Delhi District Court
Fi vs . Ram Parkash Etc. Page 1 Of 17 on 10 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BALWANT RAI BANSAL
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEII,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
C.C. No. 53/98
Local (Health) Authority
Department of PFA, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
........ Complainant
Versus
1. Sh. Ram Parkash S/o Sh. Mool Chand
M/s Madhu Restaurant,
10 South Avenue Market, New Delhi
R/o B1/85, Moti Nagar, Delhi
........ VendorcumPartner
2. Sh. Hari Ram S/o Sh. Mool Chand
M/s Madhu Restaurant,
10 South Avenue Market, New Delhi
R/o B1/85, Moti Nagar, Delhi
........ Partner
3. M/s Madhu Restaurant
10 South Avenue Market, New Delhi
........ Firm
4. Sh. Satish Singh S/o Sh. Saktoo Singh
M/s Rama Dairy Product Ltd.
Siyana Road, Distt. Bulandshahar, U.P.
........ Nominee
5. M/s Rama Dairy Product Ltd.
Siyana Road, Distt. Bulandshahar, U.P.
....... Manufacturing/Supplying
Firm
CC No. 53/98
FI Vs. Ram Parkash Etc. Page 1 of 17
COMPLAINT U/S 16 OF THE PREVENTION OF FOOD
ADULTERATION ACT, 1954
Serial number of the case : 53/98
Date of the commission of the offence : 18.07.1996
Date of filing of the complaint : 10.07.1998
Name of the Complainant, if any : Shri R.K. Ahuja, Local (Health)
Authority
Offence complained of or proved : Violation of Section 2 (ia) (a) &
(m) of PFA Act 1954; punishable
U/s 16(1) (a) r/w Section 7 of PFA
Act
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Arguments heard on : 25.06.2013
Judgment announced on : 10.07.2013
J U D G M E N T
1. The present complaint has been filed on 10.07.1998 by the Delhi Administration through Sh. R.K. Ahuja, Local (Health) Authority against the aforesaid accused persons. It is stated in the complaint that on 18.07.1996 at about 4.00 PM, FI K.K. Mittal purchased a sample of 'Fresh Pasteurized Full Cream Milk', a food article for analysis from Sh. Ram Parkash S/o Sh. Mool Chand at M/s Madhu Restaurant, 10 South Avenue Market, New Delhi, where the said article was found stored for sale and where accused Ram Parkash was found conducting the business of the said food article at the time of sampling. The sample consisted of 1 Liter of 'Fresh Pasteurized Full Cream Milk', taken from sealed polythene packet CC No. 53/98 FI Vs. Ram Parkash Etc. Page 2 of 17 having label declaration. The sample was taken after pouring the contents of the polythene packets in a clean and dry stainless steel jug and mixing the same with a clean and dry stainless steel spoon under the supervision of Shri M.R. Grover, LHA. Thereafter, the sample was divided into three equal parts by Food Inspector by putting it in three separate clean and dry bottles and 27 drops of formalin were added to each bottle and each bottle containing the sample was separately packed, fastened and sealed according to the PFA Act and Rules. The signatures of vendor were obtained on the LHA slip and the wrapper of the bottles containing the sample. Notice was given to accused and price of sample was also given to the accused. Panchnama was also prepared at the spot. All these documents prepared by FI Sh. K.K. Mittal were signed by accused Ram Parkash, the vendor and the other witness namely Sh. Om Pal Singh, FI. It is stated that before taking the sample, efforts were made to get the public witnesses to join the proceedings, but none came forward and as such Sh. Om Pal Singh, FI joined as witness.
2. It is further stated that one counterpart of the sample in intact condition was sent to the Public Analyst, Delhi and two counterparts of the sample in intact conditions were deposited with LHA. The Public Analyst analyzed the sample and opined that "The sample does not conform to standards laid down under item A.11.01.11 of Appendix B of the PFA Rules, 1955 read along with note (i) because it shows the presence of Skimmed Milk Powder".
CC No. 53/98 FI Vs. Ram Parkash Etc. Page 3 of 173. It is further revealed that Ram Parkash S/o Mool Chand is the VendorcumPartner of M/s Madhu Restaurant and Sh. Hari Ram is also the active partner of the aforesaid firm and they both are incharge of and responsible for the day to day conduct of the business of the said firm. It is further revealed that Sh. Satish Saktoo Singh is the nominee of M/s Rama Dairy Product Ltd., Distt. Bulandshahar, U.P., the manufacturer/supplier company who had sold and supplied the milk in question to the vendor's firm M/s Madhu Restaurant. Thereafter, the entire case file was sent to the Director, PFA who accorded the requisite consent U/s 20 of the Act and consequent thereto the present complaint was filed against the accused persons for violation of provisions of section 2 ((ia) (a) & (m) of the PFA Act, 1954 which is punishable U/s 16 (1) r/w Section 7 of the PFA Act.
4. The accused were summoned vide order dated 10.07.1998. The accused no. 1 and 2 appeared, however during trial of the case they expired and proceedings against them stood abated. Accused no. 3 did not contest the case and did not appear in the court and was proceeded exparte. The accused no. 4 and 5 contested the case, however both the accused did not exercise their right U/s 13 (2) of the PFA Act to get analyzed the second counterpart of the sample from Central Food Laboratory (CFL).
5. Notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. for violation of Section 2 (ia) (a) & (m) of the PFA Act, punishable U/s 16 (1) (a) r/w section 7 of the PFA Act was framed against the accused no. 4 and 5 separately vide order dated CC No. 53/98 FI Vs. Ram Parkash Etc. Page 4 of 17 30.06.2010 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Thereafter, prosecution examined four witnesses namely Sh. R.K. Ahuja, LHA who filed the present complaint as PW1, Sh. O.P.S. Ahlawat, FI who was made a witness in the sample proceedings as PW2, Sh. K.K. Mittal, the then FI who conducted the sample proceedings as PW3 and Sh. M.R. Grover, the then LHA as PW4 and PE was closed vide order dated 29.09.2012.
7. Statement of accused no. 4 and 5 U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 23.11.2012 separately wherein accused claimed themselves to be innocent, however they opted for not to lead evidence in their defence.
8. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
9. Ld. Counsel for accused no. 4 and accused no. 5 have argued that on the date of sampling, there was no standard for 'Full Cream Milk' under PFA Act and Rules, and therefore, accused no. 4 and 5 cannot be convicted for the alleged adulteration found in the sample of 'Pasteurized Full Cream Milk' for which no standard was prescribed under PFA Act. It has been further argued that when no standard was prescribed for 'Full Cream Milk' on the date of sampling, how it can be determined that presence of Skimmed Milk Powder renders the sample in question as adulterated. They further argued that there was no deficiency in the sample of 'Pasteurized Full Cream Milk' in respect of 'milk fat' and 'milk solids not fat' and since there was no standard for Full Cream Milk under PFA CC No. 53/98 FI Vs. Ram Parkash Etc. Page 5 of 17 Act on the date of sampling and mere from the presence of Skimmed Milk Powder as reported by the Public Analyst vide his report, the sample cannot be said to be adulterated. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon Lekh Raj Vs. The State, 1980 (II) FAC 166 and M.V. Krishna Nambissan Vs. State of Kerala, 1979 (1) FAC 72.
10. It has been further argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused no. 4 and 5 that present complaint has been launched after 20 months from the date of lifting the sample and due to delay in launching the complaint, the accused could not get exercise their right U/s 13 (2) of PFA Act to get the second counterpart of the sample analyzed by the Director, CFL as by the time when the present complaint was launched, the sample commodity had already been deteriorated being of milk product and perishable in nature and was remained not fit for analysis by the Director, CFL and, therefore, due to huge delay in filing the complaint, the valuable right of accused U/s 13 (2) of PFA Act got frustrated. They have relied upon the judgments reported in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ghisa Ram 1951 (II) FAC to 1975 (FAC) 93, State of Haryana Vs. Unique Farmaid P. Ltd. & Ors. 1992 (2) FAC 399, , Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 2011 (1) Fact 196 and Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah Vs. CC Jani & Anr. 2009 (2) FAC 194.
11. On the other hand, Ld. SPP for complainant has argued that there is no delay in filing the complaint and complaint was filed within limitation. He further argued that as per report of Public Analyst, the CC No. 53/98 FI Vs. Ram Parkash Etc. Page 6 of 17 sample commodity was found not confirming to the standard as presence of skimmed milk powder was detected which was not permissible and thus the accused have violated the provisions of PFA Act and hence they are liable to be convicted.
12. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed more or less as per the averments made in the complaint. PW1 Sh. R.K. Ahuja, LHA who filed the present complaint has deposed in his examinationinchief that Director, PFA Sh. Ashok Bakshi accorded the sanction Ex. PW1/A and authorized him to file the complaint Ex. PW1/B against the accused persons. He further deposed that the intimation letter Ex. PW1/C along with PA report was sent to accused by registered post by him which was received back undelivered and the registered envelope bearing the remarks of postal authority are Ex. P1 to P4 and thereafter he deputed Sh. K.K. Mittal, Food Inspector to get personally served the intimation letter along with PA report upon the accused persons and his report is Ex. PW1/D. He has also placed on record the copy of postal registration receipt as Ex. PW1/E.
13. PW2 Sh. O.P.S. Ahlawat, FI who had accompanied the PFA team and was made witness in the sample proceedings deposed in his examinationinchief that on 18.07.1996, he along with FI Sh. K.K. Mittal under the supervision of LHA Sh. M.R. Grover visited the premises of M/s Madhu Restaurant, 10 South Avenue Market, New Delhi where one Ram Prakash was found conducting the business of said Restaurant and CC No. 53/98 FI Vs. Ram Parkash Etc. Page 7 of 17 where various food articles including 'Fresh Pasteurized Full Cream Milk' was found stored for sale for human consumption. He further deposed that FI Sh. K.K. Mittal disclosed his identity and intention for purchasing the sample of Fresh Pasteurized Full Cream Milk to which accused agreed and thereafter at about 4.00 PM, FI Sh. K.K. Mittal purchased from the vendor 1 sealed polythene packet of 1 liter of Fresh Pasteurized Full Cream Milk bearing label declaration. He further deposed that the sealed polythene packet was properly shaken by hands and then it was cut open from one corner and the contents were poured in a clean and dry steel jug and the same was homogenized properly with the help of a clean and dry steel spoon by rotating it in all possible directions in the jug. He further deposed that the so purchased quantity of sample commodity was divided into three equal parts by putting them into three separate clean and dry sample glass bottles and 27 drops of formalin added to each sample bottles and shaken properly and thereafter each bottle containing the sample was separately packed, fastened and sealed according to PFA Act and Rules. He further deposed that sample price Rs. 15/ was paid to the accused vide vendor receipt Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that notice in Form VI Ex. PW 2/B and a copy of notice was also given to the accused wherein accused disclosed the source of purchase of the sample commodity and accordingly a notice U/s 14A of the PFA Ct addressing to M/s Rama Dairy Products ltd. was prepared at the spot vide Ex. PW2/C and Panchnama Ex. PW2/D was also prepared at the spot and all these documents were read over and CC No. 53/98 FI Vs. Ram Parkash Etc. Page 8 of 17 explained to the accused who after understanding the same signed the same.
14. PW3 Sh. K.K. Mittal, FI who conducted the sample proceedings deposed on the similar lines as deposed by PW2 Sh. O.P.S. Ahlawat in his examinationinchief. During his deposition, PW3 has also proved on record deposition of one counterpart of the sample with the PA on 19.07.1996 i.e. next working day vide receipt Ex. PW3/A, deposition of remaining two counterparts of the sample with the LHA on the same day vide Ex. PW3/B, PA report as Ex. PW3/C, letter sent by him during investigations to STO, Ward No. 99 as Ex. PW3/D, reply received from accused Ram Prakash as Ex. PW3/E, reply received from Rama Dairy Products Ltd. as Ex. PW3/F, reply received from CMO, Bulandshahar as Ex. PW3/G.
15. PW4 Sh. M.R. Grover, the then LHA under whose supervision the sample proceedings were conducted, has corroborated the version of PW2 and PW3 in his examinationinchief.
16. The present case has been launched against the accused persons on the basis of report of Public Analyst, according to which sample of 'Pasteurized Full Cream Milk' lifted by the Food Inspector for analysis from the premises of M/s Madhu Restaurant (accused no. 3 herein) of which accused no. 1 and 2 were the partners, was not found conforming to the standard because presence of skimmed milk powder was detected which was not permissible. The accused no. 4 has been impleaded being nominee of the manufacturing firm of sample commodity namely M/s Rama Dairy CC No. 53/98 FI Vs. Ram Parkash Etc. Page 9 of 17 Products Ltd., which has been impleaded as accused no. 5 in the present case.
17. Though, accused no. 1 and 2 expired during the pendency of the proceedings who were the partners of M/s Madhu Restaurant (accused no. 3 herein) from where the sample of 'Pasteurized Full Cream Milk' was lifted by the FI Sh. K.K. Mittal , but from the evidence on record, it is not in dispute that on 18.07.1996 at about 4.00 PM, the PFA team including FI Sh. K.K. Mittal and FI Sh. O.P.S. Ahlawat under the supervision and direction of LHA Sh. M.R. Grover visited the premises of M/s Madhu Restaurant (accused no. 3 herein) of which accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 were the partners, where accused no. 1 was found conducting the business of the above mentioned Restaurant and a sample of 'Pasteurized Full Cream Milk' was lifted by FI Sh. K.K. Mittal from accused no. 1 which on analysis was found not conforming to the standard as prescribed under PFA Act.
18. In his statement, accused no. 4 Satish Singh who has been impleaded as Nominee of manufacturing firm stated that he was not having knowledge about the sample proceedings as he was not present at the time of sampling and further that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Similarly, accused no. 5 M/s Rama Dairy Products Ltd. , which is the manufacturing firm through its AR Sh. Manoj Goswami in statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C stated that firm has no knowledge about the sample proceedings and adulteration found in the sample commodity as CC No. 53/98 FI Vs. Ram Parkash Etc. Page 10 of 17 none on behalf of the firm was present at the spot. It was also contended on behalf of accused no. 5 that the firm has not issued any Bill to accused no. 1 Ram Prakash.
19. As such, the accused no. 5 of which the accused no. 4 is the Nominee made a feeble attempt to escape from its liability and tried to make out a case that sample commodity does not belong to them and same was not manufactured and supplied by them to accused no. 1. But, the accused no. 4 and 5 have not led any positive evidence to prove their contention that sample commodity does not belong to them or same was not supplied by them to the accused no. 1.
20. Moreover, from the evidence of PWs, it stands proved that the accused no. 5 was the manufacturing firm of the sample commodity and supplied the same to the accused no. 1. In this regard, crossexamination of PW3 FI. Sh. K.K. Mittal who conducted the sample proceedings is relevant. In the crossexamination of PW3, the Ld. Counsel for accused no. 5 gave an affirmative suggestion that at the time of sample proceedings, the vendor did not produce any Bill of Purchase of the sample commodity. Voluntarily, the witness stated that the same was produced by him during investigations and the same was confirmed by the Supplier concern. He denied the suggestion that the company M/s Rama Dairy Product Ltd. has been prosecuted only on the basis of label declaration. Voluntarily, he stated that the vendor supplied the Purchase Bill and that was also a link to prosecute the company. No further suggestion was given to PW3 that CC No. 53/98 FI Vs. Ram Parkash Etc. Page 11 of 17 vendor has not supplied the Purchase Bill to him or that sample commodity was not supplied by the accused no. 5 to the vendor and in the absence of any such suggestion, it stands proved that the accused no. 5 was the manufacturing firm of the sample commodity and supplied the same to the accused no. 3 of which accused no. 1 and 2 were the partners.
21. However, the main contention of the accused no. 4 and 5 is that on the date of sampling there was no standard of 'Full Cream Milk' under the PFA Act and, therefore, in the absence of any standard of 'Full Cream Milk', they cannot be prosecuted for the presence of skimmed milk powder in the sample.
22. It is relevant here to refer the crossexamination of PWs in this regard. In his crossexamination, PW1 who has filed the present complaint stated that he does not know if any standard of full cream milk existed in July, 1996. He further stated that he came to know that standard of full cream milk was framed vide Gazette Notification dated 12.05.1996 and was to be applicable w.e.f.12.11.1996. PW2, though in his crossexamination denied the suggestion that there was no standard prescribed on 18.07.1996 for Full Cream Milk, but he stated that he cannot say if SMP is permissible to be added in Full Cream Pasteurized Milk. PW3 Sh. K.K. Mittal, who conducted the sample proceedings categorically admitted in his cross examination that on the date of sample proceedings, there was no standard of Pasteurized Full Cream Milk. He further stated that he does not remember the exact date when the standard of Pasteurized Full Cream Milk CC No. 53/98 FI Vs. Ram Parkash Etc. Page 12 of 17 was inserted in PFA Act and skimmed milk powder was permitted therein, however the said standard was inserted later on after the date of lifting the sample. PW4 denied the suggestion in his crossexamination that there was no standard of Full Cream Milk at the time when the sample was lifted. Voluntarily, he stated that there was a standard of Full Cream Milk at that time and there was no provision for adding Skimmed Milk Powder (SMP) in Full Cream Milk.
23. From the aforesaid crossexamination of PWs, it is evident that there was no standard of Full Cream Milk on 18.07.1996 when the sample of Pasteurized Full Cream Milk was lifted by the Food Inspector. Though, PW2 Sh. O.P.S. Ahlawat, FA who was made a witness in the sample proceedings and PW4 Sh. M.R. Grover, LHA under whose supervision the sample proceedings were conducted denied the contention of the accused no. 4 and 5 in their crossexamination that their was no standard of Full Cream Milk on the date of lifting the sample, but PW3 Sh. K.K. Mittal who conducted the sample proceedings categorically admitted in his cross examination that on the date of sample proceedings, there was no standard of Pasteurized Full Cream Milk. PW1 who filed the present complaint also categorically stated in his crossexamination that standard of full cream milk was framed vide Gazette Notification dated 12.05.1996 and was to be applicable w.e.f.12.11.1996 i.e. after lifting of the sample on 18.07.1996. It is also to be noted that Item A.11.01.11 according to which addition of skimmed milk powder is prohibited in Full Cream Milk came into force on CC No. 53/98 FI Vs. Ram Parkash Etc. Page 13 of 17 20.11.1996, i.e. after the date of lifting the sample. Therefore, I find substance in the argument of Ld. Counsel for accused no. 4 and 5 that when there was no standard of Full Cream Milk on the date of sampling, how can the sample commodity be said to be not conforming to the standards. As such, in the absence of any standard of Full Cream Milk under the PFA Act on the date of sampling, the accused cannot be said to have violated the provisions under PFA Act.
24. There is another aspect of the matter. Admittedly, in the present case, sample of 'Pasteurized Full Cream Milk' was lifted by the Food Inspector from accused no. 1 on 18.07.1996, which on analysis was not found allegedly conforming to the standard as per the report of Public Analyst dated 19.08.1996. The report of Public Analyst has been proved on record as Ex. PW3/C. The present complaint has been filed on the basis of report of Public Analyst on 10.07.1998 i.e. after about 2 years from the date of analyzing the sample by the Public Analyst on 19.08.1996.
25. As such, it is apparent that there is huge delay in filing the complaint. No explanation has been put forth by the complainant that why the complaint was filed on 10.07.1998 after about two years from the issuance of report of Public Analyst on 19.08.1996. As per accused no. 4 and 5, their right U/s 13 (2) of PFA Act to get the second counterpart of the sample analyzed by the Director, CFL got frustrated as the sample commodity being of perishable nature had already been decomposed by the time they received the intimation letter.
CC No. 53/98 FI Vs. Ram Parkash Etc. Page 14 of 1726. Section 13 (2) of the PFA Act reads as under:
"On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under subsection (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the notice article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory."
27. PW1 Sh. R.K. Ahuja, LHA who filed the present complaint stated in his evidence that the intimation letter Ex. PW1/C along with PA report was sent to accused persons by registered post by him which was received back undelivered and thereafter he deputed Sh. K.K. Mittal, FI to get personally served the intimation letter along with PA report upon the accused persons. FI Sh. K.K. Mittal who has been examined as PW3 stated in his evidence that he was deputed to get personally served the intimation letter along with PA Report upon the accused persons and accused Hari Ram and Ram Prakash refused to accept the same and his report in this regard is Ex. PW1/D.
28. Perusal of the intimation letter Ex. PW1/C shows that same is dated 14.07.1998 and same had been sent to the accused persons through registered post on 22.07.1998 vide Ex. PW1/E. As such, it is evident that CC No. 53/98 FI Vs. Ram Parkash Etc. Page 15 of 17 the accused no. 4 and 5 were got personally served by the FI Sh. K.K. Mittal with the intimation letter with PA report after 22.07.1998 i.e. after more than 24 months from the lifting of the sample on 18.07.1996. It is pertinent to mention here that the sample commodity in question is a perishable item and the shelf life of the same even after adding formalin therein and even if it is kept in refrigeration is maximum 6 months. Therefore, by the time when the accused received the intimation letter along with report of Public Analyst after about 24 months from the date of lifting the sample commodity, the shelf life of the sample commodity had already expired and thus it would not have been a fruitful exercise to get analyzed the second counterpart of the sample from Central Food Laboratory. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has complied the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act and thus the accused has been deprived of statutory right of getting the second counter part of the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory.
29. In Municipal Corporation Vs. Ghisa Ram (Cited Supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, " When a valuable right is conferred by section 13 (2) of the Act on the vendor to have the sample given to him analyzed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory,. It is to be expected that the prosecution will proceed in such a manner that right will not be denied to him. The right is a valuable one, because the certificate of the Director supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and is treated as conclusive evidence of its contents. Obviously, the right has CC No. 53/98 FI Vs. Ram Parkash Etc. Page 16 of 17 been given to the vendor in order that, for his satisfaction and proper defence, he should be able to have the sample kept in his charge analyzed by a greater expert whose certificate is to be accepted by court as conclusive evidence. In a case where there is a denial of this right on account of the deliberate conduct of the prosecution, we think that the vendor, in his trial, is so seriously prejudiced that it would not be proper to uphold his conviction on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, even though that report continues to be evidence in the case of the facts contained therein."
30. As in the present case, due to inordinate delay on the part of the prosecution to file the complaint against the accused, the valuable right of the accused U/s 13 (2) of PFA Act got frustrated, they cannot be convicted on the basis of report of Public Analyst in view of law laid down in the aforesaid authority.
31. In view of above reasons and discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons. Accordingly, accused no. 4 and 5 are acquitted of the charges leveled against him.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal)
on 10th July, 2013 ACMMII/ PHC/ New Delhi
CC No. 53/98
FI Vs. Ram Parkash Etc. Page 17 of 17
CC No. 53/98
DA Vs. Ram Parkash Etc.
10.07.2013
Present: Sh. Masood Ahmad, Ld. SPP for complainant.
Proceedings against accused no. 1 and 2 have already
been abated.
Accused no. 3 is exparte.
Accused no. 4 is present with counsel Sh. M.L. Narang. AR of accused no. 5 with counsel Sh. R.K. Sharma.
Vide my separate Judgment of even date dictated and announced in the open court, accused 4 and 5 stand acquitted of the charges leveled against them. Previous Bail Bond / Surety Bond stands cancelled. Surety stands discharged. Endorsement on the documents of the previous surety, if any, be cancelled.
Accused are directed to furnish fresh bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C. Accused have furnished B/B & S/B in the sum of Rs. 15,000/. Same are accepted.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ACMMII/PHC/ND/10.07.2013 CC No. 53/98 FI Vs. Ram Parkash Etc. Page 18 of 17