Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/463/1994 on 27 April, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI M.M.03
DISTT. NE, KKD COURTS DELHI
FIR No. 463/94
PS Defence Colony
JUDGMENT
a. Sl. No. of the case : 122/02/08
b. Date of commission of offence : 17.12.1993
c. Name of the complainant : Sh. S.M. Puri, AE
d. Name of the accused, his 1. Inder Raj Sharma
Parentage and address: s/o Shri Ram Sharma
r/o 284, Masjid Moth,
New Delhi
(case already abated against
him )
2. Alok Aggarwal
s/o KS Aggarwal
r/o C47, 48, Shalimar
Apartments, Masjid Moth,
New Delhi.
3. Ashok Kumar Rawal
s/o Hargovind Singh Rawal
r/o C44/209, Shalimar
FIR No. 463/94 1/29
Apartments, New Delhi,
Masjid Moth, New Delhi.
4. Raj Kumar Sharma
s/o Late BL Sharma
previously r/o C52, Shalimar
Apartments Masjid Moth,
New Delhi.
Presently R/o B50, Ashok
Enclave, Part IInd, Sector37,
Faridabad, Haryana.
e. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
f. Offence complained of or proved: 44 IE Act.
g. Final order : Acquitted
h. Date of Institution : 02.06.1995
i. Judgment reserved on : N.A
j. Judgment delivered on : 27.04.11
k. Unique ID No. : 02402R0052972001
Brief Facts
As per prosecution version, one complaint in English was filed by complainant SM Puri on 02.10.1994 in PS. It is stated that in complaint dt. 30.09.94, it was FIR No. 463/94 2/29 mentioned that joint inspection of premises mentioned in the complaint ( including meter concerning present case in name of accused Inder Raj Sharma) was carried out on 17.12.1993 by joint team comprising of Vigilance Deptt., Meter Testing Deptt., Enforcement Branch and Zonal Staff. It is stated that during course of inspection, it was found that connections mentioned in the complaint were being used for domestic purpose. It is stated that it was further observed that DESU meters, service line etc. were illegally shifted from their original position to newly constructed building Block C, Shalimar Apartments, which is in contravention of Rule 50 (3) of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 which provides that every consumer shall use all reasonable means to ensure that where energy is supplied by a supplier, no person other than the supplier shall interfere with the service line / apparatus placed by supplier on the premises of the complainant.
It is stated that registered consumer/ beneficiaries have FIR No. 463/94 3/29 violated Rule 50(3) of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 and Sec. 44 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 by illegal shifting / tempering of DESU meter and service line and also augmenting the service line with higher size of private cables.
It is stated that request was made to register FIR u/s 44 IE Act, 1910 and Rule 50(3) of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 against registered consumer as well as beneficiaries of the connections ( as per list enclosed includes name of accused in present FIR) for illegal shifting, tempering of meters and service line etc. and augmenting of service line with higher size of private cable.
It is stated that FIR u/s 44 Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was registered on the basis of abovementioned complaint.
It is stated that during investigation HC Joginder Singh seized electricity cable produced by complainant SM Puri and a separate seizure memo in this regard was made. It is stated that FIR No. 463/94 4/29 thereafter investigation was assigned to HC Gyanender Singh. It is stated that during investigation, HC Gyanender Singh inspected spot at instance of complainant and prepared site plan. It is stated that thereafter statements of witnesses were recorded. It is stated that all the accused were formally arrested after they obtained anticipatory bail and were released on bail. It is stated that certain beneficiaries according to list appended with the complaint could not be traced on account of incomplete addresses.
After completion of investigation, chargesheet before court was filed on 02.06.1995.
After appearance of accused before court, provisions of section 207 Cr. PC were complied with.
During pendency of case, supplementary chargesheet was also filed before court on seizure of electricity meter involved in the case.
Prima facie case having been made out, separate charges u/s 44 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 were framed against accused FIR No. 463/94 5/29 persons ( except accused Alok Aggarwal ) on 17.05.02 and charge u/s 44 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was framed against accused Alok Aggarwal on 01.11.03 ( as in between accused Alok Aggarwal was declared PO on 31.08.2001) to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution examined following witnesses to prove its case against accused: PW 1/CW1: HC Karan Singh PW 2 : SI Musafir Sahu PW 3 : HK Sharma PW 4 : ASI Joginder Singh PW 5 : ASI Gyanender Singh PW 6 : OP Sharma PW 7 : VK Gupta PW 8 : SM Puri PW9 : Mukesh Gupta PW10 : HC Ramavtar FIR No. 463/94 6/29 PW 11 : Jitender Kumar PW 12 : SK Bhatnagar PE was closed on 22.04.06.
S/A u/s 281 Cr. PC (vis a vis accused Alok Aggarwal, Ashok Rawal and Raj Kumar Sharma) was recorded on 13.11.06 and S/A u/s 281 Cr. PC against accused Inder Raj Sharma was recorded on 14.11.06 in which all incriminating material and circumstances appearing in evidence against accused were put to accused to which accused Inder Raj Sharma stated that he was not resident nor user of the electricity in the said Apartment. He further stated that he was having a shop at South Plaza II which is at a distance of 500 yards from Shalimar Apartments. Accused Alok Aggarwal stated that he does not have any knowledge about such raid and he was not in occupation of the said building since he purchased flat in question in month of October, 1994. Accused Ashok Rawal stated that he does not have knowledge about such raid and he was not in occupation of the said building and he obtained possession of flat in question on FIR No. 463/94 7/29 05.09.1994. Accused Raj Kumar Sharma stated that he does not have knowledge about such raid and he purchased flat in question in October, 1994. Accused Alok Aggarwal, Ashok Rawal and Raj Kumar Sharma have stated that they have been shown in possession of respective flats as FIR was registered on 02.10.1994.
Accused Inder Raj Sharma in S/A has admitted that meter in question is in his name but he has stated that meter against the mentioned K No. is still installed at his premises No. 209/21, South PlazaII, Delhi and he is still consuming electricity through the said meter and is making regular payment of bills as and when raised by DVB or BSES. He has further stated that he has filed photocopy of electricity bills showing that he is still using electricity from meter installed against K No. 1202322. He has further stated that he had never shifted any meter to C Block or D Block of Shalimar Apartments, New Delhi.
All the accused have stated that they are innocent. Accused did not lead any defence evidence and thereafter FIR No. 463/94 8/29 matter was fixed for final arguments.
Brief written arguments were filed on behalf of accused Alok Aggarwal which were opted by accused Ashok Rawal. Later on written arguments filed on behalf of Alok Aggarwal were opted by accused Raj Kr. Sharma. Defence counsels did not address oral arguments and submitted that they do not want to address oral arguments. Oral arguments were addressed by Ld. APP for the state.
I have heard final arguments addressed by Ld. APP for the state and perused written arguments filed/ opted on behalf of accused persons and perused the record.
Decision & Brief Reasons for the same Before disclosing my opinion on merits, I will discuss evidence led by prosecution.
PW 1 / CW 1 HC Karan Singh is process server who executed proclamation u/s 82 Cr. PC against accused Alok Aggarwal and it seems that he has been counted as PW 1 inadvertently by state while examining rest of witnesses.
FIR No. 463/94 9/29
PW 2 SI Musafir Sahu is duty officer who has exhibited carbon copy of FIR vide Ex. PW 2/A. PW 3 HK Sharma, JE is member of alleged raiding party. He has not exhibited any document on court record. He in his examination in chief has stated that there was doubt that meter were shifted to said building from their original position which were in the old building. He has further deposed that size of service line was also not found as per existing norms. PW has been cross examined by Ld. APP for the state with regard to identification of case property.
PW 4 ASI Jogender Singh is police officer who got FIR registered and made endorsement on complaint Ex. PW 4/A dt. 30.09.1994 ( on basis of which FIR was registered) vide Ex. PW 4/B. This PW appears to be first IO of the case.
PW 5 ASI Gyanender Singh is 2nd IO who took over investigation on 08.12.1994. He has exhibited site plan vide Ex. PW 5/A, personal bonds of accused Raj Kr. Sharma, Alok Aggarwal and Inder Raj Sharma vide Ex. PW 5/B to D and application for placing on FIR No. 463/94 10/29 record seizure memo of meter in question in supplementary challan vide Ex. PW 5/E. PW 6 OP Sharma, AE was member of alleged raiding party. He has been cross examined by Ld. APP for the state and he has not stated anything as such in his examination in chief and has deposed regarding facts of the case on asking of Ld. APP for the state in cross examination. He in his cross examination by Ld. APP for the state has stated that he cannot tell whether date of raid was 17.12.93 or not. He has further stated that it is correct to suggest that during the raid, it was observed DESU service line and meter was illegally shifted to newly constructed building from its original position.
PW 7 VK Gupta, JE is also member of alleged raiding party. He in his examination in chief has stated that joint inspection was carried out on 17.12.93. He has further stated that it was observed that at Shalimar Apartment, new buildings were constructed and meters were shifted illegally from their original position. He has further stated that the service line was also shifted in these buildings FIR No. 463/94 11/29 with higher size by private cables. He has stated that IO prepared site plan at his instance. He has exhibited JIR vide Ex. PW 7 /A and site inspection document dt. 06.01.99 vide Ex. PW 7/ B. PW 8 SM Puri is complainant in the present case. He is not member of alleged raiding party. He has deposed regarding giving of Ex. PW 4/A dt. 30.09.93 to SHO, PS Defence Colony. He has deposed that as per record of DESU, meter were sanctioned for different addresses in the name of different registered consumers. In cross examination of PW8, letter dt. 15.11.94 vide which request was made to SHO, PS Defence Colony for receiving seized cable was exhibited as PW 8/DX1 ( also later on exhibited as PW 11/A in actual Ex. should have been marked as Ex. PW 12/A instead of Ex. PW 11/A and it seems that inadvertently this mistake occurred). Seizure memo of seized cable has been exhibited in reexamination of PW8 as PW 8/B. PW 9 Mukesh Gupta, Asstt. Manager (Technical), Vigilance is also member of alleged raiding party. He has deposed that at the premises, multistoried complex was construction and meters FIR No. 463/94 12/29 were installed at two different locations. He has further deposed that size of service cable was of higher size.
PW 10 HC Ramavtar has brought the record regarding depositing of meter No. E 3163455 in the PS. He has exhibited entries of relevant pages of register No. 19 in this regard vide Ex. PW 10/A and Ex. PW 10/B. Relevant copy of page vide which meter in question was allegedly deposited with District Nazir is Ex. PW 10/C. PW 11 Jitender Kumar, Property Clerk, District Nazir Office has exhibited copy of RC, disposal order passed by Ld. MM allegedly with regard to meter in question, copy of page vide which meter in question was allegedly received by District Nazir and report of District Nazir vide Ex. PW 11/A, 11/C, 11/B and 11/D respectively.
PW 12 SK Bhatnagar, Sr. Engineer is the witness who went along with complainant for removing service cable and meter bearing No. E 3163455. He has exhibited forwarding letter of cable seizure to SHO, PS Defence Colony dt.15.11.94 vide Ex. PW 11/A ( exhibit should have been marked as PW 12/A instead of Ex. PW 11/A and it FIR No. 463/94 13/29 seems an inadvertent mistake on part of prosecution), forwarding letter of alleged meter seizure dt. 09.06.95 vide Ex. 11/B ( exhibit should have been marked as PW 12/B instead of Ex. PW 11/B and it seems an inadvertent mistake on part of prosecution) and seizure memo of meter in question vide Ex. PW 11/C ( exhibit should have been marked as PW 12/C instead of Ex. PW 11/C and it seems an inadvertent mistake on part of prosecution). He has deposed that the said meters and cables were removed as the meter was shifted from the address for which it was issued and it was being used and installed at another place by private cable. He has identified cable allegedly seized before court vide Ex. P1.
After going through evidence as adduced by prosecution on court record, I am of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and rather has failed to prove its case against accused persons miserably. The reasons as to why I have arrived at such a conclusion are as follows: First of all, perusal of court record shows that there is no FIR No. 463/94 14/29 permission u/s 50 of IE Act placed on record by prosecution in present case. Prosecution has not examined any officer who has given permission u/s 50 of IE Act to launch present case against accused persons before this court. Formal complaint u/s 50 of IE Act is a sine qua non for initiating any case under Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and in case the same is not there, case is liable to be dismissed on this count alone.
Section 50 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 provides as under:
Institution of Prosecution: No prosecution shall be instituted against any person for any offence against this act or any rule, license or order thereunder, except at the instance of the Government or a State Electricity Board or an Electrical Inspector or of a person aggrieved by the same.
Language of section 50, I.E. Act, 1910 shows that section is mandatory and not directory. Lack of complaint u/s 50 of I. E. Act, 1910 reduces case of prosecution against accused persons into a nullity FIR No. 463/94 15/29 and as such present case against accused persons is not maintainable on account of lack of formal complaint/ permission u/s 50 of IE Act, 1910 but I am of the opinion that present case should be disposed of on merits rather then being disposed of at this preliminary ground alone as evidence has been led and matter has lingered on for years before it has come to this stage.
Secondly as per facts of present case, accused as per prosecution are liable to be punished u/s 44 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910. As per allegations of prosecution, on 17.12.93 at C Block, Shalimar Apartments, Masjid Moth, New Delhi, accused were found to have shifted DESU meter and service line and also found to have replaced service line with higher size of private cable. Meter in question allegedly shifted as per documents placed on record by prosecution allegedly belonged to / issued in name of accused Inder Raj Sharma and rest of accused in the present charge sheet were allegedly beneficiaries of the same.
Section 44 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 provides as FIR No. 463/94 16/29 under :
Penalty for interference with meters or licensee's works and for improper use of energy whoever
(a) connects any meter referred to in section 26, subsection (1), or any meter, indicator or apparatus referred to in section 26, sub section (7), with any electric supply line through which energy is supplied by a license, or disconnects for same from any such electric supply line; or [(aa) unauthorisedly re connects any meter referred to in sub section(1) of section 26, or any meter, indicator or apparatus referred to in sub section(7) of section 26, with any electric supply line or other works, being the property of the licensee, through which energy may be supplied, when the said electric supply line or other works has or have been cut or disconnected under sub section(1) of section 24;
or]
(b) lays, or causes to be laid, or connects up any works for the purpose of communicating with any other works belonging to a FIR No. 463/94 17/29 licensee; or
(c) maliciously injures any meter referred to in section 26, subsection(1), or any meter, indicator or apparatus referred to in section 26, subsection(7), or wilfully or fraudulently alters the index of any such meter, indicator or apparatus, or prevents any such meter, indicator or apparatus from duly registering; or
(d) improperly uses the energy of a licensee, [shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both], and, in the case of a continuing offence, with a daily fine which may extend to [fifty] rupees; and [if it is proved that any artificial means exist] for making such connection as is referred to in clause (a) [ or such reconnection as is referred to in clause(aa),]or such communication as is referred to in clause(b), or for causing such alternation or prevention as is referred to in clause (c),or for facilitating such improper use as is referred to in clause (d), [and that] the meter, indicator or apparatus is under the custody or control of the FIR No. 463/94 18/29 consumer, whether it is his property or not, [ it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved] [that such connection, reconnection, communication,] alternation, prevention or improper use, as the case may be, has been knowingly and wilfully caused by such consumer.
In the facts and circumstances of present case, prosecution was required to prove that meter bearing No. E 3163455 was shifted to a new location from the location where it was initially installed. Prosecution was further required to prove that service line of meter bearing No. E 3163455 was also shifted with the meter and rather was replaced by private cable of higher capacity/ size.
Prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons on account of the fact that it has failed to bring on record the initial / original installation location of meter bearing No. E 3163455. PW 3 HK Sharma ( member of alleged raiding party) in his examination in chief in this regard has stated that there was doubt that meter were shifted to said building from their original position which were in old building. He in his examination in chief has further stated FIR No. 463/94 19/29 that after the said inspection an advice were sent to AE Zone, to confirm the size of service line and exact position of meters from the site and to file the report to the said effect. He has further deposed that however, he is not aware about the said report if any. He has further stated that as far as he remember, nothing was removed from the site on the said date. He in his cross examination by Ld. APP for the state has admitted that it is correct that meters were found shifted from original position in a newly constructed building. In his cross examination by defence, he has volunteered that since old structure were demolished for construction of new building, which were only feasible after shifting of meter. In a further question asked from him in his cross examination by defence, he has stated that he cannot tell the date, month or year of demolition of building. He in his cross examination done on behalf of accused Alok Aggarwal has stated that however recommendations made for confirmation regarding shifting of meter and cable. He has further stated that he does not know where original meter was installed. He has further stated that doubt was FIR No. 463/94 20/29 created regarding illegal shifting of meter as building in question was under construction and meter installed found was old one.
PW 6 OP Sharma ( member of alleged raiding party) has stated nothing in his examination in chief and it was only when Ld. APP for the state asked him question in his cross examination that he deposed certain things about alleged raid. He in his cross examination by State has stated that he cannot tell whether date of raid was 17.12.93 or not. He has admitted that it was observed that DESU service line and meter was illegally shifted to newly constructed building from its original position. PW 6 has failed to identify allegedly seized cable before the court. He in his cross examination by defence has stated that he does not remember the position of meter at the time of raid. He has further stated that photographs were taken but the same are not on court record. He in his cross examination conducted on behalf of accused Alok Aggarwal has stated that he cannot say if the office has any site plant with respect to the original place of meter or site plan of the place where it is allegedly shifted. He FIR No. 463/94 21/29 in his cross examination has further stated that the distance from the place where the meter was removed and then meter was installed is about 50 feet. He has further stated that he has not filed any document in record to show that original meter was installed at the particular place.
PW 7 VK Gupta ( member of alleged raiding party) in his examination in chief has stated that during inspection, it was observed that Shalimar Apartments, New buildings were constructed and meters were shifted illegally from their original position. He has further deposed that service line was also shifted in these buildings with higher size private cables. He has further stated that C Block was newly constructed and another Block was under construction. He in his cross examination by defence has stated that FIR was against C Block as per site plan. He has further stated that he cannot say as to from what point meter was installed earlier but at the time of raid it was installed at the premises where the beneficiaries were residing and it was a new construction. He in a question asked from him specifically FIR No. 463/94 22/29 with regard to basis of his presumption that meter might have been shifted has stated that he is saying on the basis of report of meter reader who were going on the earlier constructed portion at the said place and it has come in the report that the previous structure has been demolished and since it was a new construction and meter was installed on the new construction and therefore he is stating on the basis of the fact which he saw on the spot. He has further stated that they have attached no old site plan where the meter was / might be installed. He has further stated that he cannot tell as to at what particular premises/ spot the original meter was installed.
PW 9 Mukesh Gupta ( member of alleged raiding party) in his examination in chief has stated that at this premises, multistoried complex was construction and meters were installed at two different locations. He has further deposed that size of service cable was of higher size. He in his cross examination has stated that at this stage he does not remember about the original location of the meters. He has further stated that he does not remember whether FIR was lodged for FIR No. 463/94 23/29 shifting of meter or for theft of electricity.
In view of depositions of PW 3, PW6, PW 7 and PW 9 as discussed by me in various preceding paras, it becomes obvious that no evidence has been led by prosecution to establish original position of meter bearing No. E 3163455 so that it can be said that at the time of alleged raid, meter bearing No. E 3163455 was found shifted from its original location so as to bring the case within ambit of provisions of Sec. 44 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910. No report of any meter reader, any bill with regard to meter in question, any photograph which can show original installation position of meter in question and thereafter shifted position of meter in question nor any installation report of meter in question ( where it was originally installed) has been proved on record by prosecution. Plea of prosecution in absence of any material proved on record that meter in question be deemed to have been shifted by accused persons from its original location to a new location on account of new construction, is also unsustainable. Prosecution has failed to prove that premises where raid was allegedly FIR No. 463/94 24/29 conducted was constructed afresh so that because of this reason, it can be presumed that meter in question was allegedly shifted from its original location. No material i.e. like passing of fresh site plan, completion certificate issued by MCD with regard to premises where raid was allegedly conducted has been proved on record by prosecution which could have shown that fresh construction recently took place at the premises which was allegedly raided in order to sustain presumption that on account of new construction, meter in question was allegedly shifted. 1st IO/ ASI Joginder Singh (PW4) or PW5 / 2nd IO/ ASI Gyanender Singh have also failed to bring on record any investigation done by them or any proof collected by them which can show that meter bearing No. E 3163455 was initially installed at a particular place which was later on shifted to a new location. In these circumstances, I am of the view that prosecution has failed to prove that meter bearing No. E 3163455 was shifted to a new location from its earlier location.
Further as per version of prosecution as per Ex. PW 4/A, FIR No. 463/94 25/29 meter in question was allegedly shifted to Block C, Shalimar Apartments. Ex. PW 8/DX1 / Ex. PW 11/A i.e. forwarding letter of allegedly seized cable to SHO, PS Defence Colony dt. 15.11.94 clearly shows that cable was removed from D Block, Shalimar Apartments whereas as per Ex. PW 4/A, meter in question was found shifted to C Block, Shalimar Apartments. This fact is in itself quite material contradiction so far as story of prosecution is concerned which reduces credibility of prosecution version to zero level.
Further raid was allegedly conducted on 17.12.93 whereas cable was allegedly seized on 15.11.94 and meter in question was allegedly removed on 08.06.95 . Both meter in question and service cable were removed after a considerable period of time after initial raid and I do not find any reason in the circumstances of present case to believe that meter and service cable kept affixed at the same location which was observed during alleged initial raid on 17.12.93 and that too in the circumstances when they were allegedly removed by persons of Electricity Deptt. who were not members of alleged raiding party ( for FIR No. 463/94 26/29 raid conducted on 17.12.93).
Cable allegedly removed from the spot has not been identified by any of the members of alleged raiding party ( raid allegedly conducted on 17.12.93) and cable has been identified before court only by PW 12 SK Bhatnagar who was not member of alleged raiding party ( raid conducted on 17.12.93). In these circumstances, to say that the same cable was produced before court which was observed by alleged initial raiding party at time of raid on 17.12.93 would be to make castles in the air and genuineness of case property in these circumstances cannot be said to have been established by prosecution. Further no evidence has been brought on record by prosecution in order to show that cable allegedly removed from spot was that of higher size/ capacity. No circular/ order has been produced before court which can show that electricity department generally has to use cable of so much thickness in service line and that cable produced before court was that of higher capacity than approved. Further genuineness of case property ie cable itself is in doldrums . In these FIR No. 463/94 27/29 circumstances, it cannot be said to have proved that cable allegedly removed from site was that of higher size/ capacity.
Further meter in question was not produced even once before the court and it was purportedly auctioned by District Nazir. In this regard prosecution has examined PW 10 and 11. In Ex. PW 10/C i.e. list containing mention of articles which were purportedly deposited by MHCM, PS Defence Colony with District Nazir, No. of FIR has been shown to be FIR No. 463/95,U/s 39/44 Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Number of meter has not been mentioned in Ex. PW 10/C. Present FIR bears No. 463/94 and not 463/95. Further FIR in present case is only for offence u/s 44 I.E. Act and not for offence u/s 39 I.E Act . Report of District Nazir Ex. PW 11/D also shows FIR No. to be 463/95 in which case property was allegedly disposed of. Ex.PW 11/D also does not mention meter No. In these circumstances, though it can be said prosecution has tried to show reasons of non production of meter in question before this court but in view of facts as discussed in this para, prosecution has failed to show the same. Whatsoever the case FIR No. 463/94 28/29 may be, it may be on account of negligence of police officials that meter in question was not produced before this court but the fact remains that meter in question was not produced before court.
In the circumstances when case property has not been produced or identified by members of alleged raiding party, it is difficult to sustain case of prosecution against accused persons.
In view of reasons as detailed by me in various preceding paras, I am of the opinion that case of prosecution is not maintainable against accused persons on account of lack of sanction / formal complaint u/s 50 I.E. Act, 1910 on technical ground. Prosecution has otherwise also failed to prove its case against accused persons on account of reasons mentioned by me in various preceding paras. Accused are therefore acquitted for offence u/s 44 I.E. Act. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (SONU AGNIHOTRI)
Dt. 27.04.11 MM03, District NE,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 463/94 29/29