Delhi District Court
State vs Dr.Subhash Seth on 28 April, 2025
DLNW010088552016
Presented on : 03-11-2016
Registered on : 01-04-2017
Decided on : 28-04-2025
Duration : 8 years, 5 months,
25 days
IN THE COURT OF
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)
AT NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided Over by Sh. Vikram)
SC/197/2017
Annexure 'A'- List of witnesses
Annexure 'B'- List of exhibits
STATE
Through Police Station Officer North Rohini
North West Delhi
VERSUS
DR. SUBHASH SETH
S/o Sh. R.K. Seth
R/o Bharti Nursing Home,
A-132, Palam Extn.
New Delhi-110077.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ld. Addl. PP for State : Sh. Vikas
Ld. counsel for accused : Sh. Vinod Malhotra
FIR No. : 359/2016
Police Station : North Rohini
Under Section : 3 (1) (r) & 3 (2) (vii) SC/ST Act
SC No. 197/2017 State Vs. Dr. Subhash Seth Page no. 1 of 18
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date: 2025.04.28
16:42:29 +0530
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 28-04-2025)
1. Facts of the case, as per prosecution, are that complainant Anita was posted as ANS (Assistant Nursing Superintendent) at BSA Hospital. The accused Dr. Subhash Seth was DMS in the same hospital and on 18.07.2016 a meeting was organized by Dr. Subhash Seth and other doctors with all the ANS and nursing staff to discuss about NABH. The complainant belongs to Valmiki caste, a scheduled caste recognized by Constitution, and during the meeting while accused was talking about house keeping services, he started blaming ANS and nursing staff for the work of house keeping staff and started questioning on their attendance which was not the topic of meeting. As per complainant, at the time of meeting, the accused started shouting loudly and started saying that whoever belongs to Pandit, Rajput or Khatri should raise their hands and tell if they are proud of their caste or not. Since the complainant was from scheduled caste category she told the same to accused but accused interjected her and asked her to stand separate and told her to leave the meeting room if she has any objection.
2. Complainant was humiliated by this behaviour and was feeling bad but accused again shouted by saying if he would be low caste Chudha he would have raised his hand and repeated this four times and asked the complainant to stand separate. Because of this behaviour, complainant reported the matter to the Medical Director vide diary no. 9121 dated 19.07.2016.
SC No. 197/2017 State Vs. Dr. Subhash Seth Page no. 2 of 18 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2025.04.28 16:42:39 +0530
3. At the same time, on 12.08.2016 complainant also filed complaint before SHO PS Rohini Sector 7. On 27.08.2016, the FIR for offence under Section 3(1) (r) (u) & 3(2) (vii) SC/ST Act was registered against the accused. On the complaint dated 19.07.2016, the department had initiated inquiry against the accused vide order dated 19.01.2017. During investigation, after recording statement of witnesses, report of departmental inquiry was also collected and after completion of inquiry, the accused was charge sheeted.
4. After receiving sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., cognizance was taken and on 10.10.2017 charge under Section 3 (1) (r) & 3 (2) (vii) SC/ST Act was settled against the accused, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. To prove its case, prosecution examined 10 witnesses. A gist of their testimony is as under:
5.1 Pw1 SI Sunita proved FIR Ex.Pw1/A and endorsement on rukka Ex.Pw1/B. 5.2 Pw2 is complainant Anita. She deposed about the incident as narrated in her complaint and proved her complaint Ex.Pw2/A, caste certificate Ex.Pw2/B, complaint dated 19.07.2016 Ex.Pw2/C, copy of list of witnesses who attended the meeting on 18.07.2016 Ex.Pw2/D. She further deposed that after registration of the case she was continuously harassed by the administrative authorities and on 23.01.2017 while she was present in the hospital she was assaulted and was pressurized to take her SC No. 197/2017 State Vs. Dr. Subhash Seth Page no. 3 of 18 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2025.04.28 16:42:48 +0530 complaint back, of which she registered another FIR No. 37/2017 Ex.Pw2/E. 5.3 Pw-3 Ranjeet Kumar Jha produced the original caste certificate Ex.Pw3/A and his letter verifying the caste of the complainant Ex.Pw3/B. 5.4 Pw-4 Smt. Neena Mittal was nursing office and was present in the meeting on 18.07.2016. She deposed about the meeting that the moment meeting started the accused started asking who is Rajput and Pandit and asked about the caste of the people attending the meeting on which complainant objected stating that this is not the issue for which meeting was called and he should not talk about the caste of the members. As per her deposition, Dr. Subhash Seth stated that one should feel proud of his being Pandit or Rajput on which the complainant asked since she belongs to scheduled caste should she wear the tag of her caste. Pw-4 further deposed that on this question of complainant, accused stated that yes, she should wear the tag and if she is feeling bad she may stand aside and if she is feeling extremely bad she may leave the room and the accused became very aggressive and said that "main chudha hun, mujhe garv karna chaiya, tum chudhe ho to tum garv karo". After which all left the meeting. Her name is mentioned in the list of witnesses submitted by complainant and identified her signatures at Ex.Pw2/D. 5.5 Pw-5 Smt. Sunita Kohli is another witness present in the meeting and as per her deposition during meeting accused asked SC No. 197/2017 State Vs. Dr. Subhash Seth Page no. 4 of 18 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2025.04.28 16:42:56 +0530 who are Pandit, Rajput and Khatri present in the meeting and said that whether they feel proud that they belong to such caste on which complainant objected by saying that meeting is not called to know the caste of the members. She further deposed that when Dr. Subhash Seth asked the complainant what was her problem, complainant told that she is feeling hurt as she does not belong to higher caste and belongs to scheduled caste on which the accused said that if it is so there should not be any problem.
However, complainant told that if she belongs to SC caste, should she put a tag of that caste on her on which accused told her to stand aside if she has problem, otherwise she may leave the room. Pw-5 also deposed that when complainant asked accused to restrain himself as she was feeling hurt, the accused called to himself by saying main chudha hun and he said this four times and asked what is the problem if she says so. She is also witness to Ex.Pw2/D. 5.6 Pw-6 Tejinder Kaur is the another witness of the meeting. She also deposed about accused asking about the caste and if they feel proud of being member of their caste and the objection of complainant. As per Pw-6 after complainant raised objection, some quarrel and argument started in the meeting and the meeting was boycotted. The witness was partly declared hostile and she did not depose about subsequent conversation between complainant and accused and subjected to cross examination.
5.7 Pw-7 Kiran Bedi was also present in the meeting. She too deposed that accused told them to feel pride of their caste and asked whose job it is to deliver 'bed pan' on which the SC No. 197/2017 State Vs. Dr. Subhash Seth Page no. 5 of 18 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2025.04.28 16:43:03 +0530 complainant told that this is the job of 4 th class employee. As per Pw-7, arguments started between accused and complainant and those arguments came to the point of caste and then Dr. Subhash said that one should feel proud of his caste whichever he may belong and used words Hindu, Rajput, Punjabi and Pandit. However, complainant told the accused not to talk about the caste and when accused asked why she is feeling bad, the complainant told him that she does not like to talk about the caste. As per Pw-7 it was at this point accused told the complainant that if she is feeling bad she may sit at the back and then complainant left the meeting and other sisters also followed her. Pw-7 further deposed that after coming out of the meeting room, she was asked to sign some papers to send to MS, reporting the incident of meeting and later she came to know that it was a complaint against accused. Pw-7 was also declared hostile and subjected to cross examination.
5.8 Pw-8 Dr. Punit Mahajan had received letter from ACP concerned under Section 91 Cr.P.C., Ex.Pw8/A and in response to that letter, given his reply Ex.Pw8/B and annexed the copy of complaint received from accused Ex.Pw8/P1 and the copy of file of inquiry Ex.PwB2 & B3. He also proved his reply Ex.Pw8/C and verified daily attendance report Ex.Pw8/C1 to Ex.Pw8/C6.
5.9 Pw-9 Umesh Singh was the then ACP Rohini who issued order Ex.Pw9/A for registration of FIR and obtained sanction Ex.Pw9/B. 5.10 Pw-10 Sh. Ankit Kumar Singh is the IO who conducted the SC No. 197/2017 State Vs. Dr. Subhash Seth Page no. 6 of 18 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.04.28 16:43:10 +0530investigation and collected all the documents during investigation.
6. After completion of PE accused was examined under Section 313Cr.P.C. and was put all the incriminating material. Accused claimed innocence and stated that this meeting was to be presided over by Medical Director Ms. Puneeta Mahajan. However, she was busy at some other place, therefore, he was asked to chair the meeting. Accused claimed that at least four senior most ANSs were supposed to attend the meeting but none of them was present. Therefore, he had to call them individually because meeting was important as the hospital was going to start a medical college in the hospital. Accused also stated that there was shortage of sweepers and to make the deficiency of hospital administration some sweepers were taken on contract basis on daily wages and their attendance was required to be reported to higher authorities by the nursing incharge of the ward to ensure their timely release of wages. But the attendance of sweeper was not reported in time which was causing delay and unrest among the daily wages. Therefore, he has been emphasizing and insisting on this point of timely report the attendance on which complainant took it as a blame and was annoyed and he also noticed that some nurses were indulged in corrupt practices. To the conversation where he used the caste and identification, the accused stated that he did not used any casteist or any derogatory remark against complainant or any other person. It is stated that he was starting to conversation about creating sense of ownership, belongingness and possessiveness regarding the hospital and to inspire the meeting staff he used the identities to SC No. 197/2017 State Vs. Dr. Subhash Seth Page no. 7 of 18 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2025.04.28 16:43:18 +0530 show as oneness and being proud of the same like everyone used to feel proud of the caste he belongs. It is stated that BSA Hospital was trying to get NABH accreditation status so that the hospital could obtain permission to start new medical college and for that a lot of work was to be done without any lapse and he was imposing strict discipline, which annoyed them. Accused further stated that when the discussion on the daily wages and providing bed pan started, which was essential service and duty of nurses, the nurses got infuriated and told that the meeting should confine to the subject to NABH only. However, services facilities were part of NABH and not a deviation from the agenda but the complainant showed her disregard to the sense of subordination and interjected him and because of that the complainant and other staff withdrew from meeting at the behest of complainant. Accused also stated that after the incident, he immediately filed complaint to the higher authority. The complainant had not filed any complaint on the date of incident but when she came to know that complaint is filed against her, she filed the counter complaint. Accused further stated that even in inquiry he was exonerated as the allegations of complainant were found to be false but despite that he faced the trial. It is claimed that he is innocent and having a clean and credited service record.
7. Accused opted to lead defecne evidence and Called Dw-1 Sumit Shokenda who produced Ex.Dw1/A with respect to the various memorandums, complaints, transfer orders, inquiry reports, disciplinary proceedings etc. of the complainant.
SC No. 197/2017 State Vs. Dr. Subhash Seth Page no. 8 of 18 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2025.04.28 16:43:25 +0530
8. After that matter was taken up for final arguments.
9. Ld. Addl. PP for State would submit that the accused was superior to complainant and despite knowing that complainant belongs to scheduled caste community, he specifically asked for the case of all the members, belonging to Sharma, Khatri and Jaat, present in the meeting so as to show them distinct and feel them pride in comparison to complainant, who belong to scheduled caste community and on her objection the accused instead of correcting himself asked the complainant to stand aside in the meeting or to leave the meeting room. It is submitted that this conduct itself shows that accused wanted to dehumanize the complainant only because she belonged to scheduled caste community, as such he has committed the offence under Section 3 (1) (r) and also under Section 3 (2) (vii) of SC/ST Act as the accused is a public servant. Ld. Addl. PP for the State would point out to the testimony of witnesses who were present with the complainant and have deposed about the incident.
10. Per contra, ld. Defence counsel would point out date the entire case made out of misunderstanding of the complainant by taking the words of the accused in negative way. Ld. Defence counsel would submit that when the accused was taking the meeting there was urgency and heavy pressure on the hospital as accreditation of hospital was pending and there were several issued specifically with respect to house keeping. Therefore, when the accused was asking for the members present in the meeting if they feel pride on their caste, he was about to make a conversation that the hospital staff is also a distinct category and SC No. 197/2017 State Vs. Dr. Subhash Seth Page no. 9 of 18 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.04.28 16:43:33 +0530one should feel pride for being member of the institution. However, the complainant took this conversation otherwise and before the accused finished his conversation she interjected the accused in a disobedient manner. Ld. Defence counsel would further submitted that accused was even clarified that even if he would have been of scheduled caste she would have been proud of his caste, therefore, he said those words that 'agar me chudha hota to main garv se kehta'. It is submitted that it was not with intention to humiliate the complainant but to bring a sense of feeling pride of once identity which he was trying to establish that the staff members being associated to BSA Hospital are also have a distinct identity and they should feel pride about the same. Ld. Defence counsel would further submitted that even otherwise this trial was completed and uncalled for because the accused had faced departmental inquiry on these allegations and exonerated. However, IO did not even consider the inquiry report before filing the charge sheet. Ld. Counsel would point out the cross examination of IO where he admitted that he had not gone through the findings of departmental inquiries before preparing the charge sheet.
11. Ld. Defence counsel would also point out to the fact that the complaint Ex.Pw2/C was made on 19.07.2016 in which a list of members present was also sent. However, some of the members had refused to have knowledge about what is being sent to the Chief Medical Director of BSA Hospital. However, before this complaint was filed, the accused had already written to the CMD vide intimation dated 18.07.2016 Ex.Pw8/B1 in which accused himself had narrated the entire event. Therefore, the SC No. 197/2017 State Vs. Dr. Subhash Seth Page no. 10 of 18 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2025.04.28 16:43:40 +0530 complaint Ex.Pw2/C was filed as a counter blast in order to save her own skin.
12. Ld. Defence counsel wold also point out towards the conduct of complainant by referring to various memorandums, complaint, transfer orders, inquiry reports and disciplinary proceedings against the complainant.
13. In support of arguments, ld. Defence counsel has placed reliance on following judgments:
(a) Sajjan Kumar Vs. The State & Anr, 2006 SCC Online Del 700;
(b) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Babbu Rathore & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2020, Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11369 of 2019;
(c) Thangarasu & Anr. Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhavani, Vellithiruppur, 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 1514;
(d) Kavita Vs. State (Govt. NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5382;
(e) Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 531;
(f) Shashikant Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1037;
(g) Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Anr. (2020) 9 SCR 593;
(h) Daya Bhatnagar & Ors. Vs. State 2004 SCC OnLin Del 33;
(i) Karuppudayar Vs. State Rep. By the Deputy Superintendet of Police, Lagudi Trichy & Ors. Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8778- 8779 of 2024;
SC No. 197/2017 State Vs. Dr. Subhash Seth Page no. 11 of 18 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2025.04.28 16:43:48 +0530
(j) Praveen Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh Govt. Criminal Appeal no. 414 of 2013;
(k) Ajit Kumar Vs. Sate NCT of Delhi & Anr. CRL. MC 2184/2021;
(l) Jagdish Singh @ Jagdish Kumar Singh Vs. State of UP, 2024:AHC-LKO:68598;
14. The fact that meeting had taken place and accused had shouted on the members present in the meeting is not disputed. The Ex.Pw8/B1 which was filed by accused on 18.07.2016 itself records that while he was taking the meeting, in order to motivate the staff by stimulating their thinking and exemplifying what is meant by proud feeling of being associated to an organization, he gave examples by asking how many of them were Jaat and when one person raised her hand, he asked her if she is proud of being Jaat and he then asked is there any Rajput and two raised their hands and they too were asked if they are proud of being Rajput. While he was making same analogy the complainant interjected by saying that the accused is casteist and started for looking for other staff nurse which escalated further. Therefore, she was asked to leave the meeting, if she do not want to participate.
15. It is admitted by the complainant in her cross examination that this meeting was to be held by Dr. Puneeta Mahajan but she was not present in the hospital on the day of meeting. This fact that the accused was not supposed to chair the meeting on 18.07.2016 and before that accused was not aware about the caste of complainant is also the finding of departmental inquiry Ex.Pw8/B3.
SC No. 197/2017 State Vs. Dr. Subhash Seth Page no. 12 of 18 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2025.04.28 16:43:55 +0530
16. Therefore, what transpires from the fact of the case is that while accused was taking meeting he asked for caste of some persons and asked if they are proud of their caste or not. However, the complainant felt uncomfortable because she belongs to scheduled caste community and told the accused to not discuss about the caste. By that time, accused was not even aware about the caste of complainant. It was the complainant who introduced her caste to the accused. Therefore, there is no question of prior intention to demean anyone present in the meeting for his or her being member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, including the complainant. Since the complaint interjected in the middle of conversation even what is about to be said further was stopped from being revealed and for the objection of the complainant, as the matter escalated, members withdrew from the meeting.
17. On the other hand, the accused was already exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings on the same set of allegations which was never considered by the IO before filing the charge sheet. On this point, as relied by ld. Counsel for accused, in Jagdish Singh @ Jagdish Kumar Singh Vs. State of UP & Ors. Neutral Citation no. 2024:AHC-LKO:68598 while quashing the proceedings Hon;ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow held that if an accused has been exonerated and held innocent in the disciplinary proceedings after the allegations have been found to be unsustainable, then the criminal prosecution premised on the same/identical set of allegations cannot be permitted to continue. Hon'ble High Court had referred to the judgment of Hon'ble SC No. 197/2017 State Vs. Dr. Subhash Seth Page no. 13 of 18 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.04.28 16:44:02 +0530Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal, (2011) 3 SCC 581 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that:
"39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceedings for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned is adjudication proceedings is on merits in case it is found on merits that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the Court."
18. The accused was exonerated in the departmental proceedings in which all the person present at the time of meeting were examined. The IO was bound to refer to the order of departmental proceedings before filing of charge sheet, which he did not and as discussed above it was not a case where accused wanted to insult or humiliate the complainant personally. His reference to castes of the members present in the meeting was to bring a sense of belongingness and feel proud of their belongingness. Had there been any intention to humiliate any member of scheduled caste community, the accused was, by intervention of complainant and her introduction of caste, interjected/stopped before expressing such intentions.
19. The accused can be held liable under Section 3 (1) (r) SC/ST Act only if he intended to insult with intent to humiliate the victim which is not found in this case. Section 3 (2) (vii) SC/ST Act would apply only if any offence is found to be committed by the accused. In view of the discussion above held, Iam of the view that prosecution has failed to prove the charge against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is SC No. 197/2017 State Vs. Dr. Subhash Seth Page no. 14 of 18 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2025.04.28 16:44:09 +0530 acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.
Digitally signed by VIKRAMVIKRAM Date: 2025.04.28 Date : 28.04.2025 16:44:18 +0530 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/28.04.2025 Dictated on : 28.04.2025 Digitally signed Transcribed on : 28.04.2025 by VIKRAM checked on : 28.04.2025 VIKRAM Date: 2025.04.28 16:44:23 +0530 Signed on : 28.04.2025 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/28.04.2025 SC No. 197/2017 State Vs. Dr. Subhash Seth Page no. 15 of 18 Annexure 'A' List of Prosecution Witnesses S.No. PW No. Name of Witness Details of Witness 1. Pw-1 SI Sunita Duty officer 2. Pw-2 Ms. Anita Complainant 3. Pw-3 Sh. Ranjeet Kumar Jha Tehsildar 4. Pw-4 Smt. Neena Mittal Public witness 5. Pw-5 Ms. Sunita Koli Public witness 6. Pw-6 Smt. Tajinder Kaur Public witness 7. Pw-7 Smt. Kiran Bedi Public witness 8. Pw-8 Dr. Puneet Mahajan Medical Director at BSA (at the time of incident) 9. Pw-9 Sh. Umesh Singh 1st IO 10. Pw-10 Sh. Ankit Kumar Singh, 2nd IO IPS Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2025.04.28 (Vikram) 16:44:30 +0530 ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/28.04.2025 SC No. 197/2017 State Vs. Dr. Subhash Seth Page no. 16 of 18 Annexure 'B' List of Exhibits S.No. Exhibit No. Details of Remarks Documents 1. Ex.Pw1/A Copy of FIR 2. Ex.Pw1/B Endorsement on rukka 3. Ex.Pw1/C Certificate u/S 65B IEA 4. Ex.Pw2/A Complaint 5. Ex.Pw2/B Caste certificate of complainant 6. Ex.Pw2/C Original acknowledgment copy of complaint dated 19.07.2016 7. Ex.Pw2/D List of persons who attended the meeting on 18.07.2016 8. Ex.Pw2/E Copy of FIR No. 37/17 PS North Rohini 9. Ex.Pw2/DA Statement u/S 161 Cr.P.C. 10. Ex.Pw2/DB Complaint dated 18.07.2016 11. Ex.Pw2/DX Complaint made to secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare dated 19.01.2017 12. Ex.Pw3/A Relevant entry with respect to caste certificate in the register 13. Ex.Pw3/B Letter written by Pw3 14. Ex.Pw4/DA Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. SC No. 197/2017 State Vs. Dr. Subhash Seth Page no. 17 of 18 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2025.04.28 16:44:39 +0530 15. Ex.Pw5/A Copy of I-card of Pw5 16. Ex.Pw5/DA Statement u/S 161 Cr.P.C. 17. Ex.Pw8/A Letter of ACP u/S 91 Cr.P.C. 18. Ex.Pw8/B Reply to letter of ACP 19. Ex.Pw8/B1 Copy of complaint received from accused 20. Ex.Pw8/B2 File vide which committee was constituted 21. Ex.Pw8/B3 Report of inquiry 22. Ex.Pw8/C Another reply to letter of ACP 23. Ex.Pw8/C1 to Daily attendance Ex.Pw8/C6 report 24. Ex.Pw9/A Order to register FIR 25. Ex.Pw9/B Sanction u/S 197 Cr.P.C. 26. Ex.Pw10/P-1 Notice u/S 91 Cr.P.C. 27. Ex.Pw10/P-2 Copy of I-card of complainant 28. Ex.Pw10/P-3 Copy of I-card of Tajinder Kaur 29. Ex.Pw10/P-4 Copy of I-card of Dr. Subhash Seth
30. Ex.Pw10/P-5 Letter for issuance of sanction u/S 197 Cr.P.C.
Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.04.28
(Vikram) 16:44:49 +0530
ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS),
North West, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/28.04.2025
SC No. 197/2017 State Vs. Dr. Subhash Seth Page no. 18 of 18