Delhi District Court
State vs . Mukesh Sharma on 8 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. PURVA SAREEN,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(SOUTHWEST), DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Mukesh Sharma
FIR No. 716/2006
PS : Dwarka
U/s 419/468/120B IPC
Date of Institution : 01.11.2012
Date of reserving of order : 11.07.2018
Date of Judgment : 08.08.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 427284/2016
2. Name of the Complainant : Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. Kishanlal Sharma
R/o DTDC, Nav Youge Mkt,
IInd Floor, Dr. Jagdish
Building, Ghaziabad, U.P.
3. Date of commission of offence : 22.06.2007
4. Name of accused person : Mukesh Sharma
S/o Sh. Hari Babu Sharma
R/o RZ28, B Block,
Dabri Extension East
New Delhi
5. Offence charged : U/s 419/468/120B IPC
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty
7. Final Order : Acquitted
Vide this judgment, I shall decide the case of the complainant M/s DTDC Courier and cargo limited initially filed against unknown FIR No.716/06 State Vs. Mukesh Sharma Page No. 1 of 18 P.S. Dwarka accused persons and whereby later on chargesheet was filed against Mukesh Kumar apart from other accused persons. BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
The story of the prosecution is as follows:
1. The accused Mukesh Sharma has been chargesheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 419/468/120B, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). It has been alleged by the prosecution that on 22.06.2007 accused Mukesh Sharma alongwith co accused (accused Anurag is P.O.) entered into criminal conspiracy to do an illegal act by illegal means for opening a bank account no. 6882 in the fake name of Gautam Pal for the purpose of encashment of cheque/banker cheque issued in the name of Gautam Pal. Further, in pursuance of this criminal conspiracy, accused Mukesh Sharma opened a bank account in United Bank of India in which he impersonated as Gautam Pal and deposited the banker cheque for encashment and also committed forgery by preparing documents pertaining to the opening of account in the name of Gautam Pal for opening the account for the purpose of cheating.
2. The chargesheet had been initially filed against accused Mukesh Sharma, Prakash Chand @ Mohit Nagar and Anurag Bhardwaj U/s 419/420/468/471 IPC.
3. The investigation was taken up when a complaint was filed by one Manoj Kumar Sharma on 25.03.2006.
It was stated that on 16.01.2006 the complainant booked three consignments from State Bank of India Gaziabad Branch which was supposed to be delivered in Trans Yamuna in Delhi. These consignments FIR No.716/06 State Vs. Mukesh Sharma Page No. 2 of 18 P.S. Dwarka were containing cheques of Rs. 70,000/ each. Next day when the consignments were on the delivery mode the bags were lost and the information of lost consignment was reported in the nearest police station also. However, information regarding the loss of consignment could not be intimated to State Bank of India authorities and as a result the account payee cheques were encashed by some unauthorized persons. The complainant received information from the State Bank of India later on that some unauthorized persons had opened illegal accounts and had got the cheques encashed. The complainant rushed to the bank and collected the details of the banks which encashed the cheques. The complainant made a complaint to the DCP crime branch and FIR was got registered. After thorough investigation chargesheet was filed against one Mukesh Sharma, S/o Hari Babu Sharma. The accused was arrested and he disclosed that using fake IDs and photographs he had got account opened in his name with the help of one Raj and Jitender. He procured the fake ID of one Gautam Pal and opened an account in United Bank of India, Dwarka with the fake ID. The account that was opened was account no. 6882 and he got the cheque book and passbook issued. He even got an account opened in the name of Gautam Pal in UTI Bank Dwarka. After lot of search also co accused Raj and Jitender could not be apprehended. The documents were sent to FSL Rohini. The specimen handwriting of accused Mukesh Sharma was found to be matching with that on fake documents. The FSL result also showed that the signature of Gautam Pal from Q1 to Q20 of Mohit from Q21 to Q29 of Kulwant from Q30 to Q35 of Naresh from Q36 and one Ajay Q37 were found to be forged by accused Mukesh Sharma.
4. Thereafter, chargesheet was filed against accused Mukesh FIR No.716/06 State Vs. Mukesh Sharma Page No. 3 of 18 P.S. Dwarka Sharma, Prakash Chand and accused Anurag. Anurag was declared a P.O. Accused Mukesh and Prakah Chand were summoned in the court and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, arguments were addressed on charge. The Ld. Predecessor court was pleased to frame charge against accused Mukesh Sharma U/s 490/468 r.w. Section 120B IPC. Accused Prakash Chand expired during the period when the arguments on charge were pending and charge was ordered to be framed only against accused Mukesh Sharma. Accused Anurag was declared P.O. In order to prove its case prosecution examined 21 witnesses.
5. PW1 Retired SI Suraj Bhan was the Duty Officer and he proved the FIR as Ex. PW1/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW1/B. Accused did not prefer to cross examine the witness.
6. PW2 was Pradeep Nagpal who was Manager United Bank of India, Dwarka Branch. He proved the account opening form bearing no. 6882 as Ex. P1 which was seized vide Ex. PW2/A. Accused did not prefer to cross examine the witness.
7. PW3 was Pramod Kumar Gupta. He deposed that he was the allottee of Flat No. 207, Pocket 9 Naseer Pur, Delhi. He stated that he had not given his house on rent to K.S. Maurya and Ajay Malkiya and it was locked since the date was allotted to him. He has also not applied for any electricity meter. He stated that documents used by K.S. Maurya and Ajay Malkiya had been forged by them as he had never let out his house to them. Accused did not prefer to cross examine the witness.
FIR No.716/06 State Vs. Mukesh Sharma Page No. 4 of 18 P.S. Dwarka
8. PW4 was Inderjeet Yadav. He stated that in 2006 he was working in DTDC Courier. On 15.04.2006, he alongwith Manoj Kumar reached the United Bank of India, Sector5 Dwarka as their cheque had been lost and they had been informed that someone would come to encash the cheuque in United Bank of India Sector5. They said that they had apprehended one person in the bank alongwith the one passbook and the said cheque from their account but he could not identify the accused present in the court i.e. accused Mukesh Sharma.
On being specifically crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State, witness stated that as the matter pertained to 2006, he could not identify the accused 10 years after the incident. In his crossexamination, he denied the suggestions given by the counsel for accused and stated that whatever was deposed by him was best to his knowledge.
9. PW5 was HC Laxmi. She was the Duty Officer posted at DIU South West on 20.07.2007 when she received an envelop from Karnataka Bank and all the documents which were present in the envelop were seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW5/A. Accused did not prefer to cross examine the witness.
10. PW6 was HC Shambhu Dayal who stated that on 17.05.2008, he was posted at DIU Dwarka. One Yatender had come to him and handed over account opening form alongwith other documents which were seized by him vide memo Ex. PW6/A. On 26.05.2008 had taken the questioned document to FSL Rohini. He undertook that the documents till they were in his possession were not tampered with.
FIR No.716/06 State Vs. Mukesh Sharma Page No. 5 of 18 P.S. Dwarka In his crossexamination, he denied the suggestion that documents were manipulated by him to falsely implicate the accused.
11. PW7 was Anurag Sharma, Assistant Director Regional FSL Chanakya Puri. He exhibited the FSL result as Ex. PW7/A. He stated that he gave his opinion that the person who wrote the specimen handwriting had also written the questioned writing and signature. However, he could not give his opinion on the rest of the questioned items on the basis of material supplied to him.
In his crossexamination, he stated that he could not tell how many days he took to examine the present case but he stated that normally he took around 45 days for giving any opinion. He denied that he had not examined any specimen writing and stated that all the instruments used by him were mentioned in his report and there was no mathematical formula for examination of the words. He denied that the report had been prepared mechanically at the instance of the IO. He also stated that the handwriting of any individual may vary according to the mood of the individual. He voluntarily stated that the individual characteristic of the handwriting and signature never change.
12. PW8 was LDC Sh. Balram from Trasport Department, South West Dwarka and he proved that the licence was issued to one Bhgwan Dass which was bearing no. P09032004318652. Further, he stated that no licence with No. P09032004698521 or P09032004396541 were issued by them.
Accused did not prefer to cross examine the witness.
FIR No.716/06 State Vs. Mukesh Sharma Page No. 6 of 18 P.S. Dwarka
13. PW9 was Chander Shekhar who was Nodal Officer. He proved the customer application form of mobile no. 9871223958 issued in the name of one Ashok Kumar as Ex. PW9/A. He also stated that original customer application form of mobile no. 9871378736 and 9871223958 were not available.
Accused did not prefer to cross examine the witness.
14. PW10 was Nagender Pal Singh. He had brought the summoned record with respect to the BSES connection 2660 W652 0897 and the same was allotted to one Sh. Tarsem Lal. He further stated that said connection was never allotted in the name of Naresh Kumar. Accused did not prefer to cross examine the witness.
15. PW11 was Inspector S.S. Rathi, Incharge Special Staff, West District. He stated that in June 2009 the investigation of the present case was marked to him. He wrote letters to BSES, Election Office, MLO Janakpuri and Nodal Officer Airtel regarding verification of supporting documents submitted by the accused persons at the time of opening of bank accounts. He had received reply from MLO West Zone Janakpuri and exhibited the replies. He had issued notice to Nodal Officer Airtel and had received the reply on their behalf also. He questioned one Ashok Kumar who stated that he had never taken any mobile phone. He only declared that photograph used on the account opening form were one of Anuraag but despite all efforts Anuraag could not be traced and he was also transferred and file was handed over to Reader, ACP (DIU).
Accused did not prefer to cross examine the witness.
FIR No.716/06 State Vs. Mukesh Sharma Page No. 7 of 18 P.S. Dwarka
16. PW12 was Sh. P.L. Meena who was Office Superintendent Education Department. He stated that he was posted as Assistant Electoral Registration Officer from 2008 till 2010 and identified the signature on the letter Ex. PW12/A. Accused did not prefer to cross examine the witness.
17. PW13 was SI Jitender Dagar he stated that on 22.06.2007 on the instructions of the SHO the investigation was marked to him. He interrogated accused Mukesh Sharma and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW13/A and conducted his personal search vide Ex PW13/B. He also recorded the disclosure statement Ex. PW13/C of the accused. He conducted the investigation regarding accused Jitender and Raj but no clue was found. After that case was transferred to DIU South West. In his cross examination, he admitted that there was no complaint by any bank against accused Mukesh.
18. PW14 Sujit Kumar was Branch Manager of Axis Bank who stated that a joint account had been opened by Mohit Nagar and Kulwant Singh Maurya. Although the original form could not be located he had brought the copy of the record of the account. The account was dornmant one and did not have any nomination.
Accused did not prefer to cross examine the witness.
19. PW15 was Inspector O.P. Meena who stated that he received the case file on the orders of senior officers. On 02.04.2008 he went to Union Bank of India, Dwarka Branch and gave a notice u/s 91 to the Manager Pradeep Nagpal for the required document. He seized the demand FIR No.716/06 State Vs. Mukesh Sharma Page No. 8 of 18 P.S. Dwarka draft Ex. PW15/A. Thereafter, he sent the questioned document with forwarding letter on 26.05.2008 to FSL Rohini. He was transferred thereafter.
In his crossexamination, he stated that he did not record any statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. He also stated that he did not give any notice to Gautam Pal and neither visited the bank which issued the DD. He stated that he had recorded the statement of Pradeep Nagpal and HC Shambhu Dayal u/s 161 Cr.P.C but no such statements were found on judicial file. He also stated in his cross examination that he did not seek prior permission from the court for sending the documents to FSL.
20. PW16 was Retired SI Vedmanter who took up the investigation on 19.08.2006. He obtained the photocopies of documents of account and obtained specimen signature of accused Mukesh as Ex. PW16/A running into 100 pages. On 20.06.2007, he obtained original account opening form from Union Bank of India which is already Ex. PW2/A / Ex. P1. He also seized from UTI bank the original documents regarding account of Gautam Pal including original account opening form Ex. PW16/B, cheque no. 6461 Ex. PW16/C and form no. 16 Ex. PW16/D. On 22.06.2007 case file was handed over to SI Jitender Dagar who arrested Mukesh in his presence. He also recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
In his crossexamination, PW16 also submitted that no written complaint was given by any one against Mukesh. He also admitted that he had not taken any permission from any court to obtain specimen signature of accused. He also admitted in his cross examination that he did not visit the SBI Bank which had issued the DD and also did not issue any FIR No.716/06 State Vs. Mukesh Sharma Page No. 9 of 18 P.S. Dwarka notice to Gautam Pal.
21. PW17 was Inspector Ramesh Chand who received the case for investigation on 25.06.2007. He issued notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C to branch Manager SBI and SBI replied that cheque of Rs. 70,000/ in favour of Gautam Pal was reported as lost. PW17 did not make the branch manager as one of the witnesses. He also issued notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C to Karnataka Bank, Dwarka and received a reply alongwith document which he seized. He also issued notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C to Gautam Pal but he never joined investigation. The address was also found locked. Although he had met Gautam Pal but he did not join the investigation saying that his relative was unwell and he would join the same later.
In his crossexamination, he stated that he had never received any complaint regarding the cheque no. 021431 of Rs. 70,000/. He also admitted that no order of ACP marking investigation to him was on judicial record.
22. PW18 was Inspector Mahesh Soni who was also one of the IO and received the case file on 05.07.2010. He had sent a letter to FSL rohini for obtaining a result regarding the handwriting of Mukesh. During investigation, he tried to trace Anurag Bhardwaj and obtained his NBWs and thereafter, he was transferred.
In his crossexamination, he could not tell who had sent the documents to FSL.
23. PW19 was Inspector Samar Singh who was posted in DIU when the investigation was marked to him. He pursued the FSL result from FIR No.716/06 State Vs. Mukesh Sharma Page No. 10 of 18 P.S. Dwarka FSL Rohini and also tried to trace out the remaining accused but got no success. He admitted that he did not join Gautam Pal in the investigation. In his crossexamination, he admitted that he did not record statement of any witness in the case.
24. PW20 was Retired SI Ramesh Chand. He stated that on 15.04.2006, he received PCR call from UTI Bank Sector 5 regarding cheating. He alongwith Ct. Jai Bhagwan reached the spot, met Manager Pradeep Nagpal who told that one person had come to inquire about the cheque encashed in account of one Gautam Pal. The Manager further told him that the person was sitting inside the bank and his name was later revealed to be Mukesh. Meanwhile, two employees of DTDC company came namely Manoj and Inderjeet who told that their cheque was missing and they had filed an NCR at PS Farsh Bazar. Accused Mukesh was duly identified in the court. Accused Mukesh was thereafter detained u/s 65 DP Act and thereafter released.
In his crossexamination, he admitted in court that no written complaint was given to him and he had not got any evidence regarding involvement of accused Mukesh in any offence. He denied that documents were manipulated later to falsely implicate the accused.
25. PW21 was Sh. Ravi Shankar Shukla. He said that he had no information regarding Yatender Kumar Rathor who had left the services of the Bank.
Accused did not prefer to cross examine the witness.
26. PW22 was Inspector Jagdish Kumar. He was entrused the file FIR No.716/06 State Vs. Mukesh Sharma Page No. 11 of 18 P.S. Dwarka for investigation on 20.02.2011. Later on, information was received that accused namely Prakash Chand had been arrested in PS Chhawla. The witness took the formal arrest of the accused Prakash Chand and his signature were also taken. He got the process u/s 82 Cr.P.C initiated against accused Anurag Bhardwaj.
In his crossexamination, he stated that he could not tell the name of the person whose cheque was being used. He could not tell the place from where the packet was lost in transit or the bank from which the cheque was issued.
27. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
28. Statement of accused was recorded and all the incriminating evidence coming on record was put to the accused in which he submitted that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that he did not wish to lead evidence in defence.
29. It has been argued by Ld. APP for the state that accused has committed all the offences under which he has been charged. He has cheated the complainant of Rs. 70,000/ by withdrawing the same using the name of Gautam Pal. It has been further argued by Ld. APP for the state that accused has entered into criminal conspiracy with the co accused and opened the bank account in the name of Gautam Pal for encashment of cheque which was issued in the name of Gautam Pal. He also impersonated Gautam Pal and deposited the banker cheque for encashment and also prepared documents pertaining to the account in the name of Gautam Pal. The FSL result also shows that the signature upon the questioned FIR No.716/06 State Vs. Mukesh Sharma Page No. 12 of 18 P.S. Dwarka documents have been made by same person who had made the specimen signature which clearly shows that accused Mukesh Kumar had done those signature and had prepared forged documents. Hence, accused Mukesh Kumar should be convicted.
30. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused has argued as follows :
(i) First argument of ld. Counsel for accused is that no one from the main complainant company i.e. the DTDC was examined to prove the complaint upon which FIR was registered. The person who made the complaint on behalf of DTDC was Manoj Kumar and he could not be produced before the court to depose despite all the efforts and hence, he was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses. The first complaint itself could not be proved. Further, PW4 who was examined in the court was Inderjeet Yadav from DTDC who could not identify the accused present in the court.
(ii) The prosecution also failed to examine any witness from SBI from where the cheques were put into transit at the first place. The SBI also did not ever make a complaint to the police that the cheques which were put into transit by their bank had been lost or misplaced and someone other than the rightful receiver of the cheque had got them encashed. It was told by the witness that SBI approached the DTDC when the actual person who was supposed to be encashed the cheques could not get the money and they approached the bank but no separate complainant was made by SBI to the police.
(iii) Gautam Pal who was the actual victim of the entire transaction was never examined nor he was made a witness of prosecution. He never appeared before the court or neither joined the investigation and his actual FIR No.716/06 State Vs. Mukesh Sharma Page No. 13 of 18 P.S. Dwarka handwriting or his actual signature could never be proved in the court.
(iv) Further the prosecution did not examine any witness to prove that the cheques were stolen or lost as no complaint was made to the police for the loss of cheques. The first complaint that was made to the police was that for encashment of cheques.
(v) The Counsel for the accused also argued that all the witnesses who were examined in the court equivocally stated that there was no material to arrest the accused Mukesh as there was no complaint by bank or any other person against the accused Mukesh. This was stated by all the IO including PW 13 SI Jitender Dagar, PW15 Inspector O.P. Meena and PW20 SI Ramesh Chand who deposed to the extent of saying that he had not got any evidence of involvement of accused Mukesh Kumar in any offence.
(vi) No one witnessed Mukesh Kumar doing any untoward act neither stealing the cheque nor misappropriating it and the only witness who was available to tell that whether accused Mukesh had reached the United Bank of India to withdraw Rs. 70,000/ could not identify accused Mukesh in the court.
(vii) The main contention that has been taken up by the counsel for accused on which the prosecution has duly relied is the matching of the specimen handwriting of the accused with the questioned documents. The FSL result has stated against the accused and in favour of the prosecution. As per the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rakesh Kumar VS. State 2004 (1) JCC 110 it is categorically held that if the alleged specimen signatures are obtained during investigation without permission from the court such specimen writing of the accused persons could not be made used of during the trial and report of handwriting expert is thus rendered of no consequence at all and cannot be used against the accused to connect him FIR No.716/06 State Vs. Mukesh Sharma Page No. 14 of 18 P.S. Dwarka with the crime.
(viii) It is argued that in the present case also the specimen signatures were obtained during investigation without any permission from the court and therefore, the case in hand stood on a very weak footing as the signatures would not be made use of during the trial. The report of the handwriting expert is thus rendered of no consequence at all and cannot be used to connect the appellants with crime.
31. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I have come to the following observations:
(i) It is an admitted case of the prosecution that three cheques were misplaced during transit from the SBI bank and thereafter a fake account in the name of Gautam Pal for the purpose of encashment of one of the cheque was opened in United Bank of India and the said cheque was presented for encashment by the accused. The accused also impersonated as Gautam Pal and while opening the account in the name of Gautam Pal he also prepared documents pertaining to the opening of account for the purpose of cheating. The accused Mukesh Kumar was arrested by the police for the above offences when he came to United Bank of India for encashment of the cheque. During the course of evidence, none of the public witnesses could identify the accused Mukesh Kumar as the same person who was apprehended from the bank at the time he came for encashment of the cheque. In fact, only two persons were present while accused Mukesh Kumar was apprehended namely Manoj Kumar and PW4 Inder Jeet Yadav. While Manoj Kumar could not be produced before the court for examination despite all possible efforts, witness Inder Jeet Yadav failed to identify the accused Mukesh Kumar as the same person who was FIR No.716/06 State Vs. Mukesh Sharma Page No. 15 of 18 P.S. Dwarka apprehended by him in United Bank of India on 15.04.2006.
(ii) The main victim of the offence committed was Gautam Pal was neither made a witness of prosecution nor could he be made to join the investigation by the different IO's who conducted the investigation.
(iii) The signature of actual victim Gautam Pal could never be obtained for comparision with his forged signature allegedly done by accused Mukesh Kumar. His signature could only be compared with photocopies.
(iv) All the police witnesses who were examined in the court and who investigated the case denied the role of accused Mukesh and even stated that there was no material to arrest the accused Mukesh as there was no complaint by bank or any other person against the accused Mukesh. This was stated by all the IO's including PW 13 SI Jitender Dagar, PW15 Inspector O.P. Meena and PW20 SI Ramesh Chand who deposed to the extent of saying that they had not got any evidence of involvement of accused Mukesh Kumar in any offence.
(v) The SBI did not make any complaint for loss of any cheque and the fact that no one witnessed accused Mukesh Kumar committing the theft of the cheque, cannot be ignored. Further, there is no witness to prove that the cheques were stolen as the victim Gautam Pal or the SBI never made any complaint to the police.
(vi) It is also observed that the main arguments of the prosecution is that the specimen signatures have matched with the signatures on the fake account opening form, the cheque and other documents of United Bank of India which have been allegedly forged by the accused in the name of Gautam Pal as per FSL report. Each of the IO's have been specifically questioned regarding taking of permission from the Court for sending the FIR No.716/06 State Vs. Mukesh Sharma Page No. 16 of 18 P.S. Dwarka documents to FSL and two of the investigating officer including PW15 Inspector O. P. Meena, PW16 SI Ved Mantar admitted that no permission was taken from any court to obtain the specimen signature of accused Mukesh Kumar. There is no permission also on record to show that the Court had been informed or the Court had permitted to obtain the specimen signature of the accused. The FSL result in such a circumstance cannot be read into evidence. The counsel has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rakesh Kumar VS. State 2004 (1) JCC 110 to substantiate his arguments. The judgment has categorically held that if the alleged specimen signatures are obtained during investigation without permission from the court such specimen writing of the accused persons could not be made used of during the trial and report of handwriting expert is thus rendered of no consequence at all and cannot be used against the accused to connect him with the crime.
(vii) The above point has been made more clear in the judgment of Sapan Haldar Vs State of NCT of Delhi passed on 25.05.2012 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi criminal appeal 804/2001.
(viii) It is observed that specimen signatures were obtained during investigation without any permission from the court and therefore, the case in hand stands on a very weak footing and the signatures cannot be made use of during the trial. I agree with the contention of learned counsel for the accused that the report of the handwriting expert is thus rendered of no consequence at all and cannot be used to connect the appellants with crime.
(ix) In Mohd. Yunus Vs State 2010 (2) JCC 1319 also it was held that if no permission of the Court is obtained before taking sample signatures and handwriting of the accused, the FSL result based on such signature and handwritings cannot be read against the accused and consequently accused FIR No.716/06 State Vs. Mukesh Sharma Page No. 17 of 18 P.S. Dwarka should be held not guilty.
32. In view of the above discussion, this court has no hesitation to hold that prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused Mukesh Kumar U/s 419/468/120B IPC. As such, accused stands acquitted of charges U/s 419/468/120B IPC. Bail bond & Surety bond discharged. Endorsement, if any stands cancelled.
Pronounced in the open court on 08.08.2018 (PURVA SAREEN) Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Dwarka Courts: New Delhi Digitally signed by PURVA PURVA SAREEN SAREEN Date:
2018.08.13 16:53:48 +0530 FIR No.716/06 State Vs. Mukesh Sharma Page No. 18 of 18 P.S. Dwarka