Delhi District Court
State vs Fahim on 30 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. MEENA CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE -08 (CENTRAL), TIS
HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 255/2020
PS: Chandni Mahal
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
State v. Fahim
CIS No. 5110/2020
Date of Institution of case: 04.09.2020
Date when Judgment reserved: 10.01.2024
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 30.01.2024
JUDGMENT:
FIR No.: 255/2020 PS: Chandni a Serial no. of the case :
Mahal Date of the commission b : 01.08.2020 of the offence c Name of the Complainant : ASI Rakesh , PIS No. 28903044 Fahim S/o Mohd. Naeem, R/o Name of Accused person House no. 452, Gali Bahar Wali, d & his parentage and :
Chatta Lal Miyan, Daryaganj, residence Delhi.
e Offence complained of : U/s 25(1B)/54/59 Arms Act Plea of the Accused and f : Pleaded not guilty.
his examination
g Final Order : Acquittal
h Date of Order : 30.01.2024
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.08.2020 at 08:00 am, at Fasil Road near Delhi Gate, Delhi, within the jurisdiction State Vs. Fahim FIR No. 255/2020 PS Chandni Mahal 1/18 of P.S. Chandni Mahal, accused was found in possession of a buttondar knife without any license or permit in contravention of DAD Notification of GNCT of Delhi and committed an offence punishable u/s 25 Arms Act, 1959. The buttondar knife was seized and taken into possession by the police.
2. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused on 04.09.2020. Cognizance of offence as mentioned in the chargesheet was taken by Ld. Predecessor of this court. Copy of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused under section 207 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C) and thereafter a charge under section 25 Arms Act was framed against him on 26.03.2022 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution examined three (03) witnesses to substantiate allegations against the accused.
4. PW-1 HC Yadram has deposed in his examination-in-
chief that on 01.08.2020, at about 8.00 am, he along with ASI Rakesh and ASI Babu Lal was on patrolling duty. During patrolling, when they reached Fasil Road, near Delhi Gate, at about 8:00 am, he saw one person who was coming towards them from the side of Delhi Gate. He seems to be under the influence of alcohol / drugs due to which they got suspicious of him. Thereafter, they apprehended him. Thereafter, they inquired about him, but he could not give any satisfactory answer. On enquiry, his name was revealed as Fahim S/o Naeem. He along with IO asked 4 to 5 public persons to join the investigation but they refused to join and left the place on pretext of some urgent State Vs. Fahim FIR No. 255/2020 PS Chandni Mahal 2/18 work. No notice was served to them due to paucity of time. Thereafter, ASI Rakesh conducted a cursory search of the accused and found one buttondar knife from the right pocket of the pants. IO / ASI Rakesh Kumar prepared the sketch memo which is Ex.PW-1/A. The total length of the knife was 23.05 cm and the length of butt was 12.05 cm and the width of blade was 2.03 cm having a button on the handle of the knife and the length of the blade was 11 cm. IO put the knife in the white pullanda and sealed it with the seal RK. He deposed that IO prepared the seizure memo which is Ex.PW-1/B. The seal after use was handed over to ASI Babu Lal and IO prepared the tehrir / rukka and handed over the same to him for the registration of the FIR. After registration of the FIR, he came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir / rukka to the second IO / ASI Latoor Singh who in the meanwhile came at the spot. IO handed over the custody of the accused to second IO / ASI Latoor Singh. Second IO inserted the particulars of the case on sketch memo and seizure memo. IO / ASI Latoor Singh prepared the site plan at the instance of ASI Rakesh Kumar. IO / ASI Latoor Singh arrested the accused vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW1/C and conducted the person search vide memo which is Ex. PW1/D. IO / ASI Latoor Singh recorded the disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex.PW-1/E and IO recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C and he was discharged. PW-1 had correctly identified the accused. [MHC(M) had produced the case property, in a white pullanda having a particulars of the present case on it and duly sealed. The seal was intact and State Vs. Fahim FIR No. 255/2020 PS Chandni Mahal 3/18 opened with the permission of the court. On seeing the case property i.e. the buttondar knife, the witness had correctly identified the case property which is Ex.P-1].
5. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC for the accused, he admitted the suggestion that the incident spot is a crowded area. He admitted the suggestion that IO did not give written notice to join the investigation to any public person in his presence. IO did not record the name and addresses of the public persons. He admitted the suggestion that the CCTV cameras were not installed on the spot. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that the IO did not make any efforts to get the CCTV footage. He did not remember the exact time when he reached the PS with the rukka for registration of FIR and also did not remember the time when he came back at the spot. He denied the suggestion that no property was recovered from the accused or that the property was falsely implanted upon the accused. He denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared while sitting at the PS. He also denied that he was deposing falsely.
6. PW-2 ASI Rakesh has deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 01.08.2020, at about 8.00 am, he along with HC Yadram and ASI Babu Lal was on patrolling duty. He deposed that during patrolling, when they reached Fasil Road, near Delhi Gate, at about 8:00 am, he saw one person who was coming towards them from the side of Delhi Gate. He seemed to be under the influence of alcohol / drugs due to which they got suspicious of him. He deposed that they apprehended him and they inquired about him, but he could not give any satisfactory answer. On State Vs. Fahim FIR No. 255/2020 PS Chandni Mahal 4/18 enquiry, his name was revealed as Fahim S/o Naeem. He asked 4 to 5 public persons to join the investigation but they refused to join and left the place on the pretext of some urgent work. No notice was served to them due to paucity of time. Thereafter, he conducted a cursory search of the accused and found one buttondar knife from the right pocket of the pants. He prepared the sketch memo which is Ex.PW-1/A. The total length of the knife was 23.05 cm and the length of the button was 12.05 cm and the width of blade was 2.03 cm having a button on the handle of knife and the length of the blade was 11 cm. He put the knife in the white pullanda and sealed it with the seal RK and he prepared the seizure memo which is Ex.PW-1/B. The seal after use was handed over to ASI Babu Lal. He prepared the tehrir / rukka and handed over the same to HC Yadram for the registration of the FIR. After registration of the FIR, he came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir / rukka to the second IO / ASI Latoor Singh who in the meanwhile came at the spot. He deposed that he handed over the custody of the accused to second IO / ASI Latoor Singh. Second IO inserted the particulars of the case on sketch memo and seizure memo. IO / ASI Latoor Singh prepared the site plan at his instance which is Ex.PW2/A. IO / ASI Latoor Singh arrested the accused vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW1/C and conducted the person search vide memo which is Ex. PW1/D. IO / ASI Latoor Singh recorded the disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex.PW-1/E. IO recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C and he was discharged. PW-2 had correctly identified the accused. [MHC(M) State Vs. Fahim FIR No. 255/2020 PS Chandni Mahal 5/18 had produced the case property, in a white pullanda having a particulars of the present case on it and duly sealed. The seal was intact and opened with the permission of the court. On seeing the case property i.e. the buttondar knife, the witness had correctly identified the case property which is Ex.P-1].
7. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-2 admitted the suggestion that the incident spot is a crowded area. He further admitted that IO did not give written notice to join the investigation to any public person in his presence. IO did not record the name and addresses of the public persons. He further admitted the suggestion that the CCTV cameras were not installed on the spot. PW-2 has denied that the IO did not make any efforts to get the CCTV footage. He also denied that no property was recovered from the accused or that the property was falsely implanted upon the accused. He also denied that all the documents were prepared while sitting at the PS. He has denied that he was deposing falsely.
8. PW-3 ASI Babu Lal has deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 01.08.2020, at about 8.00 am, he alongwith ASI Rakesh and HC Yadram was on patrolling duty. He deposed that during patrolling, when they reached Fasil Road, near Delhi Gate, at about 8:00 am, he saw one person who was coming towards them from the side of Delhi Gate. He seemed to be under the influence of alcohol / drugs due to which they got suspicious of him and they apprehended him. They inquired about him, but he could not give any satisfactory answer. On enquiry, his name was revealed as Fahim S/o Naeem. He along with IO asked 4 to 5 State Vs. Fahim FIR No. 255/2020 PS Chandni Mahal 6/18 public persons to join the investigation but they refused to join and left the place on pretext of some urgent work. No notice was served to them due to paucity of time. ASI Rakesh conducted a cursory search of the accused and found one buttondar knife from the right pocket of the pants. IO / ASI Rakesh Kumar prepared the sketch memo which is Ex.PW-1/A. The total length of the knife was 23.05 cm and the length of the button was 12.05 cm and the width of blade was 2.03 cm having a button on the handle of knife and the length of the blade was 11 cm. IO put the knife in the white pullanda and sealed it with the seal RK. IO prepared the seizure memo which is Ex.PW-1/B. The seal after use was handed over to him. Thereafter, IO prepared the tehrir / rukka and handed over the same to HC Yadram for the registration of the FIR. After registration of the FIR, he came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir / rukka to the second IO / ASI Latoor Singh who in the meanwhile came at the spot. IO handed over the custody of the accused to second IO / ASI Latoor Singh. Second IO inserted the particulars of the case on sketch memo and seizure memo. IO / ASI Latoor Singh prepared the site plan at the instance of ASI Rakesh Kumar. IO / ASI Latoor Singh arrested the accused vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW1/C and conducted the person search vide memo which is Ex. PW1/D. IO / ASI Latoor Singh recorded the disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex.PW-1/E. The accused was taken to hospital and medically examined and was produced before the concerned court and sent to JC. IO deposited the case property in Malkhana. IO recorded State Vs. Fahim FIR No. 255/2020 PS Chandni Mahal 7/18 his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C and he was discharged. PW-3 had correctly identified the accused. [MHC(M) had produced the case property, in a white pullanda having a particulars of the present case on it and duly sealed. The seal was intact and opened with the permission of the court. On seeing the case property i.e. the buttondar knife, the witness had correctly identified the case property which is Ex.P-1].
9. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-3 admitted the suggestion that the incident spot is a crowded area. He further admitted that IO did not give written notice to join the investigation to any public person in his presence. IO did not record the name and addresses of the public persons. He admitted the suggestion that the CCTV cameras were not installed on the spot. He denied the suggestion that the IO did not make any efforts to get the CCTV footage. PW-3 has denied that no property was recovered from the accused or that the property was falsely implanted upon the accused. He also denied that all the documents were prepared while sitting at the PS. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
10. Vide statements of the accused recorded U/s 294 Cr.P.C, the accused admitted the factum of the present FIR, Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, DAD notification & G.D no. 0012A dated 01.08.2020 which are Ex.A-1, Ex. A-2, Ex. A-3 and Ex.A-4 without admitting the contents of the same.
11. The prosecution evidence was closed on 08.12.2023. Statement of the accused u/s 313 read with section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded in which he stated that he was innocent and had State Vs. Fahim FIR No. 255/2020 PS Chandni Mahal 8/18 been falsely implicated in the case. He further stated that no knife was recovered from his possession and recovery has been planted. He stated that he has not committed any offence. He also submitted that he did not want to lead defence evidence. Final arguments in the matter were heard.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
12. At the time of final arguments, Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and all the ingredients of the relevant section are complete. Per contra, it is vehemently argued by the Ld. LAC for the accused that all the prosecution witnesses are police witnesses and their testimonies are not corroborated with any public witness. He submitted that the accused has been planted in the present matter. He prayed that the accused be acquitted.
13. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and perused the documents on record carefully. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for state and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and carefully perused the documents on record. Before moving on for appreciation of evidence for deciding the present case, the applicable penal provision is reproduced in verbatim as follows:-
"25. Punishment for certain offences:-
(1B) Whoever-...
(b) acquires, has in his possession or carries in any place specified by notification under section 4 any arms of such class or description as has been specified in that notification in contravention of that section; or...shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 25 State Vs. Fahim FIR No. 255/2020 PS Chandni Mahal 9/18 [one year] but which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine."
14. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused. Further, it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such reasonable doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
15. Coming to the matter in hand, to sustain conviction u/s 25 of Arms Act, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:
(1) The accused was found in the possession of the button actuated knife.
(2) The accused was carrying the same without any licence/permit or in contravention of notification of Delhi Administration.
16. After thoroughly going through the evidence led on behalf of the State, at the outset, it comes out that no independent witness was joined in the investigation. The Hon'ble Supreme court in State Of Punjab V. Balbir Singh AIR 1994 SC 1872, held that:
"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 State Vs. Fahim FIR No. 255/2020 PS Chandni Mahal 10/18 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 with the search and strictly comply with these provisions. [Emphasis supplied]"
17. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe that all the PWs had admitted the suggestion that the incident spot is a crowded area. Further, it is admitted that neither names have been recorded nor any notices have been served to any of the public persons who refused to join the investigation nor he recorded the statements of any such public persons.
18. On a careful perusal of the documentary records relied on by the prosecution, it is quite clear that the FIR which is Ex.A-1 does not mention the presence of any public witness or independent witness in the alleged recovery proceedings. It is also pertinent to note that the alleged spot of incident is near the Fasil Road and site plan which is Ex. PW-2/A also shows that there is a temple and police booth also near the spot which implies that there was ample opportunity with the police official to have the independent witnesses join the investigation. No person from the said area has been made to join the investigation in the matter by the IO and no reasons whatsoever have been State Vs. Fahim FIR No. 255/2020 PS Chandni Mahal 11/18 given for this lapse. The reasons given above raise serious doubts at the version of the prosecution.
19. Considering the above facts, it comes out that there was no lack of time and opportunity with the IO to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with the provisions of code of criminal procedure. Merely mentioning that public persons were requested to join the investigation is of no avail. The names of those persons are not mentioned. It is not mentioned as to what action was taken against those persons who refused to join the investigation.
20. The above stated observation of this court is fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hemraj vs. State Of Haryana (AIR 2005 SC 2110) "the fact that no independent witness though available, was examined and not even an explanation was sought to be given for not examining such witness is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case..."
21. Furthermore, in the case titled Roop Chand vs. State Of Haryana, 1999 (1)C.L.R 69, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana held as following:
"...It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police State Vs. Fahim FIR No. 255/2020 PS Chandni Mahal 12/18 officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the public had refused to to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful..."
22. In the present case, all the prosecution witnesses examined in the present matter are police witnesses. The testimony of official witnesses doesn't find any corroboration from any independent source. In the opinion of this court, non-joining of independent/public witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case and creates serious doubts regarding the genuineness of investigation proceedings done at the spot.
23. Further, as per the prosecution story, a button actuated knife had been recovered from the possession of the accused. To substantiate this allegation, the prosecution has relied upon the FIR which is Ex.A-1 which mentioned that the case property was first sketched, measured, seized and sealed only thereafter, the rukka was sent for registration of FIR. Also, all the prosecution witnesses in their examination-in-chief in the court deposed that firstly, sketch of recovered knife was prepared, then it was seized in a cloth pullanda and seizure memo of the case property had been prepared. However, contrary to the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the seizure memo and sketch of the case property bear an FIR number. As per the contents of FIR, at the State Vs. Fahim FIR No. 255/2020 PS Chandni Mahal 13/18 time of the seizure the FIR number was not available and therefore, the FIR number could not have figured on the seizure memo or the sketch. The existence of the FIR number on these documents suggests that the seizure memo, and sketch memo were all prepared after the registration of the FIR. In view of the above discussion, it is not clear whether FIR was registered before all paperwork related to the case property was done or after. This erodes the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It is also pertinent to note that all the PWs deposed that second IO had inserted the FIR number in the said documents, however, the second IO was not examined and all the PWs had admitted that there was tampering done in the seizure memo and sketch once they were prepared. The possibility of further tampering cannot be ruled out. This further pointed out the quality of investigation done by police in the present matter.
24. Here, it is relevant to refer to case law reported as Mohd. Hashim v. State 1999(6) A.D. (Delhi) 569, wherein it was observed that when documents are prepared before the registration of FIR and it contains the FIR number, then inference has to be drawn that either FIR was recorded prior in time or the documents were prepared later on and in such cases benefit of the doubt is to be given to the accused.
25. Another deformity in the prosecution version is regarding the procedure to use seal and its handing over after use. This Court is conscious of precedent laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. State 1993 (1) RCR (CRIMINAL) 622, that:
State Vs. Fahim FIR No. 255/2020 PS Chandni Mahal 14/18 "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."
26. Coming to the factual matrix of the present case, all witnesses have deposed in their examination-in-chief that PW- 2/IO has seized and sealed the case property at the spot in clothed white pullanda with the seal of RK. PW-2 deposed after that seal was handed over to PW-3/ASI Babu Lal, however no handing over memo was surfaced in the record or exhibited in the prosecution evidence. The seal was handed over to the material prosecution witness, who is already interested in the case of the prosecution and not handed over to an independent witness nor deposited in malkhana. No explanation has come on record as to why the handing over memo was not made or the seal was not handed over to an independent witness or deposited in malkhana. In such a factual backdrop, the seal remained with the police officials of the same police station and therefore, the possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the seal was not within the reach of the said witness and thus, there was no scope of tampering of case property.
27. In this regard, judgment in a case titled as Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 452, may be adverted to, wherein it was observed in paragraph 7 that:
"...The very purpose of giving a seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the case property is State Vs. Fahim FIR No. 255/2020 PS Chandni Mahal 15/18 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 the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out."
28. Furthermore, with regard to the personal search of the accused before the alleged recovery of the buttondar knife from the possession of the accused, it was deposed by the PW-2 ASI Rakesh that he made a cursory search of the accused. During the examination-in-chief of the above witness, he has not mentioned giving the opportunity to the accused to search himself before and then did the personal search of the accused so as to eliminate the chance of planting illegal arms. This fact was not mentioned in either the FIR or testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3 who were also allegedly present at the spot at the time of recovery, which further erodes the testimony of the PWs in this regard and possibility of planting of case property upon the accused could not be ruled out. In the case of Orissa High Court reported as Rabindernath Prusty v/s State of Orissa, it was held that "One of the formalities that have to be observed in searching a person is that the searching Officer and other assisting him should give their search to the accused before searching the person of the accused."
29. In the present case, no independent witness deposed about the search being done by the accused before his personal search whereby the buttondar knife was recovered from him. All these circumstances raise serious doubt regarding the fairness and credibility of investigation proceedings conducted by the police State Vs. Fahim FIR No. 255/2020 PS Chandni Mahal 16/18 at the alleged date, time and place.
30. In S. L. Goswami VS. State Of M.P., 1972, CRI.L.J 511 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"... in our view, the onus to proving all the ingredient of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in case where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredient of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which vests upon the prosecution..."
CONCLUSION:
31. It is trite in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be allowed to the accused.
32. On careful perusal and analysis of the entire evidence, I find that there is no corroborative, consistent and sufficient evidence to make up the edifice of the prosecution case which has been produced by the prosecution. Given the aforementioned State Vs. Fahim FIR No. 255/2020 PS Chandni Mahal 17/18 facts and circumstances, it has to be concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Accused is given the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the accused Fahim S/o Mohd. Naeem, R/o House no. 452, Gali Bahar Wali, Chatta Lal Miyan, Daryaganj, Delhi is hereby acquitted for an offence punishable under Section 25 of The Arms Act, 1959. Case property be confiscated to the State and be destroyed after expiry of the period of appeal.
33. File be consigned to Record Room subject to compliance of section 437-A Cr.PC.
Announced in the open court
today i.e. 30.01.2024 Digitally signed
by MEENA
CHAUHAN
MEENA
CHAUHAN Date:
2024.01.30
16:52:36
+0530
(MEENA CHAUHAN)
Metropolitan Magistrate-08
Central District, Tis Hazari
Courts/Delhi
[This judgment contains 18 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.] State Vs. Fahim FIR No. 255/2020 PS Chandni Mahal 18/18