Delhi District Court
State vs Rajesh And Ors(3) on 28 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAMIKSHA GUPTA
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
South West District; Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
Date of Institution : 12.07.2017
Date of reserving judgment : 06.11.2023
Date of Judgment : 28.11.2023
In the matter of :
State Vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 77/2014
PS : Sector-23 Dwarka
U/s: 379/411/430/120-B IPC
& 15 of Environment Protection Act, 1956
read with Section 34 IPC
1. CNR No. : DLSW02-018412-2017
2. Regn. No. of Case : 5428-2017
3. Name of accused : 1. Rajesh
S/o Sh Moti Lal
2. Roop Ram
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar
3. Madan Lal Bairva
S/o Sh. Ram Niwas
Accused No. 1 to 3 R/o Jhuggi
No. 52, Gali No.3,
Rajiv Gandhi Camp,
Manglapuri Phase-2,
Sadh Nagar Palam, Delhi.
State Vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 77/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka
Page No.1 of 21
4. Shiv Hari
S/o Sh. Budh Ram
R/o Khasra No. 257,
Shahabad Mohammadpur,
New Delhi.
4. Offences charged under : 379/411/430/120-B IPC
Section & 15 of Environment Protection
Act, 1956 read with Section 34
IPC
5. Plea of accused : Not guilty.
6. Final Order : Acquitted.
JUDGMENT
1. It is the case of prosecution that on 17.02.2014 in village Shahbad Mohammadpur Outer Road, New Delhi, accused Rajesh, Roop Ram and Madan Lal Bairva were found drawing water from illegal boring into tankers and were found stealing the water, in which possession they were found subsequently. By drawing water through illegal boring, same led to diminishing of water supply for other purposes, and therefore, they also committed mischief. Since accused persons extracted ground water through bore well without permission of competent authority in pursuance of an illegal agreement, they were also involved in offence of criminal conspiracy. Thus, prosecution has set up a case u/s 379/411/430/120-B IPC & 15 of State Vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 77/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.2 of 21 Environment Protection Act, 1956 read with Section 34 IPC against accused Rajesh, Roop Ram and Madan Lal Bairva.
Further, accused Shiv Hari was found to be the owner of plot where one bore for drawing water was found to be installed without permission. Thus, prosecution has set up a case u/s 15 of Environment Protection Act, 1956 against accused Shiv Hari.
2. On the basis of investigation carried out by the police, charge sheet was filed in Court and copy of the same was supplied to all accused persons.
3. On the basis of charge sheet, charge for committing offence punishable under Section 379/411/430/120-B IPC & 15 of Environment Protection Act, 1956 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against accused Rajesh, Roop Ram and Madan Lal Bairva. Charge under Section 15 of Environment Protection Act, 1956 was framed against accused Shiv Hari, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses, who are as under:
Sr. No Name Nature of Evidence
1. PW-1 ASI Lal Chand Formal witness/ initial
investigation.
2. PW-2 SI Birjinia Duty Officer
State Vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 77/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka
Page No.3 of 21
3. PW-3 Mahesh Kumar Witness from DTO Sawai
Madhukar Madhopur.
4. PW-4 Chander Shekhar Witness from DTO Karoli.
5. PW-5 Jagbir Singh Formal witness from
Department of Environment.
6. PW-6 Ashish Shokeen Tehsildar.
7. PW-7 Retired SI Sat Ram 2nd IO
Bhardwaj
8. PW-8 SI Jagdish 3rd IO
9. PW-9 SI Data Ram 1st IO
5. Prosecution has relied upon the following documents:
S. No. Exhibits Documents
1. Ex.PW-1/PX1 Statement of complainant given to police.
2. Ex.PW-1/PX2 Seizure of both the tractors bearing Regn. No.
and Ex.PW- RJ-34AR-6351 and RJ-25AR-8812.
1/PX3
3. Ex.PW-1/PX4 Arrest memos of accused Rajesh, Roop Ram
Ex.PW-1/PX5
and Madan Lal Bairva
Ex.PW-1/PX6
4. Ex.P1 Six photographs of spot.
5. Ex.PW-2/A FIR
6. Ex.PW-2/B Endorsement on ruqqa
7. Ex.PW-2/C Certificate u/s 65-B(4)(C)
8. Ex.PW-3/A Online particulars of vehicle bearing Regn.
No. RJ-25RA-8812
9. Ex.PW-3/B RC of vehicle bearing Regn. No. RJ-25RA-
8812
10. Ex.PW-3/C Authorisation letter by DTO Karoli.
11. Ex.PW-4/A Online particulars of vehicle bearing Regn.
No. RJ-34RA-6351
State Vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 77/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka
Page No.4 of 21
12. Ex.PW-4/B Authorisation letter by DTO Karoli.
13. Ex.PW-4/C RC of vehicle bearing Regn. No.RJ-34RA-
6351
14. Ex.PW- Copy of order of Govt. of NCT Delhi,
5/A(OSR) Department of Environment dated 18.05.2010
15. Mark A Photocopy of authority letter.
16. Ex.PW-6/A Order of SDM Delhi Cantt.
17. Ex.PW-7/A Notice
18. Ex.PW-9/A Ruqqa
19. Ex.PW-9/B Site plan
20. Ex.PW-9/C Personal search memos of accused Rajesh,
Ex.PW-9/D Roop Ram and Madan Lal Bairva
Ex.PW-9/E
21. Ex.PW-9/F Disclosure statements of accused Rajesh,
Ex.PW-9/G Roop Ram and Madan Lal Bairva
Ex.PW-9/H
6. Thereafter, PE was closed and statements of accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, wherein they claimed that they were innocent and were falsely implicated in the present case.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. The evidence of prosecution witnesses in the present case has to be examined against this legal backdrop.
(i) PW-1 ASI Lal Chand has deposed that on 17.02.2014, while on patrolling duty, he reached village Shahbad Mohammadpur on outer road. He saw one boundary wall inside State Vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 77/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.5 of 21 which two tractors were standing and three persons were filling water in the temple with submersible pump motor. He informed the PS on phone and went from the spot. IO came and enquired from the concerned persons.
Since the witness had resiled from his previous statement, he was cross examined by Ld. APP for State. During cross examination, he admitted having given statement to police Ex.PW-1/PX1. He also apprehended accused persons, who he correctly identified in Court, namely, Rajesh, Madan and Roop Ram. Till the IO came to the spot, aforesaid accused persons and tankers bearing registration number RJ34AR6351 and RJ25AR8812 was in his custody. He admitted that IO seized aforesaid tankers vide seizure memo in his presence. He further admitted that arrest memos were also signed by him. He further admitted that accused persons Rajesh, Madan and Roop Ram were taking out water with the help of pump at the spot as per photograph Ex.P1. He further clarified that he left the spot after handing over accused and informing the IO about circumstances.
During cross examination by accused persons, he stated that the gate of the plot was towards South side. He could not tell the height of the pipe/motor which was used to fill water. He had shown the pipe to IO, which was seized by IO, thereafter. Photographs were taken in his presence. No public person was present at the spot. Owner of the borewell had also come to the spot and was thereafter arrested. He did not sign on any State Vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 77/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.6 of 21 document at the spot but stated that he had signed on four papers at PS. The seized pipe was of plastic. He did not see if IO took any water sample from tanker or from bore. Both tankers were filled with water. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were not present at the spot on the day of incident and no tanker was seized from the spot. He was accompanied with his driver when he reached the place of incident on 17.02.2014 but he could not recall his name. IO had recorded the statement of his driver. He admitted that in his statement Ex.PW-1/PX1, it is not mentioned that accused Shiv Hari was called to the spot. On specific question being asked by the counsel, he stated that he did not know who Shiv Hari was. He admitted that several persons were passing through the road but public persons were not interrogated. Height of boundary wall was around 6½'' but he could not recall the width of the main gate but it was wide enough for tractor to enter. Pullanda was prepared at the police station. No official from Jal Board or SDM office was called by the IO till he remained at the spot. The spot of incident was a built up area with two storeys and tenants were present. Statement of tenant was not recorded by IO in his presence.
Ruqqa was prepared in the PS.
(ii) PW-2 SI Birjinia deposed that on 17.02.2014, ruqqa was brought by Ct. Diwakar on which basis present FIR was registered.
FIR No. 77/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.7 of 21 She was not cross examined despite opportunity.
(iii) PW-3 Mahesh Kumar Madhukar proved his authorisation to depose in the present case by DTO Karoli. He further proved the particulars of vehicle number RJ25RA8812.
He was not cross examined despite opportunity.
(iv) PW-4 Chander Shekhar proved his authorisation to depose in the present case by DTO Karoli. He further proved the particulars of vehicle number RJ34RA6351.
He was not cross examined despite opportunity.
(v) PW-5 Jagbir Singh proved his authorisation to depose in the present case by Section Officer, Department of Government, NCT of Delhi. He proved the summoned record which is order dated 18.05.2010 of the Department of Environment.
He was not cross examined despite opportunity.
(vi) PW-6 Ashish Shokeen proved the order of SDM Delhi Cantt which was marked to him for sealing the borewells alongwith officials of Delhi Jal Board.
He was not cross examined despite opportunity.
FIR No. 77/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.8 of 21
(vii) PW-7 Retired SI Sat Ram Bhardwaj deposed that he received the present case file on 20.05.2014. Thereafter, he gave notice to accused Shiv Hari for producing electricity bills and papers of the plot. He correctly identified accused Shiv Hari.
During cross examination, he deposed that photocopies of electricity bill and papers of plot were on record. He did not ask for any other document regarding the land. He also did not ask for original documents He did not conduct any other investigation in the present case. He had gone to the spot to see whether there is boundary on the land or not.
(viii) PW-8 SI Jagdish prepared the charge sheet and filed it before the Court.
He was not cross examined despite opportunity.
(ix) PW-9 SI Data Ram deposed that on receiving DD No. 10-A on 17.02.2014, he went to the spot alongwith Ct Diwakar, where they met HC Lal Chand QRT staff, who had apprehended some persons alongwith two tractors and water tankers. HC Lal Chand handed over the custody of all three accused persons and the tractors alongwith water tanks. It was revealed that accused persons were extracting ground water illegally and without permission and thereafter selling the same to the public. The matter was discussed with seniors by him.
FIR No. 77/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.9 of 21 Statement of HC Lal Chand was recorded after which both tractors bearing registration number RJ34AR6351 and RJ25AR8812 were seized. Photographs of the spot were got clicked by private photographer, which were correctly identified by this witness. Ruqqa was prepared and given to Ct. Diwakar for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, copy was handed over to this witness by Ct. Diwakar. Site plan was prepared at the instance of HC Lal Chand. Enquiry was conducted from accused persons and accused persons namely Rajesh, Madan Lal and Roop Ram were arrested at the spot. Personal search memos and disclosure statements were prepared. Accused persons were got medically examined and statements of witnesses were recorded. Upon transfer of this witness, case file was handed over to MHC (R). He correctly identified the accused persons.
During cross examination, he stated that on receiving information from duty officer, he immediately went to the spot on government bike and reached within 15-20 minutes. He could not recall if DD entry was prepared or not. He could not recall the exact time when he received information from duty officer or the time when he reached the spot. Public persons were present near the spot but they did not join investigation. Neighbours were present near the spot but they also did not join investigation. Private photographer was not called at the spot. However, photographs were clicked at the spot by the witness on State Vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 77/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.10 of 21 his phone. He asked accused persons present at the spot to call the owner at the spot but he did not come to the spot. At that time, notice to owner was not given by this witness. He denied the suggestion that no notice was served on the owner. Complaint regarding theft of water was not filed at DJB or SDM office and the same was done by 2nd IO. Complaint regarding usage of illegal bore-well was not filed at SDM office. No photographs were clicked by him at the spot showing the presence of all accused persons. He denied the suggestion that the same was not done since accused persons were not present at the spot. Videography of spot was not done. He could not recall the exact address of the spot. He could not recall the exact time of sending the ruqqa to PS. He could not recall the exact time when Ct. Diwakar came to the spot alongwith FIR. HE did not enquire from HC Lal Chand whether he was authorised by Central Govt. to file the complaint under Section 5/15 of Environment Protection Act. Exact address of spot or of any surrounding property is not mentioned on site plan. Site plan does not show the spot of two tractors parked at the spot. Plot on which illegal bore-well was found was a vacant plot. He could not recall the exact time when they left the spot. He did not meet accused Shiv Hari on 17.02.2014 or after that. HC Lal Chand was accompanied by QRT staff but he could not recall their names.
During cross examination by other accused persons, State Vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 77/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.11 of 21 he stated that both tractors were parked inside the premises near the illegal borewell and water tankers attached were completely filled. He could not recall the height of water tank but stated that length of borewell pipe was about 3-4 feet. At the time of taking photographs of the spot, water pipe connecting borewell and tractors were removed. Water pipe was not seized by him. Water samples were not taken from tankers or borewell. He denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated.
9. In order to prove its case, accused Shiv Hari led his evidence and evidence of one another witness.
(i) DW-1 Shiv Hari deposed that he is the owner of property bearing Khasra No. 257, Shahbad Mohammadpur, New Delhi and that there is no borewell in the said property and proved a water bill dated 22.11.2011 as Ex.DW-1/A (OSR).
During cross examination he admitted that copy of bill Ex.DW-1/A pertains to from 20.5.2011 to 30.09.2011 and it pertains to water supply through pipe lines in taps by Delhi Jal Board and does not show anything about borewell. He denied the suggestion that there was a borewell on 17.02.2014 at his property from which water was drawn illegally and thereafter supplied illegally.
(ii) DW-2 Dinesh Kumar deposed that on 17.02.2014, at about 02-20:30 p.m., police came to the house of State Vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 77/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.12 of 21 accused Shiv Hari, whose house is adjacent to his house. He further deposed that police official enquired from him about the theft of water from the property of accused Shiv Hari. He informed the police official that he never saw any tractor trolly at the property of accused Shiv Hari and that no tractor can enter in the premises of accused Shiv Hari as the main gate is very small.
During cross examination he deposed Shiv Hari is his neighbour and they occasionally used to meet each other. He further deposed that there is one building and 3-4 rooms near the main gate in the house of accused Shiv Hari and rest of the area was vacant.
10. In order to bring home the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt the allegations against the accused persons.
However, the prosecution has not been able to prove its allegations against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt due to the following reasons:
(i) Charge under Section 5 read with Section 15, Environment Protection Act:
Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act (EPA, hereinafter) empowers Central government to issue directions to any person/authority for the purpose of implementing provisions State Vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 77/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.13 of 21 of the Act. Section 15 of EPA provides for penalty in case of contravention of any provisions of EPA or rules made thereunder or any order/directions issued by the competent authority under this Act.
It is alleged by the prosecution that accused persons were found extracting ground water through bore well without proper permission from competent authority under EPA and thus have been charged under the aforesaid Sections. The basis for such prosecution is an order dated 18.05.2010 issued by the Lieutenant Governor, NCT of Delhi (Ex.PW5/A) which is in the nature of directions under Section 5 of EPA. Prosecution has also relied on the notification of Ministry of Home Affairs dated 10.09.1992 as per which Lieutenant Governor, as aforesaid, has been authorized by the Central Government to exercise and discharge the functions under Section 5, EPA.
Perusal of aforesaid order Ex.PW5/A prohibits drawing of groundwater through bore well or tube well for domestic, agricultural, commercial or industrial use, without permission of competent authority (Delhi Jal Board or New Delhi Municipal Council, as the case may be).
Section 19 of EPA bars the Courts from taking cognizance of any offence under the Act except on a written complaint made by Central Government or any officer/authority authorized by it in this regard. In the present case, ASI Lal Chand is the complainant and SI Dataram is the 1st IO. However, perusal State Vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 77/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.14 of 21 of charge sheet and annexed documents show that no authorization in favour of ASI Lal Chand or SI Data Ram, as required under EPA, is on record. There is no other document in favour of any other person authorizing them to initiate prosecution under EPA. Same is neither averred nor proved by the prosecution. PW 9 SI Data Ram has deposed that he did not make any inquiry on the aspect if ASI Lal Chand was authorized by the Central Government as per EPA to file complaint under Section 5/15 EPA.
In view of the inherent defect in the prosecution on account of lack of authorization as per Section 19 EPA, cognizance of the offence is barred and consequently all proceedings emanating therefrom stand vitiated. Accordingly, accused Rajesh, Roop Ram and Madan Lal Bairva and Shiv Hari are acquitted under Section 15, EPA.
(ii) Charge under Section 379 and 411 IPC Accused persons Rajesh, Roop Ram and Madan Lal have been charged with offences under Sections 379 and 411 IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that accused persons were found extracting ground water through bore well without proper permission from competent authority under EPA and that act amounted to theft of water.
To prove the offence under Section 379 IPC, it was State Vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 77/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.15 of 21 incumbent on prosecution to prove that:
(a) Accused had intended dishonestly to move the property;
(b) property in question must be movable property;
(c) Property must be taken out of the person concerned's possession without his consent;
(d) Such property must actually be moved from the possession of the person concerned.
Dishonest intention of accused persons has not been proved by prosecution. It is merely stated that ground water was being extracted illegally at the plot in question. The person in possession of the plot was co accused Shiv Hari. It is nowhere averred by the prosecution that water was being extracted and actually removed out of his plot without his permission. PW1 ASI Lal Chand has deposed that the tractors which allegedly were being used in stealing water were inside the boundary wall of the plot in question. The testimony of complainant/PW1 ASI Lal Chand is riddled with inconsistencies, casting doubt on the veracity of his testimony. Since he could not state all the facts completely as per his earlier statement given to the IO, he was cross examined by Ld. APP. During his cross examination as well, he could depose about the basic details of the plot in question, from where the alleged theft was done. He stated that IO had seized the pipe which was used to fill water and that he State Vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 77/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.16 of 21 had signed on the seizure memo. However, no seizure memo has been placed on record by the prosecution. The photographs of the seized pipe are also not on record. The seized pipe is also not a part of record. The complainant stated that he had reached the spot of occurrence in a car and was accompanied by his driver. However, he could not recall his name but stated that IO had recorded the driver's statement. No such statement of driver or any other public person is on record.
Complainant had stated earlier that no public person was present at the spot. However, he contradicted himself later by saying that public persons were present but were not interrogated by the IO in his presence. IO has merely stated that despite his request, no public person joined the investigation and he did not serve notice on them for such refusal. It is therefore clear that IO did not make any sincere efforts to join any public person in the investigation.
IO has further contradicted himself during his evidence in Court when he stated that private photographer was called at the spot for clicking pictures and videography of the spot was also done. Subsequently, during cross examination, he stated that he himself had clicked photographs of the spot on his phone. Complainant has further stated that pullanda was not prepared at the spot and was infact prepared in the PS. However, no such articles were seized and placed on record by IO. Complainant had deposed that the spot of occurrence was a built State Vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 77/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.17 of 21 up area containing 2 storeys and tenants were residing there. However, IO has deposed that the site of occurrence was a vacant plot. All such contradictions lend credence to the version of accused persons that proceedings were infact conducted while sitting at the PS. Further, material investigation in the nature of seizure of case property or the pipe used in commission of offence has not been done. IO has placed on record the photographs of the spot. It is also the case of prosecution that accused persons aforesaid were arrested at the spot. In such a situation, what precluded the IO to take their photographs while on spot with the tankers and pipe being used has not been explained by the prosecution, the benefit of which can only accrue to the accused persons.
To prove the offence under Section 411 IPC, possession of stolen property (water, in this case) must be attributed and recovered from the accused persons. In the present case, there is not even a single document on record to show that water which was stolen was recovered from the accused persons. There is not even an effort made by the prosecution to state the quantity of such water recovered from the accused persons. A bald and vague allegation has been made that water was stolen for onward selling to the public. During deposition of IO, he has clarified that he did not take any sample of water allegedly recovered from accused persons, as per procedure prescribed State Vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 77/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.18 of 21 under Section 11, EPA. He has further stated that despite being aware of such theft and violation of EPA, he did not inform Delhi Jal Board or SDM office.
It is pertinent to mention the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1503 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9141 of 2019) in Shiv Kumar Vs. State of M.P., where the essential ingredients of Section 411 IPC have been reiterated and affirmed. It has been observed that although recovery of stolen property is made, it is imperative for the prosecution to prove that the accused had positive knowledge that the goods were stolen property. Further, he should have retained the said stolen property dishonestly.
"Dishonestly" is defined under Section 24 of the IPC as, "Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly".
It was further observed that "to establish that a person is dealing with stolen property, the "believe" factor of the person is of stellar import. For successful prosecution, it is not enough to prove that the accused was either negligent or that he had a cause to think that the property was stolen, or that he failed to make enough inquiries to comprehend the nature of the goods procured by him. The initial possession of the goods in question may not be illegal but retaining those with the State Vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 77/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.19 of 21 knowledge that it was stolen property, makes it culpable."
In the entire evidence led by prosecution, recovery of property has not been proved by the prosecution, let alone the proof regarding knowledge/belief of accused persons that the water being allegedly drawn by them was stolen property and in violation of EPA.
Thus, prosecution has miserably failed to prove even the basic ingredients of offences under Section 379 and 411 IPC. Thus, accused Rajesh, Roop Ram and Madan Lal Bairva are acquitted of the offences under Section 379/411 IPC.
(iii) Charge under Section 430 IPC:
Accused persons Rajesh, Roop Ram and Madan Lal have been charged with offence under Sections 430 IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that accused persons were found extracting ground water through bore well without proper permission, which caused diminution of water supply for other purposes.
To prove diminution of water supply, it was incumbent on prosecution to first prove that accused persons were infact extracting water through bore well without proper authority. In view of discussion in paragraph (ii) above, offence State Vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 77/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.20 of 21 under Section 379 IPC is not made out. Accordingly, charge under Section 430 IPC can also not be sustained against accused persons. Thus, accused Rajesh, Roop Ram and Madan Lal Bairva are acquitted of the offences under Section 430 IPC.
11. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons. Accordingly, accused Rajesh, Roop Ram, Madan Lal Bairva and Shiv Hari stand acquitted of the Digitally charges levelled against them. signed by Samiksha Samiksha Pronounced in open Court Gupta Gupta Date:
on 28th day of November, 2023 2023.11.28
16:16:54 -0200
SAMIKSHA GUPTA
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Dwarka Courts: New Delhi 28.11.2023 State Vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 77/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.21 of 21