Delhi District Court
State vs Satpal And Ors on 13 March, 2026
Page 1 of 16
IN THE COURT OF ASHISH KUMAR MEENA
JMFC-01, SAKET COURT (SOUTH) NEW DELHI.
FIR NO.: 216/2019
U/S: 33/52(2)/58 DELHI EXCISE ACT
PS: FATEHPUR BERI
STATE
VS.
(1). SATPAL, S/O SH. BILORI RAM,
R/o H. No.E-196, Sanjay Colony, Bhati Mines, New Delhi.
(2). PINKY, W/O SH. SATPAL,
R/o H. No.E-196, Sanjay Colony, Bhati Mines, New Delhi.
..... ACCUSED PERSONS
1. Sr. No. of the case : 5724/2019
2. The date of offence : 11.06.2019
3. The name of the complainant : HC Sudhir
4. The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
5. The date of order : 13.03.2026
6. The final order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, Satpal ("Accused no.1") is facing trial for the allegations that on 11.06.2019, at about 12:10 a.m., at Jheel Khurd Picket, Dera Village, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS-Fatehpur Beri, was found carrying illit liquor in vehicle bearing registration no. HR-55AE-8022 ("Offending vehicle"), without any licence or permit or pass, thereby accused no.1 has Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA FIR No: 216/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Satpal & Anr. 2026.03.13 16:24:34 +0530 Page 2 of 16 committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52/58 Delhi Excise Act.
2. It is also an allegation that Pinky ("Accused no.2"), being owner of the offending vehicle, allowed co-accused Satpal to carry illicit liquor in her vehicle. Thereby, accused no.2 Pinky has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52 Delhi Excise Act.
3. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO. Consequently, accused persons were summoned after taking cognizance of offence. The accused persons were charged u/s 33/52(2)/58 of the Delhi Excise Act and accordingly, the charges were framed against the accused persons to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined total five witnesses. PW-3 HC Sudhir has deposed that on 10.06.2019, he was on picket duty along with Ct. Sandeep, and their duty hours were from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM. They were deployed at Jheel Khurd Picket near the MCD Toll at Dera Village. During the course of duty, he noticed a TSR auto- rickshaw bearing registration No. HR-55AE-8022 approaching the picket. He signalled the said TSR to stop and found that it was being driven by accused Satpal. Upon checking the vehicle, he found six gatta petties containing illicit liquor at the rear side of the vehicle. Thereafter, he informed the Duty Officer regarding the recovery of the illicit liquor. After some time, IO/HC Jitender along with Ct. Kishan reached the spot. He handed over the custody of the accused as well as the recovered illicit liquor to the IO. The IO checked the six gatta petties and Digitally found 48 quarter bottles of 180 ml each in every gatta peti, signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
2026.03.13 FIR No: 216/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Satpal & Anr. 16:24:37 +0530 Page 3 of 16 bearing the label "Asli Masaledar Santra - For Sale in Haryana Only". The IO took out one quarter bottle from each gatta peti for the purpose of sampling, and the remaining quarter bottles were kept in three plastic kattas. The six samples were given serial numbers 1 to 6 respectively. Thereafter, the kattas were sealed with the seal of "JS" and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point B. The seal after use was handed over to Ct. Kishan. The IO also seized the TSR auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. HR-55AE-8022 vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, the IO recorded his statement and prepared the rukka vide Ex.PW2/A and the same was handed over to Ct. Kishan for registration of the FIR. Ct. Kishan went to the Police Station and got the FIR registered. After registration of the FIR, Ct. Kishan returned to the spot along with the copy of FIR and original tehrir and handed over the same to the IO. Thereafter, the IO prepared the site plan vide Ex. PW1/C at his instance and in his presence. The accused was thereafter arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/E. Thereafter, the IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Satpal vide Ex.PW1/F. After that, further proceedings in the present matter were carried out by the IO. It is to be noted that PW-4 HC Sandeep has deposed on the same lines as PW-3 HC Sudhir. Both the witnesses were duly cross- examined by the accused persons.
5. PW-5 HC Jitender (IO of this case) has deposed that on 10.06.2019, in the intervening night he received DD No. 4B regarding recovery of illicit liquor at Jheel Khurd. After receiving the said DD entry, he alongwith Ct. Krishan went to the spot i.e. Jheel Khurd, Picket Dera Village. At the spot, they met Ct.
Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 216/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Satpal & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.03.13 16:24:40 +0530 Page 4 of 16 Sudhir and Ct. Sandeep, who had already apprehended a person along with illicit liquor in a TSR auto. They produced the said person before him. Upon inquiry, he came to know that his name was Satpal s/o Sh. Bilori Ram r/o Sanjay Colony, Bhati Mines, and the said auto was bearing registration No. HR-55AE-8022. The said auto was carrying six peties of illicit liquor having the label "ASLI SANTRA MASALEDAR DESI SHARAB." Each peti was consisting of 48 quarter bottles of illicit liquor. He took out one quarter bottle from each peti as a sample, and the remaining quarter bottles were kept in the same respective peties. All the peties were given serial numbers 1 to 6, and the sample bottles were given serial numbers S-1 to S-6. The mouths of the sample bottles were tied with pieces of white cloth and sealed with the seal of "JS" All the sample bottles were kept in a separate plastic katta, the mouth of which was also tied with a piece of white cloth and sealed with the seal of "JS" Thereafter, two gatta peties were kept in each plastic katta, and hence six gatta peties were kept in three plastic kattas. The mouth of each plastic katta was also tied with a piece of white cloth and sealed with the seal of "JS". He prepared Form M-29 at the spot. After use, the seal was handed over to Ct. Krishan. He took the illicit liquor along with sample bottles into custody vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. He also took the offending vehicle into custody vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. He recorded the statement of Ct. Sudhir vide Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka vide Ex.PW5/A and handed over the same to Ct. Krishan for registration of FIR. Ct. Krishan went to the Police Station and got the FIR registered. After registration of the FIR, he returned to the spot and handed over the original tehrir and copy of FIR to him. He then mentioned the FIR number on the seizure memos Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 216/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Satpal & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.03.13 16:24:43 +0530 Page 5 of 16 and prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW1/C. He arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D. The personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/E. Thereafter, he recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide Ex.PW1/F. Thereafter, he along with other staff brought the case property and the accused to the Police Station. He deposited the case property in the Malkhana of PS Fatehpur Beri. The accused was sent for medical examination, and after the medical examination, he was produced before the Court, from where he was sent to judicial custody. He also recorded the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he verified the ownership of the said TSR auto and found that a lady namely Smt. Pinky was the registered owner of the said auto. On 26.06.2019, he alongwith W/Ct.
Pramila went to E-196, Sanjay Colony, Bhati Mines. There they met Smt. Pinky, who was the owner of the said TSR auto and wife of the accused Satpal. She produced the original RC, insurance and permit of the said auto. He took the same into custody vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. He made inquiries from the said lady and served her notice u/s 41A Cr.P.C. and bound her down in the present case. He also recorded the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he sent the excise samples to the Excise Department through Ct. Sandeep. He obtained the excise result and placed the same on record. He also recorded the statements of Ct. Sandeep and MHC(M). After completion of investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the concerned Court. It is to be noted that PW-1 HC Krishan Kumar (the then Constable) has deposed on the same lines as PW-5 HC Jitender. Both the witnesses were duly cross- examined by the accused persons.
Digitally
signed by
ASHISH
ASHISH KUMAR
KUMAR MEENA
FIR No: 216/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Satpal & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.03.13
16:24:47
+0530
Page 6 of 16
6. PW-2 W/Ct. Parmila has deposed that on 26.06.2019, she alongwith HC Jitender went to the residence of the owner of the TSR bearing registration No. HR-55AE-8022 at E-196, Sanjay Colony, Bhati Mines, New Delhi, where they met Smt. Pinky W/o Satpal, who was the owner of the said vehicle. Smt. Pinky produced the ownership documents of the TSR vehicle, which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. IO/HC Jitender served notice u/s 41A Cr.P.C. upon her and bound her down in the present case. Thereafter, the IO recorded her statement. The witness was duly cross-examined by the accused persons.
7. It is pertinent to mention that the accused persons have also admitted the genuineness of Rukka, FIR, Certificate u/s 65B IEA and Chemical Examination Report pertaining to offending vehicle without admitting the content of the same. Prosecution evidence was thereafter closed.
8. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 281 Cr.P.C r/w 313 Cr.P.C, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons, to which they stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case and all the exhibits are false and manipulated. Further, the accused persons did not wish to lead defence evidence.
9. Short point for determination before this court is as under:-
"Whether on 11.06.2019, at about 12:10 a.m., at Jheel Khurd Picket, Dera Village, New Delhi, Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
FIR No: 216/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Satpal & Anr. MEENA 2026.03.13 16:24:50 +0530 Page 7 of 16 within the jurisdiction of PS-Fatehpur Beri, was found carrying illit liquor in vehicle bearing registration no. HR-55AE-8022 ("Offending vehicle"), without any licence or permit or pass, thereby accused no.1 has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52 Delhi Excise Act"
"Whether Pinky ("Accused no.2"), being owner of the offending vehicle, allowed co-accused Satpal to carry illicit liquor in her vehicle. Thereby accused no.2 has committed an offence punishable u/s 33/52"
10. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that the ocular and the documentary evidence on record has proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. APP for the state submitted that there is sufficient material available on record to convict the accused persons and hence prayed for conviction of accused persons as per the evidence produced by the prosecution witnesses.
11. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused no.1 that no recovery was effected from possession of accused. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused no.2 that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery. The Ld. Counsel for accused persons submitted that the accused persons are innocent and falsely implicated in the present matter. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has pointed out the material contradiction made during the examination of prosecution witnesses. Furthermore, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that be accused persons are liable to the acquitted in the present case.
Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
FIR No: 216/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Satpal & Anr. 2026.03.13 16:24:53 +0530 Page 8 of 16
12. Final arguments heard. Case file perused.
13. In the present case accused persons are charged under Section 33/52 of Delhi Excise Act. Before appreciating the evidence in hand, it is important to go through the relevant provision of the Act:-
Section 33. Penalty for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture, possession, sale, etc. (1) Whoever, in contravention of provision of this Act or of any rule or order made or notification issued or of any licence, permit or pass, granted under this Act--
(a) manufactures, imports, exports, transports or removes any intoxicant;
(b) constructs or works any manufactory or warehouse;
(c) bottles any liquor for purposes of sale;
(d) uses, keeps or has in his possession any material, still, utensil, implement or apparatus, whatsoever, for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy or tari;
(e) possesses any material or film either with or without the Government logo or logo of any State or wrapper or any other thing in which liquor can be packed or any apparatus or implement or machine for the purpose of packing any liquor; Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR State Vs. Satpal & Anr. KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 216/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri Date:
MEENA 2026.03.13
16:24:56
+0530
Page 9 of 16
(f) sells any intoxicant, collects, possesses or buys any intoxicant beyond the prescribed quantity, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to one lath rupees.
14. It is also significant to note that Section 52 of Delhi Excise Act presumes that accused persons have committed the offence (u/s 33 of the act) for the possession of which accused persons are unable to account satisfactorily. However, this presumption can be rebutted if proved contrary. It is further to be noted that initial still lies with the prosecution to show that accused persons were found with illicit liquor without any licence. Section 52 of the Act lays down as follows:
Section 52. Presumption as to commission of offence in certain cases:
(1) In prosecution under section 33, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the accused person has committed the offence punishable under that section in respect of any intoxicant, still, utensil, implement or apparatus, for the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily.
(2) XXXXXXX
15. In order to receive the benefit of Section 52 of the Act, the prosecution is duty bound to prove that the accused persons were Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 216/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Satpal & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.03.13 16:24:59 +0530 Page 10 of 16 found in the possession of illicit liquor. As per version of the prosecution, the same is proved by the recovery memo and testimony of the witnesses. However, the manner of conducting inquiry, seizure and search etc. on the spot at the time of detaining the accused persons were and alleged recovery of liquor in this case, makes the prosecution version highly doubtful as there are various material contradictions can be seen in statement of prosecution witnesses.
16. It is the case of prosecution that the complainant/HC Sudhir alongwith Ct. Sandeep apprehended the accused no.1 with offending vehicle carrying illicit liquor. Thereafter, upon information HC Jitender and Ct. Kishan reached at the spot. HC Jitender took out sample bottles from bag and sealed the remaining case property with the seal of "JS". Thereafter, he seized the case property vide Ex.PW1/A and offending vehicle vide Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, he got present FIR registered through Ct. Kishan. It is an admitted position that the seizure memo was prepared prior to registration of FIR. The IO and prosecution has failed to explain the urgency of preparation of seizure memo and other investigation prior to registration of FIR. Thus, the chances of preparation of seizure memo at later stage cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, seizure memo Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B mentions the FIR number of the present case at the top of the said memo. No explanation has been put forward by the complainant or prosecution. The said lapse in investigation proves to be fatal to the case of prosecution.
17. Interestingly, all the witnesses have stated that no photographs of the case properties were taken at the time of Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 216/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Satpal & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.03.13 16:25:02 +0530 Page 11 of 16 recovery of property by them. It is to be noted that the prosecution has placed Ex.P2 (colly) (photograph of alleged offending vehicle) were tendered in evidence before this Court. However, the prosecution has failed to show who is the author of said photographs, as all the witnesses have deposed that they have not taken any photographs of the case property. Further, the prosecution has failed to explain as to why the collective photographs of the case property was not taken prior to sealing of the case property. It is further to be noted that the prosecution has placed photograph of the offending vehicle, however, bare perusal of the photograph itself reflects that it was taken at the later state of investigation. In view of this court, the said lapse and contradiction in investigation proves to be fatal to the case of prosecution.
18. Further, it is deposed by all the witnesses that that they tried to join independent witnesses in the investigation but none of the joined citing personal reasons. As per site plan, the place of incident appears to be busy area and the said incident is stated to have taken place at around 12:10 AM. Further, it is evident from the testimony of the witnesses that accused persons were apprehended alongwith the alleged illicit liquor at public place, but still no public independent person was cited as a witness in this case. Though witnesses have stated in his testimony that some public persons were requested to join, but none of them agreed and it is not clear whether took any effort to give notice to passerby to join them as witnesses but witness did not disclose the names of any such witnesses. IO has also failed to show any effort to include public witnesses in order to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and inspire the confidence of this court.
Digitally
signed by
ASHISH
ASHISH KUMAR
KUMAR MEENA
FIR No: 216/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Satpal & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.03.13
16:25:05
+0530
Page 12 of 16
19. Regarding the importance of joining independent witness during investigation in a case like the present one, reliance may be placed on Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1999(2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), wherein, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
20. Similarly, in Nanak Chand Vs. State of Delhi reported as DHC 1992 CRI LJ 55 it is observed as under:-
"That the recovery is proved by three police officials who have differed on who snatched the Kirpan from the petitioner and at what time. The recovery was from a street with houses on both sides and shops nearby. And, yet no witness from the public has been produced. Not that in every case the police Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 216/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Satpal & Anr. KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.03.13
16:25:08
+0530
Page 13 of 16
officials are to be treated as unworthy of reliance but their failure to join witnesses from the public especially when they are available at their elbow, may, as in the present case, cast doubt. They have again churned out a stereotyped version. Its rejection needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at Arcola".
21. Also, in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1872, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and also examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the fact that these provisions have not been complied with and further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the non-compliance. It is well-settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent corroboration. This again depends on question whether the official has deliberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 216/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Satpal & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.03.13 16:25:11 +0530 Page 14 of 16 with the search and strictly comply with these provisions." [Emphasis supplied]
22. Considering the aforesaid observations made by the Higher Courts, the omissions / failure on the part of investigating agency to join independent public witnesses create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and substantiates the defence version that there is false implication of the accused in the present case and that the recovery has been falsely planted upon the accused. Further, considering facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of ratio in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC, there was no lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the above- mentioned facts create serious doubt on the case of the prosecution.
23. Further, as per evidence on record, the seal after use was not given to any independent public person. Hence, considering the legal position, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused, as tampering with case property in such a scenario cannot be ruled out. The reliance is placed on the judgment of Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) R.C.C. (Criminal) 452, wherein it is held that-
"7. The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the case property is not dispatched to the forensic science laboratory, the seal should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in the absence of such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband and Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 216/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Satpal & Anr. KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.03.13
16:25:14
+0530
Page 15 of 16
the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out."
24. Similarly, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. State, 1993 (1) RCR (Criminal) 622, held that -
"10. The seals after use were kept by the police officials themselves. Therefore, the possibility of tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tampered with. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused."
25. Further, Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 , provides that the hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty shall be entered vide a separate entry and this entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by signature or seal. In the present case, all these departures or the arrival entries have not been proved on the record by the prosecution. In absence of such proof, the presence of the police officials at the spot cannot be believed. Reference can be made to on Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29.
26. Furthermore, it is to be noted that accused no.2 Pinky has also been made accused in the present matter u/s 33/52(2) Delhi Excise Act. In this regard, it is admitted position that accused Digitally signed ASHISH by ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.03.13 16:25:26 +0530 FIR No: 216/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Satpal & Anr.Page 16 of 16
no.2 is the owner of offending vehicle, however, the prosecution has failed to prove the authenticity of seizure memo of illicit liquor and offending vehicle. Since, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations qua accused no.1 namely Satpal, therefore, accused no.2 namely Pinky cannot be held liable u/s 33/52(2) Delhi Excise Act.
27. From the aforesaid discussion, it is very clear that the manner in which the inquiry, seizure and search etc. has been conducted on the spot at the time of alleged recovery of liquor, it makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
28. Hence, accused persons namely (1). Satpal, S/o Sh. Bilori Ram and (2). Pinky, W/o Sh. Satpal stands acquitted for the offence punishable under section 33/52(2)/58 of Delhi Excise Act, they have been charged with. Ordered accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.03.2026. IT IS CERTIFIED THAT THE PRESENT JUDGMENT RUNS INTO SIXTEEN PAGES AND EACH PAGE BEARS SIGNATURE OF THE UNDERSIGNED. ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date: 2026.03.13 MEENA 16:25:30 +0530 (ASHISH KUMAR MEENA) JMFC-01/SAKET COURT(SOUTH) NEW DELHI/13.03.2026 FIR No: 216/2019 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Satpal & Anr.