contravened the provisions of The Haryana Kerosene dealers Licensing Order, 1976 (for short "relevant Order") and have committed an offence punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as "the E.C.Act"). In the background of these allegations and on the basis of writing (ruqqa) (Ex.PA), a criminal case was registered against the appellants, by virtue of FIR No.90 dated 20.4.2000 (Ex.PB), on accusation of having Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.10.24 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.1029-SB of 2002 3 committed an offence punishable u/s 7 of the E.C.Act by the police of Police Station Punhana, District Gurgaon in the manner depicted here-in- above.
3. After completion of the investigation, the final police report (challan) was submitted by the police against them to face the trial for the pointed offence.
4. Having completed all the codal formalities, the appellants were accordingly charge-sheeted for the indicated offence. As they did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution by the Court of Special Judge.
5. Sequelly, the prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge framed against the appellants, examined PW1 ASI Sabha Ram, who on 20.4.2000, on receipt of writing (ruqqa) (Ex.PA), recorded the formal FIR (Ex.PB), made his endorsement (Ex.PA/1) on it and sent the file back to SHO Babu Lal of Police Station Punhana. PW2 SI Satbir Singh has only recorded the statements of MHC Subhash Chander and C.Om Parkash u/s 161 Cr.PC on 3.6.2000. PW3 C.Om Parkash and PW6 MHC Subhash Chander are the formal witnesses, who have tendered their respective affidavits (Ex.PC and Ex.PG) to complete the chain of link evidence.
6. Likewise, PW4 Jagdish Chander, Inspector, Food & Supplies Department, has maintained, on oath, that on 20.4.2000 at about 1 P.M., on receipt of information, he along with SI Manohar Lal went to Bichore, where SHO Babu Lal apprised them about the secret information. The police arranged a Nakabandi. At about 3 P.M., a TATA 407 vehicle, bearing registration No.HR-38-C-8035 came from the side of village Nai Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.10.24 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.1029-SB of 2002 4 and was stopped there. Appellant Yunus was driving it, whereas Abdul Rashid was seated by his side. 12 drums of kerosene (Ex.P1 to Ex.P12) were opened and from each drum, two bottles were taken out as sample. The sample bottles and drums were separately sealed and were taken into possession along with the four wheeler, by way of recovery memo (Ex.PD) attested by him.
7. Similarly, PW5 SI Babu Lal has tried to support the prosecution case. Instead of reproducing his entire statement and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that he has attempted to corroborate the contents of his initial writing (Ex.PA) on all vital counts and inter-alia maintained that he has prepared the rough site plan (Ex.PE) of place of occurrence, recorded the statements of witnesses and recovered the pointed kerosene from the possession of the appellants without any permit or licence. The prosecution has also placed reliance on the relevant order dated 12.3.1976 (Ex.PF) of Haryana Government, the report (Ex.PH) of Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban. This is the total oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution.
8. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants were recorded. The entire incriminating material/evidence was put to enable them to explain any circumstance appearing against them therein, as contemplated under section 313 Cr.PC. However, they claimed that they were arrested from Punhana itself while taking tea and were wrongly shown to have been arrested in between villages Nai and Bichore. They have been falsely implicated and nothing was recovered Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.10.24 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.1029-SB of 2002 5 from them. Although they opted for defence, but did not lead any defence evidence despite adequate opportunities.
9. Taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (in short "RI") for a period of two years, to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each or in default thereof, to further undergo RI for a period of six months for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 7 of the E.C.Act, by means of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.6.2002 by the trial Court of Special Judge.
10. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal. That is how I am seized of the matter.
11. At the very outset, the learned counsel has placed on record the copy of death certificate (Annexure PX) of Yunus appellant No.2 (main accused). The factum of his death has also been acknowledged by the learned State counsel. Since during the pendency of the appeal, main appellant Yunus had expired, so, the present appeal qua him stands abated on account of his death and is disposed of as such, as prayed for. That means, the only controversy, relatable to Abdul Rashid (appellant), remains to be determined in this appeal.
12. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction, the learned counsel for appellant has contended with some amount of vehemence that as the entire investigations were carried out and the recovery was effected by PW5 SI/SHO Babu Lal, who was not legally authorized by the State Government to do so, therefore, the entire proceedings and trial stood vitiated. The argument is that even mere possession of kerosene would Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.10.24 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.1029-SB of 2002 6 not attract the provisions of the relevant Order, which deals with the business by the dealers. Raising a variety of submissions, in all, the learned counsel has argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case and the trial Court has erred to convict the appellants. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in cases Kalu Ram v. State of U.T.Chandigarh 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 358; State of Haryana v. Leelu Ram and another 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 337 and Sohan Singh v. State of Haryana 1987(1) RCR (Criminal) 316.
13. Hailing the impugned judgment of conviction, on the contrary, the learned State counsel has vehemently urged that since the huge quantity of kerosene was recovered by the police in the presence of Inspector, Food & Supplies (PW4) from the truck of main appellant Yunus (since deceased) & Abdul Rashid (appellant) was traveling with him, so, he was rightly convicted by the trial Court and no interference is warranted in this regard.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the evidence on record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant appeal deserves to be accepted in this context.
15. As indicated here-in-above, the appellants were charge sheeted for the contravention of the provisions of the relevant Order (Ex.PF), punishable u/s 7 of the E.C.Act, which deals with the dealers' licenses and not otherwise. Clause 2(a) defines 'dealer' to mean a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of kerosene, Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.10.24 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.1029-SB of 2002 7 whether wholesale or retail and whether in conjunction with any other business or not and includes his representative or agent and an oil company making wholesale supply from its storage or selling point. Clause 3 envisages that no person shall carry on business as a dealer except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the District Magistrate and every such person shall obtain a licence within a period of thirty days of such commencement. Similarly, Clauses 4 and 5 deal with the procedure of issuance of licenses, fees and its other terms and conditions. Clause 8 escalates that no holder of a licence issued under this Order or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf shall contravene any of the terms or conditions of the licence and if any such holder or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the said terms or conditions, then without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, his licence may be cancelled or suspended by order in writing of the District Magistrate.
16. Therefore, in order to attract the penal provisions of Section 7 of the E.C.Act, the prosecution was legally required to prove that the appellant was actually a dealer, appointed under the public distribution system, the recovered kerosene was supplied to him under the public distribution system or he was, in any way, dealing with the business of kerosene as a dealer or his agent or servant, as contemplated in the relevant Order.
17. Such thus being the legal position and the evidence on record, now the core controversy, which invites an immediate attention of Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.10.24 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.1029-SB of 2002 8 this court and arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellant had violated the indicated provisions of the relevant Order or not ?
18. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the negative as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove all the essential ingredients of the crime in question and did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the relevant Order.
19. As is evident from the record that in the wake of secret information, a raiding party was constituted and 12 drums (Ex.P1 to Ex.P12) of kerosene were recovered by PW5 SI Babu Lal. Likewise, the crux of the statements of PW4 and PW5 is also to the effect that main appellant Yunus was the driver of the vehicle and Abdul Rashid (appellant) was seated by his side. They have not uttered a single word that the appellants were either dealers or agents or servants of the dealer or the kerosene, in any way, belonged to them. The prosecution has miserably failed to explain that how, when and in what manner, they were planing to sell it or otherwise dealing in the business of kerosene, as envisaged under the relevant Order. In other words, there is not an iota of evidence on record in this relevant connection. In that eventuality, the essential pointed ingredients of relevant Order are deeply lacking and completely missing in the instant case and legally speaking, the appellant cannot possibly be convicted u/s 7 of the E.C.Act in this regard.
20. There is yet another significant aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. Section 11 of the E.C.Act Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.10.24 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.1029-SB of 2002 9 postulates that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person who is a public servant as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Sequelly, clause 11 of the relevant Order issued in exercise of powers conferred by section 3 of the E.C.Act by the Governor of Haryana is to the following effect:-
"Power of entry, search and seizure:- (1) The Director, District Magistrate, the District Food and Supplies Officer, the Assistant Food and Supplies Officer, the Inspector, Food and Supplies or any other officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government, may with a view to securing compliance with this order or to satisfy himself that this Order has been complied with :-
(a) enter and inspect any depot or any other business premises of kerosene dealer or any premises on which he has reasons to believe that kerosene has been, is being or is likely to be kept, stored, distributed, disposed of or from which kerosene has been, is being or is likely to be removed or transported;
(b) stop or inspect any vehicle or animal on which kerosene is being carried for sale, supply or storage ;
© search and as far as may be necessary for that purpose detain any person or vehicle or animal of the dealer;
(d) seize any kerosene found in the possession of such licence holder or such person or in such vehicle or on such animal in respect of which he has reason to believe that a contravention of this Order has been, is being or is about to be committed; and
(e) every person (including his agents and servants) incharge of a vehicle or animal or premises which is searched or is sought to be searched under the provisions of sub-clause (a) shall allow the authority making the demand, access to such premises, vehicle or animal and shall also answer all questions put to him truthfully and to the best of his knowledge and belief.
(2) The provisions of section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) relating to search and seizure shall, so far as may be, apply to searches and seizures, under this Order."
21. A plain and meaningful reading of these provisions would Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.10.24 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.1029-SB of 2002 10 reveal that only the Director, the District Magistrate, District Food and Supplies Officer and Assistant Food and Supplies Officer, Inspector, Food and Supplies or any other officer duly authorized in this behalf by the State Government, have the power to stop, search and inspect any vehicle or to seize any kerosene. It is not a matter of dispute that SI Babu Lal (PW5) was not authorized by the State Government to stop, search and inspect the vehicle or to seize the kerosene on the fateful day. A feeble attempt made by the learned State counsel to contend that since the seizure memo was signed by PW4 Jagdish Chander, Inspector, Food and Supplies, so, compliance of clause 11 of the relevant Order is complete, lacks merit as well. To my mind, no implicit reliance can be placed on the prosecution evidence in this respect. The unfounded story projected by PW5 that PW4 was called at the spot, cannot be believed as such. The perusal of the recovery memo (Ex.PD) would reveal that the signatures of PW4 were subsequently obtained on it. If he (PW4) was actually present at the relevant time at the place of recovery, then, he would have and indeed ought to have signed the writing (Ex.PA) and attested the rough site plan (Ex.PE) and other documents prepared by PW5 at the spot, there and then.
22. Indisputably, the writing was sent to the police station for registration of the case by PW5. The truck was stopped, inspected, searched and the kerosene was seized by him (PW5), vide recovery memo (Ex.PD). Even he directed the police official to bring empty bottles for sampling from the shop of junk dealer. Not only that, PW5 had deposited the sample and case property with the MHC of the police station. PW3 Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.10.24 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.1029-SB of 2002 11 C.Om Parkash had deposited the sample in the office of FSL Haryana Madhuban, Karnal. In other words, each and every proceeding was carried out by SHO (PW5) and other police officials. Assuming for the sake of argument (though not admitted) that PW4 Jagdish Chander, Inspector, Food & Supplies was merely associated by PW5 SI Babu Lal and remained silent spectator at the time of recovery, even then, it cannot possibly be termed that the provisions contained in clause 11 of the relevant Order were complied with. If this vague and contrary argument of learned State counsel is accepted, then, it will amount to nullify the mandatory statutory provisions of the relevant Order, which, to me, is not legally permissible. Moreover, no efforts whatsoever were made by PW5 to comply with the provisions of Section 100 Cr. PC, as provided in clause 11(2) of the relevant Order despite ample time and opportunities.
23. Ex facie, the cosmetic argument of learned State counsel that the police has power to take cognizance, search any place or vehicle and seize the article, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. It is a matter of fact that the indicated specific procedure has been provided and no other person except the persons so authorized and mentioned in clause 11 of the relevant Order have the power to stop, inspect and search any vehicle and seize the articles for the commission of offence in question.
24. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that it is well settled principle of interpretation of statute, that the words of an enactment are to be given their ordinary, popular and natural meaning, if such meaning is clear and unambiguous. The effect should be given to a provision of a statute in the same manner whatever may be the Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.10.24 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.1029-SB of 2002 12 consequences. The basis of this principle is that the object of all interpretations being to know what the legislature intended, whatever was the intention of the legislature has been expressed by it through words which are to be interpreted accordingly, because the intention of the legislature can be deduced only from the language through which it has expressed itself. If the language of a statute is clear, the only duty of the Court is to give effect to it and the Court has no business to look into the consequences of such interpretation. The Court is under an obligation to expound the law as it exists and leave the remedy to the legislature, even if harsh conclusions result from such exposition. Equally, it is now well recognized proposition of law that mandatory provisions and command of law have to be complied with in the same manner as envisaged and mandated by any statute and it cannot be interpreted otherwise, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in a celebrated case Jeewan Kumar Raut & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2009(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 586 (SC), which was reiterated in a subsequent line of judgments. Otherwise, the very aim and object of the EC Act and relevant Order to avoid false implication by the police in such matters would pale into insignificance.
25. Therefore, the legislative intent underlying the relevant Order is clear and implicit that the prosecution was required to observe the strict compliance of the provisions of Section 11 of the E.C.Act relatable to take cognizance by the Court and Clause 11 of the relevant Order, with regard to stop, inspect, search the vehicle and seize the kerosene of the appellant, which admittedly were just ignored with Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.10.24 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.1029-SB of 2002 13 impunity by the prosecution. This matter is no more res integra and is now well settled.
26. An identical question came to be decided by this Court in cases Ashwani Kumar v. State of Haryana 2012 (3) RCR (Criminal) 384 and Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Tina v. State of Punjab 2012(2) RCR (Criminal) 222. Having interpreted the similar provisions and a line of previous judgments, it was ruled that the police is neither empowered to stop, search and seize any property nor has the jurisdiction to prosecute the accused u/s 7 of the E.C.Act, unless specifically authorized in this behalf by the State Government. The ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
27. Having so held that SI Babu Lal (PW5) was not at all authorized/competent and was actually legally debarred to stop, inspect, search the vehicle and to seize the kerosene, in that eventuality, indeed, it cannot possibly be saith that he was the competent public servant to file the final police report (challan) for the purpose of section 11, on which, the Court could take cognizance of the offence under the E.C.Act. On the contrary, it runs counter to the provisions of section 11 of the E.C.Act and clause 11 of the relevant Order. Therefore, after harmoniously construing the pointed provisions in the manner described here-in-above, I cannot help observing that the Court of Special Judge was not at all competent to take cognizance of the indicated offence on the final police report submitted by the Investigating Officer, who was not legally authorized to stop, inspect, search the vehicle and to seize the kerosene in Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.10.24 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.1029-SB of 2002 14 the present case. To my mind, only the Director, the District Magistrate or the officers of the Food and Supplies department were competent to carry out the entire inspection & seizure proceedings etc. and to submit a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence and only then, the Court was competent to take cognizance of the offence under the E.C.Act and not otherwise. Therefore, the entire proceedings & trial are illegal, without jurisdiction and stood vitiated on account of adoption of entirely illegal procedure by the investigating agency and complete violation of the pointed mandatory provisions of the E.C.Act and the relevant Order. Meaning thereby, the provisions of special statute of section 11 of the E.C.Act in regard to take cognizance by the special Court and clause 11 of the relevant Order with respect to stop, inspect, enter and search any vehicle/place and seize the kerosene are mandatory in nature and their complete violations would naturally cause great prejudice to the case of the appellant.
28. This is not the end of the matter. Legally speaking, there are three essential attributes of criminal offence: (i) the crime is an act of commission or omission on the part of human being, which is considered harmful by the State; (ii) the transgression of such harmful act is prevented by the threat or sanction of punishment administered by the State; and (iii) the guilt of the accused is determined after the accusation against him has been investigated in legal proceeding of a special kind in accordance with established procedure contained in the relevant provisions of law (emphasis supplied). Indisputably, the established procedure prescribed in clause 11 of the relevant Order and Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.10.24 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.1029-SB of 2002 15 section 11 of the E.C.Act has not been followed in the instant case in the manner mentioned here-in-above.
29. That being so, the next question that arises for determination in this appeal is, as to whether the fact of mere sitting by the side of main appellant Yunus, will constitute an offence as defined u/s 40 of IPC and section 3(38) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 against Abdul Rashid (appellant). The only allegations assigned to Abdul Rashid (appellant) were that he was just seated by the side of main appellant Yunus (since deceased). Even PW4 and PW5 have only stated that Yunus (appellant) was driving the vehicle, whereas Abdul Rashid (appellant) was seated by his side. Nothing more nothing less. Meaning thereby, there is not an iota of evidence on record, even to suggest remotely and to involve the appellant in the crime in question. How, when, in what manner and to what extent, he was connected with the ownership, sale and recovery of kerosene, remains an unfolded mystery. To me, the answer again is in the negative. It is now well known principle of criminal law that mens rea (guilty intention) is a very essential and important element/constituent of crime. Unless it is proved that the accused had the guilty intention, he cannot possibly be held guilty to commit the indicated offence. It was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George 1965 AIR (SC) 722 that no one should be found guilty of an offence under the criminal law, unless it is proved that he has got guilty mind/mens rea to commit the crime. Some (thing more) attribution of specific role or overt-act and some connection with the crime is essential. In this manner, in the present case, the mere presence Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.10.24 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.1029-SB of 2002 16 of surviving appellant in the vehicle and in the complete absence of prosecution evidence of intention (mens rea), specific role or overt-act, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and deserves to be outrightly rejected. It entails the benefit of doubt and acquittal of the appellant. So, to that extent, the trial Court appears to have gone legally wrong in this relevant behalf. If he is convicted without any required evidence, that too, without following the pointed prescribed legal procedure, then, it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to his life & liberty enshrined in the Constitution of India.
30. Thus, it would be seen that, if the indicated facts of non compliance of mandatory provisions of the E.C.Act & relevant Order, section 100 Cr.PC, non-authorization of PW5 to stop, inspect, search the vehicle, seize the kerosene and to prosecute the appellant, culminating into prejudice, the vitiation of the trial and totality of the peculiar facts & special circumstances oozing out from the record as discussed here-in- above, are put together, then, to my mind, the conclusion is inescapable and irresistible that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution falls short as is required to prove the indicated crime. The trial Court slipped into a deep legal error to convict the appellant in the present case. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence cannot legally be sustained and deserve to be set aside in this regard.
31. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
32. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence are Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.10.24 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.1029-SB of 2002 17 hereby set aside. Consequently, having extended the benefit of doubt, appellant (Abdul Rashid) is acquitted from the crime in question in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
Needless to mention that the compliance and natural consequences will follow accordingly.
Sd/-
(Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 3.10.2013 AS Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No Arvind Kumar Sharma 2013.10.24 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh