Delhi District Court
State vs Smt. Bakul on 6 April, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. T.S. KASHYAP
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01, SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 331/1989
Under Section : 363/365/366/368/343/34 IPC
Police Station : Seemapuri, Delhi
Sessions Case No : 58/2012
Unique I.D. No. : 02402R0001111989
In the matter of :
STATE
Versus
SMT. BAKUL
W/o Late Om Prakash
R/o: F-225, New Seemapuri, Delhi. . . . Accused
Date of Institution : 22/11/11
Date of committal : 19/11/11
Date of reserving judgment : 06/04/13
Date of pronouncement : 06/04/13
JUDGMENT
1. On arrest of accused Smt. Bakul by police of PS Gandhi Nagar, a Kalandara u/s 41.1 (c) Cr.PC against her was filed before Ld. MM stating that accused has been declared proclaimed offender in case FIR No. 331/89, U/s 363/365/366/368/343/34 IPC, PS Seemapuri vide order dated 14.03.2006 of Ld. ASJ. Since the accused was declared PO by the Sessions Court during trial in case FIR No. 331/89, Ld. MM vide order dated 19.11.2011 directed that the accused be produced before Sessions Court. Kalandara was merged with the main case file which was summoned from the Record Room and matter was assigned to Ld. Predecessor of this court for trial against accused Smt. Bakul.
FIR No. 331/1989 Page 1 of 22. Earlier, the charge-sheet u/s 363/365/366/368/343/34 IPC against six accused persons namely Om Prakash, Smt. Bakul, Smt. Hussan Ara, Mehtab Hussain, Arun Kumar and Babli Singh was filed for facing trial and vide order dated 09.02.1995, all the accused persons except accused Smt. Hussan Ara (since she had expired) were charged of commission of offences u/s 120-BIPC, 363 IPC r/w 120-B IPC, 366 IPC r/w 120-B IPC and 368 IPC r/w 120-B IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. As per prosecution, this case FIR was registered on the complaint of one Salam s/o Salimuddin given by him in writing to ASI R.N. Tiwari on 17.12.1989 stating that he is residing in Jhuggi No. 513-DA, New Seema Puri, Delhi. His younger sister namely Marium aged about 15-16 years is missing from the house for the last about seven days and he had searched her on his own and he could not find any clue. Now he has doubt that his sister Marium was taken by someone after enticing her. His sister may be searched. On the said complaint, initially, an FIR u/s 363 IPC was registered and case was investigated by ASI R.N. Tiwari. During the course of investigation, IO could not find any clue of Marium Begum. On 22.12.1989, investigation was transferred to Special Staff, North-East District vide order of DCP North-East and investigation was handed over to SI Banwari Lal and on the same Marium Begum was got recovered from the house of her sister Sofia Begum, Jafrabad, Seelampur, and recorded her statement u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein Marium Begum stated that when she was going to her house, accused Bakul took her to her house after enticing her and Bakul and husband of Bakul confined her in their house and threatened her. On next morning, Smt. Bakul, her husband Om Prakash, Smt. Husan Ara, Mehtab forcibly took her in rickshaw to the house of Arun Kumar @ Thakur at Sunder Nagri for selling her and she was left from where she was confined for four days by Arun Kumar and his daughter Babli. On the basis of this statement, accused persons namely Om Prakash, Smt. Bakul, Smt. Husan Ara and Mehtab were arrested at the pointing out and instance of Marium Begum. On 23.12.1989, statement FIR No. 331/1989 Page 2 of 2 u/s 164 Cr.PC of Marium Begum was recorded by Sh. G.S. Gupta. She was got medically examined for determination of her age and her age was revealed above 18 years but less than 20 years. On 12.01.1990, accused Babli Singh was formally arrested as she was on anticipatory bail. During the course of investigation, complainant Salam had filed an application about threatening by Om Prakash, Bakul, Husan Ara and Mehtab Hussain on 10.01.1990 in the court of the then Ld. ASJ for cancellation of their bail. On 19.02.1990, their bail was cancelled. After completion of investigation, case u/s 363/365/366/368/343/34 IPC was filed against the accused persons for trial. The accused Bakul was charged for offence U/s 120-B IPC, U/s 363 r/w Sec. 120-B IPC, U/s 366 r/w Sec. 120-B IPC and U/s 368 r/w Sec. 120-B IPC and was separately charged for the offence U/s 174-A IPC to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Earlier, during trial, two accused persons namely Om Prakash (now deceased) and Smt. Bakul were declared PO and accused Smt. Husan Ara had expired. Hence, trial was conducted against available three accused persons namely Mehtab, Arun Kumar and Babli who were given benefit of doubt and were acquitted vide judgment dated 18.08.1999, passed by my the then Ld. Predecessor. Therefore, now the case in hand is only against accused Smt. Bakul who was earlier declared PO.
5. To prove its case against accused Smt. Bakul, the prosecution has examined the following 7 witnesses as under :-
a) PW-1 Safia Khatoon Begum the younger sister of kidnapped girl Marium stated that her sister Marium was kidnapped by accused Bakul for the purpose of sale and she was wrongfully confined by accused Bakul for seven days. However, this witness did not depose as per her earlier statement on some aspect and therefore, Ld. Addl. PP cross-examined her on which she stated that she does not remember whether she had stated to the police that her sister Marium was divorcee at the time of incident as she had stated in her earlier statement Ex. PW1/A. However, she admitted the other FIR No. 331/1989 Page 3 of 2 facts to be correct as put to her by Ld. Addl. PP as per her earlier statement. This witness correctly identified the accused Bakul, present in the court on the day of her deposition.
b) PW-2 Marium Begum the kidnapped girl in this case, deposed that she does not remember the date, month and time of incident but 20-20 years back when she went to meet her brother Salam at Seemapuri at about 06.00 PM, she was stopped by accused Bakul who took the her to her (Bakul's) house on the pretext that her (Marium's) bhabhi has called her there. Om Prakash the husband of Bakul was also present there. In the night, she managed to escape from there and reached at the house of her cousin brother Jahangir but Om Prakash reached there, gave beatings and threatened Jahangir to kill and had forcibly taken her to the house of Thakur at Nand Nagri for sale where six other girls were also present. She was wrongly confined there for about 6 days and was threatened by Om Prakash, Thakur, Bakul and one Soni D/o Thakur and at about 05.00 PM, she ran away from there and reached at the house of her Mausi at Seelampur where her brother Salam and sister Safia were called, police was also called. Her statement was recorded by the police. Her silver ornaments were kept in the house of Thakur.
She was medically examined and was produced before Ld. MM who recorded her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC. This witness correctly identified accused Bakul, present in the court.
c) PW-3 SI Satinder Prasad the the then Head Constable/Duty Officer has proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW3/A, recorded by him on 17.12.1989. He also proved personal search memo of accused Husna Ara and Bakul as he had received the same on 22.12.1989 while he was posted as MHC(M), PS Seemapuri and proved the relevant entry Ex. PW3/B in register No. 19.
d) PW-4 SI Naresh Dutt the then HC had joined the investigation with the IO on 22.12.1989. He proved the recovery memo Ex. PW4/A of Mariam Begum. He deposed that on pointing out of Mariam Begum, FIR No. 331/1989 Page 4 of 2 accused Mehtab (since acquitted), Arun Kumar Singh (since acquitted), Om Prakash (since expired), Husna Ara (since expired) and accused Bakul were arrested. He proved the personal search memo Ex. PW4/B of accused Bakul and correctly identified her in the court. He also proved personal search memos Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D of accused Mehtab and Om Prakash respectively.
e) PW-5 ASI Ram Naresh Tiwari was the initial IO who was assigned the investigation on 17.12.1989. He proved his endorsement Mark A (already Ex. PW5/A) on the complaint of Salam. On 22.12.1989, he was transferred and by that time missing girl and offenders could not be traced out.
f) PW-6 ASI Shiksha the then Constable had joined the investigation with IO on 22.12.1989 and is witness of recovery of Mariam Begum and arrest of accused persons. She proved personal search memo Ex. PW6/A of accused Husna Ara (since deceased). She identified accused Bakul present in the court and proved her personal search memo Ex. PW4/B.
g) PW-7 ACP Banwari Lal, IO the then SI, Special Staff, North-East was assigned the investigation of this case on 22.12.1989 and on the same day, he alongwith HC Bir Singh, HC Naresh Dutt, W/Ct. Shiksha and complainant Salam visited Jhuggi No. 114, Jafrabad, Seelampur, Delhi, from where Mariam Begum was recovered. He proved recovery memo Ex. PW4/A of Mariam Begum. IO recorded statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of Mariam Begum. He proved personal search memos Ex. PW4/B, Ex. PW4/D, Ex. PW4/C, Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW7/B of accused Bakul, Om Prakash, Mehtab, Husan Ara and Arun Kumar respectively. He proved ossification test report Ex. PW7/B of Mariam Begum besides her MLC Ex. PW7/B-2. He proved his application Ex. PW7/C moved by him for recording statement u/s 164 Cr.PC of Mariam Begum and her statement recorded so is Ex. PW7/D. He also proved his application Ex. PW7/E for getting copy of statement u/s 164 Cr.PC of Mariam FIR No. 331/1989 Page 5 of 2 Begum. He also proved statement Ex. PW7/F of complainant Salam and Rukka Ex. PW5/A.
6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Bakul was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC wherein she denied the prosecution evidence and claimed that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She opted to lead defence evidence and examined DW1 Shiraz Khan in her defence.
7. DW1 Shiraz Khan deposed that he does not remember the exact date, month but 22-23 years back from today, he was residing at New Seemapuri, Delhi, in the neighbourhood near Jhuggi of Bakul which consisted of only one room. Bakul was having 4-5 children and there was no gate in her Jhuggi. He came to know from neighbourhood that police officials had taken one Om Prakash, husband of Bakul to the PS. DW1 alongwith Rashid and accused Bakul went to PS Seelampur Special Staff Office with tea and bread for Om Prakash. DW1 remained outside and Bakul went inside but she did not return back till about one hour and then he went inside and met Bakul who told him that police officials had retained her. DW1 asked the police officials in this regard and police officials told him "tu neta hai ya vakil hai, kya tujhe bhi bitha kar dikhau", and thereafter he left from there. DW1 deposed that accused Bakul has been falsely implicated.
8. I have heard submissions from Sh. Virender Singh, Ld. Addl. PP as well as Sh. Om Prakash, Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor and from Sh. K.P. Singh Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the record.
9. Ld. Defence counsel has submitted that the complainant has not been examined by the prosecution. So called brother of the prosecutrix namely Jehangir has not been cited by the prosecution as a witness nor examined in the court. There is material contradiction in the statement of PW1 and PW2 and the testimonies of prosecutrix does not inspire confidence and FIR No. 331/1989 Page 6 of 2 cannot be believed. Therefore, she is entitled for acquittal.
10. The complaint Ex. PW7/F dt. 17.12.1989 was made by one Salam to the SHO PS Seemapuri, Delhi stating that his younger sister Marium aged 15/16 years was missing from house for the last 7 days. This complainant could not been examine by the prosecution as he was not traceable therefore the complaint could not be proved.
As per the report on the summons the complainant had gone to Bangladesh. He had not named any accused persons nor suspected any one. However, after investigation a charge-sheet u/s 363/365/366/368/343/34 IPC was filed by the prosecution against accused Om Prakash, Smt. Bakul, Smt. Husan Ara, Mehtab Hussan, Arun Kumar and Bali Singh. A charge U/s 120-B IPC, U/s 363 r/w section 120-B IPC, U/s 366 IPC r/w 120-B IPC and U/s 368 r/w section 120-B IPC was framed by my Ld. Predecessor against accused Om Prakash, Smt. Bakul, Mehtab Hussan and Babli Singh and after trial accused Arun Kumar, Babli and Mehtab were acquitted vide judgment dt. 18.08.1999. Accused Om Prakash, Bakul and Hussan Ara were declared proclaimed offender.
11. Accused Bakul was arrested as proclaimed offender and the prosecution witnesses were summoned again. The prosecution has failed to call the complainant Salam who was not residing at the given address and therefore the complaint could not be proved on record. As per the complaint Ex. PW7/A, Marium was missing for the last 7 days from house of Salam prior to 17.12.1989. PW1 Safiya Khatoon Begum examined by the prosecution is elder sister of Marium and the complainant was her brother. According to this witness Marium was residing with Salam. This witness does not know any person namely Om Prakash. She also does not know as to when Marium was kidnapped by accused Bakul. However, she has deposed that Marium was wrongfully confined in the house of Thakur by Bakul for 7 days. This witness has also deposed that she was FIR No. 331/1989 Page 7 of 2 told by her sister that she was confined in the room of Thakur by accused Bakul and she came out when a school boy opened the door from outside. According to witness Marium was married but this witness could not state the age of Marium at the time of incident. She was cross examined by Ld. APP wherein she stated that she does not remember whether she had stated to the police that her sister was divorcee. On confrontation with portion Ex. PW1/A this fact was found recorded. She has not mentioned this fact in her examination-in-chief where she only stated that her sister was married. In the cross-examination this witness has failed to state the address of her brother Salam at the time of occurrence. According to this witness Marium was living with her brother during those days and was not living with PW1. She also did not know Bakul prior to the date of incident. She denied the suggestion that her sister Marium was neither kidnapped for the purpose of sexual intercourse or to seduce her to illicit intercourse nor she was threatened to be killed nor she was illegally confined nor any conspiracy was hatched between the accused persons in order to commit the offences with which they were charged. From the testimony of this witness it is established that she has not made the complaint, the younger sister namely Marium was not living with her. The witness has not seen any of the accused persons including Bakul with Marium. She has not witnessed any of the facts with respect of the commission of offences with which accused Bakul has been charged. She has deposed only on the basis of information given by Marium to her and therefore she is only a hearsay witness.
12. Marium Begum in respect of whom the complaint Ex. PW7/A was made by Salam has been examined by prosecution as PW2. On the date of recording of her testimony she was about 40 years old. She could not give the correct date and month but according to her the incident occurred about 20-22 years back from 28.12.2011 which shows that Marium was more than 18 years old on the date of registration of FIR. As per PW7 ACP Banwari Lal ossification test of Marium was got done on 23.12.1989 while X-ray report Ex. PW7/B and as per bone age report she was above FIR No. 331/1989 Page 8 of 2 18 years but less than 20 years. He also proved the statement u/s 161 CrPC made by Marium before Ld. MM as Ex. PW7/D which was recorded on 23.12.1989 wherein she stated her age as 16 years but no documentary proof was produced by her and therefore, on the basis of bone age examination age of Marium on the date of occurrence was more than 18 years and therefore, the offences u/s 361 IPC punishable u/s 360 IPC could not be said to have been made out.
13. It is pertinent to note that PW2 Marium Begum has deposed that on the date of occurrence she was residing at the house of her sister Safiya Begum at Jafrabad. Salam her brother was residing at Seemapuri at that time. PW2 was married and divorce took place between her and her husband. She deposed that she went to meet her brother Salam at Seemapuri. PW1 Safiya Begum has deposed that PW2 Marium was residing with her brother Salam. Said Salam could not be examined in the court as he had gone to Bangladesh. However in complaint dt. 17.12.1989 Salam has not stated that Marium was residing with him. As per the statement of PW1 Safiya Khatoon Begum, Marium was residing with Salam whereas PW2 Marium Begum has herself deposed that she was living with Safiya Begum as Jafrabad. PW2 has also deposed that she went to meet her brother Salam at Seemapuri but she has neither claimed nor has given any time of her arrival at the house of her brother at Seemapuri. According, to PW2 she was stopped at Seemapuri bus stop at 06:00 pm by accused Bakul that means she left the house of her sister on the said date who was living separately but no complaint was made by PW1 Safiya Khatoon Begum. According to complaint Mark-A dt. 17.12.1989, Marium was missing for the last 7 days prior to 17.12.1989, but no complaint was made by PW1 Safiya Khatoon Begum with whom (as per statement of PW2 Marium Begum herself) she was residing. It shows that PW1 was not aware of whereabouts of Marium Begum PW2. Even Mr. Salam the brother of Marium Begum did not report to the police for a period of 7 days with reasons best known to him. PW2 deposed that she went to meet Salam but has not claimed that she actually visited the FIR No. 331/1989 Page 9 of 2 house of Salam on any particular date and therefore, it cannot be said that she was found missing from the house of Salam. PW2 Marium Begum also deposed that her divorce took place with her husband after six months of the incident. But her husband has not been examined by the prosecution nor any other person has deposed or confirmed about the said divorce. Even PW1 examination in chief has not uttered that Marium Begum was divorced.
14. PW2 Marium Begum in her testimony has stated that at about 06:00 pm at Seema puri bus stop she was stopped by accused Bakul who told her that her sister in law (bhabi) had called her and accused Bakul took her to her house. It does not appeal to the reason that if PW2 was to be taken to the house of her bhabi, why she went with accused Bakul to the house of Bakul. It is expected that in normal course she would have protested and raised hue and cry while on way when the accused Bakul did not take PW2 to the house of her bhabhi and instead took her to the house of accused Bakul. Even after reaching at the house of accused Bakul PW2 could have protested and raised cries to attract the public and neighborers if she was being taken there against her will.
15. PW2 has claimed she had remained at the house of accused for six days and six more girls were also present. She claimed that she escaped when the room was opened on arrival of tutor and went to the house of her mausi at Seelampur but she did not name her mausi nor gave her address. Police had also not cited any such mausi as witness. On the contrary in the statement u/s 161 CrPC Ex. PW7/B she had stated that she had gone to the house of her sister but she did not disclose the name of her sister also.
16. In her cross examination she admitted that she was able to talk with the wife of Thakur. She admits that she did not make hue and cry to tell the people who are living there. She also did not tell the people at Nand Nagri who were available. She claims that after the incident she boarded a bus FIR No. 331/1989 Page 10 of 2 for Shahdara and did not buy a ticket. Even at the bus stop she did not tell the incident to any body nor telephoned the police. In her further cross examination she claims that she went to the house of her mausi on cycle rikshaw but she could not tell the address or name of her mausi. She admits that she did not inform the police even from the house of her mausi. She is unable to tell the date, month or year when she reached at the house of her mausi. She does not even know who called the police. She denied the suggestion that she was recovered from the house of Safiya only on complaint of her brother Salam. Although, PW1 Safiya Khatoon in her cross examination had admitted that one police official from PS Welcome came to her house and accompanied Marium Begum to police station. PW2 Marium Begum has denied the suggestion that accused Bakul and other co accused were helping her to trace her and that is why they were falsely implicated. PW2 Marium Begum has also denied the suggestion that she had fled away from the house of her husband Chand Miyan and went to the house of Thakur through cousin brother Jahangir.
17. PW2 Marium Begum in her further cross examination claimed that she was working at Jafrabad but she was unable to tell the name and address of her employer. She also claimed that she was not residing with her husband during those days. She further claimed that she was living separately with her husband prior to the date of incident but she has not stated that she was living with her brother or with her sister. She further claimed that she had started living with her sister Safiya Khatoon Begum at Jafrabad whereas her sister Safiya Khatoon Begum PW1 has deposed that Marium Begum was living with Salam.PW2 Marium Begum further stated that she had gone from Jafrabad to seemapuri to the house of her brother who was not present there. She stated that after meeting her bhauji she was coming back to Jafrabad and on way accused Bakul met her and told that she was being called by her bhauji. She was not knowing accused Bakul and her husband prior to it and therefore it does not appeal to the reason that on asking accused Bakul she had gone with her. In her FIR No. 331/1989 Page 11 of 2 further cross examination PW2 Marium Begum stated that she had seen her sister in law who was sitting in front of the house but her sister in law had not seen her. She claims that she had shouted and called her bhauji that accused Bakul was not allowing her to come out of her house which appears to be false because if she was called by accused Bakul to be taken to her bhauji's house there was no question of her entering the house of accused Bakul. She had again claimed that she managed to escape from the house of accused Bakul and reached at the house of her cousin Jahangir at Seemapuri. This claim also appears unbelievable because if she had actually escaped from the house of accused Bakul she was supposed to go to the house of her brother and bhabhi which was more safe. She also admits that she did not inform her brother or sister ever after reaching the house of Jahangir. Her brother Jhangir also did not inform the police. PW2 Marium Begum did not make hue and cry anywhere. In case she had gone to the house of her brother Jahangir, he should have informed the police but he did not inform the police. PW1 Safiya Khatoon had not at all stated that PW2 Marium Begum had come to her house from the house of her brother Jahangir. PW4 SI Naresh Dutt has proved the recovery memo Ex. PW4/A in respect of the prosecutrix from the house of PW1 Safiya Khatoon. This witness does not recollect what was recovered from personal search of accused Bakul. PW6 WSI Siksha also deposed that victim Marium Begum was recovered from the house of PW1 Safiya Khatoon. This witness is unable to state the address of accused Bakul. She also admits that accused persons were not arrested from the house of accused Bakul. She is unable to admit or deny whether the accused was arrested from D block. PW7 ACP Banwari Lal deposed that victim Marium Begum was recovered from the house of Safiya Begum.
18. No independent witnesses has been examined by the prosecution. The complainant Salam could not be examined by the prosecution in the court as he was not available at the given address and had gone to Bangladesh. There are material contradiction in the testimony of PW1 and FIR No. 331/1989 Page 12 of 2 PW2. The testimony of PW2 does not inspire confidence and does not deserve to be believed. She had not been recovered from the house of any of the accused nor she was seen by any witness in the company of any of the accused during the relevant period. In the complaint there was no suspicion on the accused Bakul. It is highly unsafe to rely on the testimony of PW2 Marium Begum and keeping in view the contradiction in the testimony of PW1 and PW2 the accused Bakul is entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal. She is accordingly acquitted for the offence U/s 120B IPC & 363, 366 and 368 IPC r/w Sec. 120B IPC.
19. However, the charge for the offence U/s 174A IPC has been proved by the witnesses SI Dalip Singh and HC Rambir Singh. The court can take judicial notice of the fact that accused was granted bail and subsequently she did not appear in the court and was arrested as proclaimed offender and therefore I hold the accused Bakul guilty for the offence U/s 174-A IPC and convict her.
20. Let the arguments on sentence be heard separately.
Announced in the open court today i.e 6th April 2013 (T.S. KASHYAP) ASJ-01/Spl. Judge (NDPS) Shahdra District Karkardooma Court, Delhi FIR No. 331/1989 Page 13 of 2 IN THE COURT OF SH. T.S. KASHYAP ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01, SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI FIR No. : 331/1989 Under Section : 363/366/368/34 IPC Police Station : Seemapuri Sessions Case No. : 58/2012 Unique I.D. No. : 02402R0001111989 In the matter of :
STATE Versus SMT. BAKUL W/o Late Om Prakash R/o: F-225, New Seemapuri, Delhi . . . Accused ORDER ON SENTENCE I have heard the submissions from Ld. Chief P.P for State as well as from Sh. K.P. Singh, Ld. Defence Counsel on the point of sentence and gone through the record.
2. Vide my separate judgment of even date, accused Bakul has been convicted for the offence U/s 174-A IPC.
3. Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor submits that she may be sentenced accordingly. However, Ld. Defence Counsel submits that the accused has already lost her husband and she has been facing trial for the last more than two decades. She is illiterate. She was not even aware that she has been declared proclaimed offender because after grant of bail she has presumed that she has been acquitted in the case. Therefore, a lenient view be taken.
4. There is no dispute that accused is facing trial since 1989 and has remained in J/C initially from 22/12/89 to 05/01/90 at the time of grant of bail and FIR No. 331/1989 Page 14 of 2 subsequently after her arrest from 10/10/11 to 20/12/11. Since she has been acquitted in the main charge. She has already suffered by remaining in judicial custody and keeping in view her family circumstances, the interest of justice shall be met if she is sentenced to undergo the imprisonment already suffered by her in J/C. Ordered accordingly. Copy of judgment and this order be given to the convict free of cost. Her bail bond cancelled and surety discharged. However, she is directed to furnish personal bond and surety bond in sum of Rs. 15,000/- in terms of provision U/s 437-A Cr.PC. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today i.e 6th April 2013 (T.S. KASHYAP) ASJ-01/Spl. Judge (NDPS) Shahdra District Karkardooma Court, Delhi FIR No. 331/1989 Page 15 of 2