Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Charan on 29 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH KHURANA, ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 155/2007
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0183812008
Police Station Mukherjee Nagar
Under Section 420/468/471/417 IPC
State Vs. Ram Charan
JUDGEMENT
(a) Date/year of offence 25.08.2006
(b) Complainant Sh. S.K. Ahuja, ACP/R.Cell
Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
(c) Accused Ram Charan
s/o Sh. Bahadur Singh
r/o Vill. Dhakla, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana
(d) Offence complained of Sec. 468/471 IPC
(e) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
(f) Final order Acquitted for the offence u/s 468/471
IPC
(g) Date of institution 13.06.2008
(h) Date when judgment 20.08.2016
was reserved
(i) Date of judgment 29.08.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR DECISION
1. In the present case, the accused has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 468/471 IPC. The allegations against the State vs. Ram Charan, FIR no. 155/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 1 / 20 accused are that accused Ram Charan forged the document i.e. the sports certificate for the purpose of cheating and he dishonestly used said forged certificate as genuine at the time of his interview for appointment for the post of constable (executive) in Delhi Police and he knew and had reason to believe that he was using the forged document and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 468/471 IPC.
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Copies were supplied in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Charge was framed under Section 468/471 IPC against accused Ram Charan vide order dated 13.12.2010 by Ld. Predecessor of this court to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To support its case, prosecution has examined eight witnesses in evidence.
4. PW-1 Sh. M.L. Dogra, Director Athletics Federation of India deposed that he was working as Director in Athletics Federation of India since the year 2002 and that in the year 2006 he received the letter bearing no. F-XII/562/2006/14058/R.Cell(RII)/4thBattalion/DAP dt. 11.09.06 regarding the verification of the sports certificate. He stated that the sports certificate Mark-A belonging to Ram Charan which was sent alongwith aforesaid letter was verified on the basis of available records and it was found that the said certificate was false. He stated that the Federation did State vs. Ram Charan, FIR no. 155/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 2 / 20 not issue such certificate and the basic format of the certificate was found wrong and it did not match with the certificates issued by the Federation. He stated that he sent his reply to ACP/ Recruitment Cell, 4 th Battalion DAP, Delhi Police vide letter dt. 18.09.2006 and a copy of which is Mark-B bearing his signatures at point A. He stated that his report regarding the alleged certificate is Mark-A to A-1 bearing his signatures at point A. During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, this witness was asked to show the letter no. F-XII/562/2006/14058/R.Cell(RII)/4 thBattalion/ DAP dt. 11.09.06 which was allegedly received by him in the year 2006, however, he stated that the said letter is not on judicial record and that he would have to check the record of his office to trace out the same. This witness could not tell as to whether the said letter was addressed to him or to somebody else. During his further cross-examination, this witness could not bring the abovesaid letter and stated that the same was not traceable. He further stated that after seeing the letter dt. 18.09.2006 he came to know about the abovesaid letter and he stated that the letter dt. 18.09.2006 was addressed to Sh. L.N. Rao, ACP Recruitment Cell, Delhi Police and that the original letter dt. 18.09.2006 might be in the office of Sh. L.N. Rao. He further stated that he had not mentioned the name of Ram Charan or his particulars in the letter dt. 18.09.2006, however, his name was mentioned in the annexure sheet attached with the aforesaid State vs. Ram Charan, FIR no. 155/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 3 / 20 letter. He admitted that the word 'Annexure' is not mentioned on the annexures and that no date is mentioned on the said annexure. He further admitted that the original annexure is not placed on record. This witness was asked as to whether he maintained record of the athletes who participated in National Championship and this witness answered that the record of participants was maintained in the office, however, the said office had been shifted and that the record of the events of October 2004 were not traceable. He further stated that on 18.09.2006 the record of all the athletes who participated in National Championship at Meerut from 15 th to 17th October 2004 was not available. He admitted that prior to sending the letter dt. 18.09.2006 he did not consult the Secretary Dr. Lalit Kumar Bhanot and the President Mr. Suresh Kalmadi. He denied that he had given the aforesaid letter dt. 18.09.2006 without verifying the record and the facts.
5. PW-2 Retired ACP Sh. S.K. Ahuja, deposed that from the year 2006 till 2009 he was posted as ACP, Recruitment Cell and he further stated that during the recruitment of constable (Executive) in Delhi Police in the year 2006, accused Ram Charan s/o Bhawar Singh applied for the post of Constable and at the time of interview on 25.08.2006 he produced his sports certificate of Athletics which was sent to Athletics Federation of India, JLN Stadium, Delhi for verification. He stated that on receipt of State vs. Ram Charan, FIR no. 155/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 4 / 20 verification report dt. 18.09.2006 from Sh. M.L. Dogra, Director Athletics Federation of India, it was revealed that sports certificate of accused Ram Charan was fake. He further stated that Ram Charan used deceitful means to get the employment and a complaint was sent to PS Mukherjee Nagar for registration of criminal case against the accused which is Ex. PW-2/A bearing his signatures at point A. He stated that later on the requisite documents were sent to police station as per requirement vide letter Ex. PW-2/B bearing his signatures at point A and IO recorded his statement. During his cross-examination by Ld Counsel for the accused, he admitted that the selection in Delhi Police could not take place only on the basis of sports certificate and that before the selection, the candidate had to go through physical test, written test and the interview. He further stated that at the time of physical and written test, no extra marks were required to be given to the candidate on the strength of his sports certificate. He voluntarily stated that if the candidate applied for employment under Sports Quota, then the department gave age relaxation to the candidate. He stated that he had not met the accused personally during the selection or thereafter. He stated that the reply of Athletics Federation of India was received in the department on 19.09.2006. He stated that he had never met the coach of Athletics Federation of India or the candidates who participated in Athletics Championship or the officials of Athletics State vs. Ram Charan, FIR no. 155/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 5 / 20 Federation of India. He also stated that he had not verified as to since when Sh. M.L. Dogra was working as Director with AFI. He also stated that he had not made any effort to ascertain as to what kind of certificate used to be issued by AFI to the participants. He also did not verify as to from where the Federation used to get the certificates printed. He admitted that he was the not the member of Interview Committee and that the accused Ram Charan never produced any certificate personally to him. He denied that he got the present case registered due to the pressure of the senior officials.
6. PW-3 HC Krishan Pal was the duty officer who proved present FIR as Ex. PW-3/A and the endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW-3/B.
7. PW-4 Sh. O.P. Yadav, ACP, Head quarters, Kamla Market, Crime Branch deposed that on 25.08.2006 he was posted at VII Battalion, DAP as Inspector and on that day he was detained for recruitment duty at New Police Line. He stated that one Ram Charan appeared before the Interview Board for the post of Constable in Delhi Police and that he checked the original documents i.e. educational certificate and sports certificate against his roll no. 440942. He further stated that after checking the documents he filled the proforma Ex.PW-4/A bearing his signatures at point A. He stated that he handed over the original documents to Ram Charan who is present in the court and kept the photocopies thereof in the State vs. Ram Charan, FIR no. 155/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 6 / 20 record. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he had not given his duty roaster pertaining to his duty on 25.08.2006 to the IO and that he was not served with any notice by the IO. He stated that he had duly checked the documents and his statement was recorded only once by the IO in the PS. He did not remember as to whether he made any entry in the roznamcha when his statement was recorded by the IO. He stated that he did not give any document to the IO. He denied that he had not joined the investigation or that he did not hand over any original document to accused Ram Charan. He denied that he had not prepared the proforma Ex. PW-4/A.
8. PW-5 Ct. Anil Kumar deposed that on 30.08.2007 he alongwith IO HC Ratan Lal went to Tis Hazari Court where the accused Ram Charan had moved an application for his surrender. He stated that the IO got the permission from the court to interrogate the accused and during the interrogation, accused Ram Charan disclosed the offence regarding the present case and IO recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW-5/A and arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex PW-5/B and he also conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW-5/C. He further stated that the IO obtained one day PC remand of the accused and recorded his statement. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
State vs. Ram Charan, FIR no. 155/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 7 / 20
9. PW-6 Ct. Sunil Kumar deposed that on 31.08.2007 he joined the investigation of this case alongwith HC Ratan Lal. He stated that IO HC Ratan Lal obtained one day PC remand of accused Ram Charan and he alongwith accused and IO reached at Dadri and with the help of local police they reached at the house of one Krishan coach but he was not found there, however, his wife and daughter met them. He stated that the IO gave the notice u/s 160 CrPC to his daughter and thereafter, they all went to the house of accused Ram Charan at Vill. Dhakla, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana from where one certificate of Athletics Federation of India was got recovered at the instance of accused and the same was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/A. He further stated that the accused disclosed that the said certificate was given by abovesaid Krishan for the sum of Rs. 14,000/- and thereafter, they all came back to the PS and the accused was produced before the court. During his cross- examination, he did not remember the time when he joined the investigation with the IO or the time when they reached Dadri. He could not tell the names of the police officials of PS Dadri who accompanied them to the house of Krishan Coach. He further could not tell the distance between Jhajjar and his village Dhakla. He also stated that the brother of accused Ram Charan met them at the house of accused. He stated that no neighbourer was called to join the investigation. He did not remember the State vs. Ram Charan, FIR no. 155/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 8 / 20 time as to when the accused produced the certificate and as to when the IO seized the said certificate. He stated that they all returned to Delhi on 31.08.2007 and that his statement was recorded by the IO on 31.08.2007.
10. PW-7 Sh. P.C. Hota, ACP Vigilance deposed that he was posted as DCP, 4th Battalion, DAP in the year 2006 and that during his tenure, the recruitment for constable (Executive) was conducted in which the written examination was held on 25.06.2006 and the result of the same was forwarded by him under his signatures vide letter no. 8741-85/R.Cell (R-II)/4th Battalion/DAP dt. 17.07.2006. He stated that the said result running into four pages and the letter is collectively Mark-X. He stated that on the basis of said result the successful candidates were called for interview. During his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel he stated that no ambiguity was found in the written examination and in the result and that no vigilance inquiry was conducted in this regard. He voluntarily stated that there was a system of verification of all the documents submitted by the candidates selected at the later stage of the recruitment process.
11. PW-8 ASI Ratan Lal was the IO of the present case and he stated that on 27.03.2007 after registration of the FIR he went to recruitment cell, 4th Battalion and collected the documents. This witness after refreshing his memory deposed that on 18.04.2007 he went to State vs. Ram Charan, FIR no. 155/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 9 / 20 recruitment cell and gave notice u/s 91 CrPC to complainant Sh. S.K. Ahuja, ACP recruitment cell to produce the original documents pertaining to the recruitment of accused Ram Charan and the said notice is Ex. PW- 8/A. He also stated that on 23.04.2007 he again visited the recruitment cell and received the documents vide letter no. XII-A/745/2006/9689/R.Cell (R- IV)/4th Battalion/ DAP dt. 23.04.2007 which is Mark-Z. He stated that thereafter he searched for the accused but he could not be found and that on 30.08.2007 accused Ram Charan surrendered himself in the court and that he formally arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW-5/B and also conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW-5/C and recorded his disclosure statement. He stated that accused was produced in the court from where he obtained one day PC remand of the accused and during the investigation accused disclosed that he obtained the sports certificate of Athletics Federation of India from one Krishan coach and the said certificate is already Mark-A. He stated that thereafter he alongwith accused went to the house of Krishan coach at Prem Nagar, Dadri but he was not found at his house and then he alongwith the accused went to the house of the accused at village Dhakla Jhajjar, Haryana where accused produced one certificate of Athletics Federation of India and that he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/A. He stated that the Ct. Sunil also accompanied him to Dadri and vill. Dhakla. He further stated that he State vs. Ram Charan, FIR no. 155/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 10 / 20 produced the accused in the court from where he was sent to JC. He stated that he recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared the challan and filed the same in the court. He identified the accused. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he received the documents pertaining to the recruitment of accused alongwith covering letter from recruitment cell in unsealed condition. He stated that he received the documents alongwith check list pertaining to the documents submitted by the accused at the time of recruitment. He stated that he gave the information at PS Dadri regarding his visit with regard to the investigation of the present case and he admitted that no document is on record regarding his visit to PS Dadri. He stated that Krishan Coach had joined the investigation but he could not find any incriminating evidence against him. He further stated that he visited Vill. Dhakla on 12.05.2007 but the accused was not found there and a notice u/s 160 CrPC was prepared but the father of the accused refused to sign the same and the same could not be served. He admitted that the abovesaid notice is not on record in the judicial file. He stated that on 31.08.2007 he visited Vill. Dhakla, Distt. Jhajjar alongwith Ct. Sunil and the accused and that no intimation was given to PS Jhajjar in this regard. He stated that he recovered the forged certificate Mark-A from the house of the accused and that he did not prepare the site plan of the spot of recovery of the said certificate. He State vs. Ram Charan, FIR no. 155/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 11 / 20 stated that no independent public person was made to join the investigation at the time of seizure of the said certificate. He also stated that he did not see the forged certificate Mark-A and that he did not verify the genuineness of the said forged certificate Mark-A. He voluntarily stated that the genuineness of the said certificate had already been verified and the present case was registered on the basis of the same. He did not know as to who had verified the certificate Mark-A. He admitted that on the certificate Mark-A, names of Suresh Kalmadi and Lalit Bhanot are mentioned but he did not record the statement of Suresh Kalmadi. He stated that he tried to record his statement but the same could not be recorded. He stated that he recorded the statement of Lalit Bhanot and that his name was mentioned in the list of witnesses. The attention of this witness was drawn to the list of witnesses prepared by him and he admitted that the name of Lalit Bhanot is not mentioned in the said list of witnesses. He further stated that on 23.04.2007 he received the original application form in unsealed condition from the recruitment cell. He admitted that he did not investigate the matter regarding the tampering of the documents which were supplied to him. He stated that on perusal of form no. 032591 he found that the same was filled with one pen/ink. The attention of this witness was drawn to column no.9 of the said form and he admitted that the applicant had not written sportsman with his sign. He State vs. Ram Charan, FIR no. 155/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 12 / 20 admitted that column no.8 regarding the other categories in the said form was blank. He admitted that the numerical -1 as mentioned in column no.9 of the said Form did not match with the numerical 1 mentioned in column no. 3, 10,11A, 11B, 11C of the said form. He further stated that Krishan Coach was called to join the investigation on 03.09.2007 and on 09.09.2007 and he stated that he did not know the accused and that he did not give the said certificate to the accused. He further stated that when he went to the office of Athletics Federation of India he did not see the register of Federation where the certificates were entered. He stated that he did not obtain the copy of any genuine certificate of the Federation and that he did not approach UP Athletics Association. He also stated that he did not visit Meerut to investigate the present case or to confirm as to whether any National Inter Zonal Junior Athletics Championship was organized by UP Athletics Association at Meerut from 15th to 17th October 2004. He also stated that he did not send any document, signature of the accused or the specimen handwriting of the accused to FSL in the present case. He denied that he filed the present charge sheet at the instance of senior officials or that he was deposing falsely.
12. Thereafter the prosecution's evidence was closed and statement of the accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC in which the accused categorically denied the allegation and he stated that he had been State vs. Ram Charan, FIR no. 155/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 13 / 20 falsely implicated and that he inadvertently left vacant the column no.9 in OMR sheet no. 032591 and that recruitment cell took the benefit of the same. Accused did not examine any witness in his defence.
13. I have heard arguments addressed by ld. counsel for accused as well as by Ld. APP for State.
14. It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The general burden of establishing the guilt of accused is always on the prosecution and it never shifts.
15. Counsel for the accused argued that accused has been falsely implicated as he did not furnish or submit the certificate Mark-A. Ld. Counsel further argued that the accused inadvertently left the column no.9 blank and the recruitment cell took the benefit of the same and implicated the accused. Ld. Counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused forged the certificate Mark-A or that it bears his handwriting or signatures. Ld. Counsel also argued that prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused furnished the aforesaid certificate at the time of his interview for the post of constable in Delhi Police. Ld. Counsel for the accused also argued that neither the accused forged the certificate nor has he used the same, therefore, he is liable to be acquitted. State vs. Ram Charan, FIR no. 155/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 14 / 20
16. In this case, the accused has been charged for commission of offence u/s 468/471 IPC and as per the case of the prosecution, the accused forged the sports certificate Mark-A for the purpose of cheating and he fraudulently and dishonestly used the same as a genuine document.
17. Section 470 IPC defines forged document as a false document made by forgery. The term "forgery" is defined in Section 463 as whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
18. The condition precedent for the offence u/s 468/471 IPC is forgery and the condition precedent for forgery is making of a false document. The making of false document is explained in Section 464 of IPC.
19. An analysis of section 464 of the Penal Code shows that it divides making of false documents into three categories.
1. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose State vs. Ram Charan, FIR no. 155/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 15 / 20 authority he knows it was not made or executed.
2. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation of otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practiced upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
20. In short, a person is said to have made a "false document", if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; (ii) where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority; (iii) he altered or tampered a document or he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
21. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar and others (2009) 8 Supreme Court cases 751 as under:
That when a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorized by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which is not the State vs. Ram Charan, FIR no. 155/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 16 / 20 owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted.
22. In the case in hand, the sports certificate Mark-A is stated to be a false document as defined u/s 464 IPC and it is alleged that the accused has made and forged the said sport certificate. However, the prosecution has failed to prove that the said sports certificate Mark-A bears the handwriting of the accused or that the said sports certificate was prepared by the accused. During investigation, the IO came to know that the accused procured the said certificate from one Krishan Coach in Dadri Haryana, however, the IO has stated during his cross-examination that the said Krishan coach had joined the investigation and that he could not find any incriminating evidence against him and that the said Krishan Coach told him that he did not give the said sports certificate to the accused.
23. Further the sports certificate Mark-A allegedly bear the signatures of Suresh Kalmadi and Lalit Bhanot, however, the IO did not make any effort to examine the aforesaid persons or to send the sports certificate to FSL for verification of its genuineness. The IO has also stated during his cross-examination that he did not approach the UP Athletics Association and that he did not visit Meerut to confirm as to whether any State vs. Ram Charan, FIR no. 155/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 17 / 20 National Inter Zonal Junior Athletics Championship was organized by UP Athletics Association at Meerut between 15th to 17th October 2004.
24. It is further pertinent to mention that IO has also stated during his cross-examination that he did not record the statement of Suresh Kalmadi, who is the alleged signatory to the certificate Mark-A. He further stated that he recorded the statement of another alleged signatory Lalit Bhanot and that his name was mentioned in the list of witnesses, however, the IO was shown the list of witnesses during his examination and he admitted that the name of Lalit Bhanot was not mentioned therein. Perusal of the record reveals that no steps were taken to check the authenticity of sport certificate Mark-A and the factum of forgery of sports certificate Mark- A is sought to be proved on the basis of testimony of PW-1 Sh. M.L. Dogra, Director Athletics Federation of India who simply stated that the certificate Mark-A was false as the Federation did not issue such certificates. PW-1 has stated during his cross-examination that he did not consult Dr. Lalit K. Bhanot or Mr. Suresh Kalmadi prior to sending the letter dt. 18.09.2006 vide which he sent his reply regarding the genuineness of the sports certificate. He has sent his reply to ACP, Recruitment Cell vide letter dt. 18.09.2006 vide which he alleged that the copy of certificate is false. However, the letter no. F-XII/562/2006/14058/R.Cell(R-II)/4th Battalion/DAP dt. 11.09.2006 allegedly received by him for the verification of the sports State vs. Ram Charan, FIR no. 155/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 18 / 20 certificate is not on record. PW-1 M.L. Dogra also admitted that he sent his reply with the annexure in which his remarks regarding the certificate are mentioned. However, he admitted in his cross-examination that the terms 'annexure' is not mentioned thereupon and that no date is mentioned on the said annexure and he also admitted that the original anneuxre is not placed on record.
25. The prosecution is required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts, however, neither the alleged signatories to the sports certificate Mark-A were examined by the prosecution nor the said sports certificate was sent to FSL for determining its genuineness. Even the original anneuxre allegedly containing the remarks of PW-1 regarding the certificate is not placed on record. The factum of forgery cannot be said to have been proved on the basis of an opinion given by PW-1 M.L. Dogra.
26. The proceeding has miserably failed to prove that the accused made the false document as contemplated u/s 464 IPC which is the condition precedent for convicting the accused for the offence of forgery u/s 468 IPC.
27. Prosecution has also alleged that accused used the forged certificate as genuine for obtaining the benefit of recruitment in Delhi Police and has thereby committed offence u/s 471 IPC. However, as discussed above, the prosecution has failed to prove that sports certificate Mark-A is State vs. Ram Charan, FIR no. 155/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 19 / 20 a forged document. As the sports certificate Mark-A has not been proved to be a forged document, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence u/s 471 IPC.
28. The prosecution has alleged that accused furnished the sports certificate Mark-A at the time of his interview and the factum of furnishing of sports certificate by the accused is sought to be proved by testimony of PW-4 ACP O.P. Yadav, who prepared the certificate Ex. PW-4/A regarding the furnishing of documents by the accused Ram Charan at the time of his interview. However, the document/certificate Ex. PW-4/A nowhere reveals or mentions that the impugned sports certificate Mark-A was furnished by the accused.
29. Considering the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused forged the certificate Mark-A or that he fraudulently or dishonestly used the said certificate as genuine. Therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted for the offence u/s 468/471 IPC.
30. Accordingly, accused Ram Charan s/o Bhanwar Singh stands acquitted for the offence u/s 468/471 IPC.
Announced in open court (Manish Khurana) on 29.08.2016 ACMM (North): Rohini State vs. Ram Charan, FIR no. 155/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 20 / 20