Delhi District Court
Fi vs . Raj Kumar Garg & Anr. Page 1 Of 19 on 21 March, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BALWANT RAI BANSAL
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEII,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
C.C. No. 51/06
Food Inspector
Department of PFA
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
A20, Lawrence Road
Indl. Area, Delhi - 35
........ Complainant
Versus
1. Sh. Raj Kumar Garg S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash
N26, Connaught Circus, New Delhi
........ Vendor
2. Smt. Dropti Devi W/o Late Sh. Om Prakash
M/s Rameshwar Das Om Prakash, (Discharged vide order
N26, Connaught Circus, New Delhi dated 11.08.2009)
........ Proprietor
COMPLAINT U/S 16 OF THE PREVENTION OF
FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954
CC No. 51/06
FI Vs. Raj Kumar Garg & Anr. Page 1 of 19
Serial number of the case : 51/06
Date of the commission of the offence : 16.11.2005
Date of filing of the complaint : 22.02.2006
Name of the Complainant, if any : Shri Bal Mukund, Food
Inspector
Offence complained of or proved : Violation of provisions of Section
2 (ia) (a) (b) (j) & (m) of PFA
Act 1954 and violation of
provisions of Rule 23 r/w Rule 28
& 29 of PFA Rules; punishable
U/s 16(1A) r/w section 7 of the
PFA Act.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Arguments heard on : 16.03.2013
Judgment announced on : 21.03.2013
J U D G M E N T
1. The present complaint has been filed on 22.02.2006 by the Delhi Administration through FI Sh. Bal Mukund against the accused Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta and Smt. Dropti. It is stated in the complaint that on 16.11.2005 at about 4.00 PM, FI Sh. Bal Mukund purchased a sample of Dal Arhar, a food article for analysis from Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta S/o Sh Om Prakash from the premises of M/s Rameshwar Das Om Prakash, N26, CC No. 51/06 FI Vs. Raj Kumar Garg & Anr. Page 2 of 19 Connaught Circus, New Delhi, who was found conducting the business of the said food article at the time of sampling. FI Sh. Bal Mukund purchased approximately 1500 gms of Dal Arhar taken from an open wooden rack bearing no label declaration. The sample was taken after proper mixing the Dal Arhar with the help of a clean and dry Jhaba by rotating the same in the Dal Arhar several times under the supervision and direction of Shri I.D. Pandey, SDM/LHA. Thereafter, the sample commodity was divided into three equal parts by Food Inspector by putting it in three clean and dry bottles 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 Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta and price of sample was also paid to the accused vide Vendor's Receipt dated 16.11.2005. Panchnama was also prepared at the spot. All these documents prepared by Food Inspector were signed by accused Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, the vendor and the other witness namely Sh. S.N. Jindal, FA. It is stated that before starting the sample proceedings, efforts were made to get the public witnesses to join the proceedings, but none came forward and as such Sh. S. N. Jindal, FA joined as witness.
2. It is further stated that one counterpart of the sample bearing CC No. 51/06 FI Vs. Raj Kumar Garg & Anr. Page 3 of 19 LHA code No. 32/LHA/13856 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 analysed the sample and opined that "the sample is adulterated because it is coloured with synthetic colouring matter viz. Tartrazine".
3. It is further stated that Sh. Raj Kumar Garg S/o Sh. Om Prakash was the Vendor of M/s Rameshwar Das Om Prakash and he being the incharge of the said shop was responsible for the day to day conduct of the business of the said shop and Smt. Droptati Devi W/o Late Sh. Om Prakash is proprietor of the said shop and as such she is also liable for day to day conduct of the business of the said shop. 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 for violation of provisions of Section 2 (ia) (j) & (m) of the PFA Act and also for violation of Rule 23 r/w Rule 28 and 29 of the PFA Rules which is punishable U/s 16 (1A) r/w Section 7 of the PFA Act.
4. The accused were summoned vide order dated 22.02.2006.
Both the accused appeared and did not exercise their right and option U/s 13 (2) of the PFA Act.
5. It is pertinent here to mention that the Ld. Predecessor of this CC No. 51/06 FI Vs. Raj Kumar Garg & Anr. Page 4 of 19 court vide order dated 11.08.2009 observed that prima facie no case is made out against the accused no. 2 Smt. Dropati Devi and accordingly accused no. 2 was discharged vide order dated 11.08.2009.
6. Charge for violation of Section 2 (ia) (a) (b) (j) & (m) of the PFA Act, and violation of provision of Rule 23 r/w Rule 28 & 29 of PFA Rules, punishable U/s 16 (1A) r/w section 7 of the Act was framed against the accused Sh. Raj Kumar Garg vide order dated 11.08.2009 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Thereafter, prosecution examined three witnesses namely Food Inspector Sh. Bal Mukund as PW1, Sh. I.D. Pandey as PW2 and Sh. S. N. Jindal, Field Assistant as PW3 and PE was closed vide order dated 14.01.2011.
8. Statement of accused Sh. Raj Kumar U/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded on 26.04.2011 wherein accused claimed himself to be innocent and opted for to lead evidence in his defence. However, accused did not lead any evidence in his defence and DE was closed vide order dated 11.07.2011.
9. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
10. The present complaint case has been launched against the CC No. 51/06 FI Vs. Raj Kumar Garg & Anr. Page 5 of 19 accused on the basis of Public Analyst (PA) report dated 12.12.2005. Perusal of same reveals that sample is adulterated because it is coloured with synthetic colouring matter viz. tartrazine. The accused has not at any point of time moved an application U/s 13 (2) of PFA Act for getting the second counterpart of the sample analyzed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory (CFL).
11. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that there is no compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act by the prosecution and accused has been deprived from statutory right of getting the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory. He has further argued that there is also violation of Rule 14 of PFA Rules as Food Inspector has not used the clean and dry bottles while conducting the sample proceedings and he has not disclosed where the sample was kept. He has further argued that there is discrepancy in the the sample collected from the accused and the sample sent to the Public Analyst and analyzed by the Public Analyst as there is incorrect particulars on the receipt. Ld. Counsel for accused has further argued that prosecution has also not complied the provisions of Rule 17 and Rule 18 of the PFA Rules 1955. He has further argued that prosecution has applied the paper chromatography test to detect the presence of colour in the sample which is not a sure test and, therefore, accused is entitled for acquittal. CC No. 51/06 FI Vs. Raj Kumar Garg & Anr. Page 6 of 19
12. On the other hand, Ld. SPP for complainant has argued that paper chromatography test to detect the colour in the sample is a valid test. He further argued that intimation of filing the present complaint along with the report of Public Analyst was duly served upon the accused as prescribed U/s 13 (2) of the Act and the accused has failed to exercise his right to get the second counterpart of the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory. He has further argued that even if the accused has not been served with the intimation letter, still he could have filed the application U/s 13 (2) of the Act to get the sample analyzed by the CFL, but the accused has not done so. He has further argued that sample was taken into the clean and dry bottles and there is compliance of Rule 14 of PFA Rules 1955 and the sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst in compliance of Rule 17 and 18 of the PFA Rules 1955. The Ld. counsel for the accused has relied upon State of Orissa Vs. Rabindra Sahu, 2006 (1) FAC 200, State Vs. Banwari Lal, 2011 (1) FAC 149, Gian Chand Vs. State of Haryana, Smt. Kanta Ben Champak Lal Vs. D.V. Mistri, Food Inspector, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Anr., M/s Laxman Das Sarvottamdas Doshi & Co. Vs. The State of Mahrashtra.
13. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed more or less as per the averments made in the complaint. PW1 FI Bal CC No. 51/06 FI Vs. Raj Kumar Garg & Anr. Page 7 of 19 Mukund has deposed in his examinationinchief that on 16.11.2005 he along with FA Sh. S.N. Jindal under the supervisions and directions of SDM/LHA Sh. I.D. Pandey visited the premises of M/s Rameshwar Dass Om Prakash, where accused Raj Kumar Garg was found conducting the business of food articles stored there for sale for human consumption including Dal Arhar. He has further deposed that he purchased 1500 gms of Dal Arhar from the accused Raj Kumar Garg taken from a wooden rack bearing no label declaration for analysis on payment of Rs. 45/ vide vendor's receipt Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed that before taking the sample, it was was properly mixed with the help of clean and dry Jhaba by rotating it in all possible directions and thereafter he divided the purchased sample into three equal parts and same were separately packed, marked, fastened and sealed according to PFA Act and Rules.
14. PW1 has further deposed that he prepared notice in Form VI PW1/B and panchnama Ex. PW1/C and copy of the notice was also received by the accused and all the above documents were read over and explained to the accused in Hindi and he signed the same. He has further deposed that accused gave bill of sample price Ex. PW1/D. He has also deposed that one counter part of the sample alongwith one copy of memo in Form VII in intact & sealed condition was sent to the PA on17.11.2005 and CC No. 51/06 FI Vs. Raj Kumar Garg & Anr. Page 8 of 19 remaining two counter parts of the sample in a sealed packet were deposited in intact condition with the LHA on same date vide receipt Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW1/E respectively. He has further deposed that PA report was received which is Ex. PW1/G by which it was opined that sample was adulterated being coloured with synthetic colouring matter i.e. Tartrazine.
15. PW1 Sh. Bal Mukund further investigated the matter and sent a letter Ex. PW2/A to Sales Tax Ward no. 2 and Ex. PW 2/B to Ward No. 2 and to the DHO, NDMC, Palika Kendra Ex.PW2/C and to the accused Raj Kumar Garg Ex. PW2/D to which reply from STO, Ward No. 1 was received and it was found that Smt. Dropadi Devi is the proprietor of the above said firm M/s Rameshwar Dass Om Prakash. He has also proved the sanction given by the Director, PFA for initiating the present prosecution against the accused as Ex. PW1/H, complaint as Ex. PW1/J. He has also placed on record the intimation letter given to accused along with PA report as Ex. PW1/K and copy of postal registration receipt as Ex. PW1/L.
16. PW2 Sh. I.D. Pandey under whom supervision and directions, the sample proceedings were conducted and PW3 FA Sh. S.N. Jindal who was made a witness at the time of conducting the sample proceedings have deposed on the similar lines as deposed by PW1 in his examinationin CC No. 51/06 FI Vs. Raj Kumar Garg & Anr. Page 9 of 19 chief.
17. The accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted that on 16.11.2005, he was conducting the business of food articles including Dal Arhar and Food Inspector had taken the sample of Dal Arhar for analysis. He has also admitted that Food Inspector after taking the sample divided the same into three equal parts, but it was denied by the accused that after dividing the sample into three equal parts, the same were kept into three dry and clean glass bottles. As per accused, the Food Inspector after dividing the sample into three equal parts , put the same in brown papers.
18. The Ld. Counsel for accused has also argued that there is no compliance of Rule 14 of PFA Rules 1955 which provides the manner of sending sample for analysis. As per Rule 14, samples of food for the purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation or in the case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and shall be carefully sealed. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for accused that prosecution has not complied the Rule 14 of the PFA rules is based on the statement of PWs where they have not averred that the sample was kept in clean and dry bottle which is the mandatory requirement under Rule 14 of the PFA Rules.
CC No. 51/06 FI Vs. Raj Kumar Garg & Anr. Page 10 of 19
19. Though, in the complaint it has been averred that on 16.11.2005 at about 4.00 PM, FI Sh. Bal Mukund purchased a sample of Dal Arhar, a food article for analysis from accused Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta and before taking the sample, the sample commodity was properly mixed and thereafter the purchased sample was divided into three equal parts by putting it in three clean and dry bottles. But, FI Sh. Bal Mukund who has been examined as PW1 has nowhere averred in his statement that the sample commodity after dividing into three equal parts was kept in clean and dry bottles. He has only stated in his examinationinchief that sample of 1500 gms. of Dal Arhar was taken from a wooden rack bearing no label declaration after mixing with the help of a clean and dry Jhaba by rotating in all possible directions several times. He has further deposed that sample was taken at about 4 p.m. by putting them in a neat and clean paper and then he divided the sample counter parts equally in three sample parts and same were separately packed, marked, fastened and sealed according to PFA Act and Rules. As such, there is not a single whisper by FI Sh. Bal Mukund who has conducted the sample proceedings that the sample after dividing into three equal parts was kept in dry and clean bottles. Nor there is any such mention in the documents prepared by PW1 FI Bal Mukund at the spot which is also admitted by him in his crossexamination when he CC No. 51/06 FI Vs. Raj Kumar Garg & Anr. Page 11 of 19 states that on vendor's receipt Ex. PW1/A and Notice in form VI Ex. PW1/B, it is not mentioned by him that the sample commodity was put into clean and dry glass bottles, though he stated that it is mentioned in the Panchnama Ex. PW1/C.
20. From the aforesaid statement of PW1, it is evident that the prosecution has not been able to successfully prove that sample was kept in dry and clean glass bottles which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 14 of the PFA Rules. Though, in the Panchnama Ex. PW1/C which is the written proforma, it is mentioned that the sample was kept in dry and clean glass bottles, but in view of not mentioning of this fact in other documents Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B prepared by the FI Bal Mukund at the spot nor there is any such averments in his statement, the mentioning of the said fact in Panchnama Ex. PW1/C is not of much consequence.
21. The accused has also raised a plea that he has been deprived of statutory right of getting the second counterpart of the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory and he has not been served with the intimation of PA's report as required U/s 13 (2) of the PFA Act.
22. 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 CC No. 51/06 FI Vs. Raj Kumar Garg & Anr. Page 12 of 19 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."
23. Though, PW1 FI Bal Mukund stated in his examinationin chief that intimation letter Ex. PW1/K along with the PA report bearing the signature of LHA Sh. I.D. Pandey was sent by LHA to the accused by registered post which was not received back undelivered. He has also placed on record the registration receipt copy as Ex. PW1/L. But, the accused has denied that he was served with any intimation letter Ex. PW1/K. Therefore, the onus was upon the prosecution to prove that intimation letter Ex. PW1/K along with the PA report was sent to the accused. But, the prosecution has failed to prove the same. Even the prosecution has not been able to prove that intimation letter Ex. PW1/K was sent through postal receipt Ex. PW1/L. The postal receipt Ex. PW1/L placed on record by the prosecution is only a photocopy and original of same has not been placed on record and, therefore, it cannot be said to be duly proved that intimation letter Ex. PW1/K along with report of PA was sent to the accused through registered postal receipt Ex. PW1/L. CC No. 51/06 FI Vs. Raj Kumar Garg & Anr. Page 13 of 19
24. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rameshwar Dayal Vs. State of U.P. that Section 13 (2) of the PFA Act confers a valuable right to the accused to get his own sample examined by Central Food Laboratory and non supply of PA report as required U/s 13 (2) causes serious prejudice to the accused. It has been also held by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in Kirtan Bhoi Vs. State of Orissa that, "that merely on the basis of postal receipt and without there being any positive evidence of actual dispatch, it would not be said that there was sufficient compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 13 (2) of the Act."
25. In the present case also, the prosecution has failed to prove the dispatch of the intimation letter Ex. PW1/K through postal receipt Ex. PW1/L which is a photocopy and, therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has complied the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act and the accused has been deprived of statutory right of getting the second counter part of the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory.
26. The Ld. Counsel has also argued that the prosecution has also not complied the provisions of Rule 17 and 18 of the PFA Rules 1955. This argument of the Ld. Counsel for accused is on the ground that PWs have deposed in their examinationinchief that all the copies of the Memo of Form VII sent to the Public Analyst and LHA were marked with the CC No. 51/06 FI Vs. Raj Kumar Garg & Anr. Page 14 of 19 impression of seal which was used to seal the sample counter parts. He has argued that as per Rule 17, the seal impression is not to be sent with Memo in Form VII to the Public Analyst or LHA and that has to be sent separately as per Rule 18. In support of his contention, the Ld. Counsel for accused has also relied upon a number of authorities.
27. On the other hand, the Ld. SPP for complainant has argued with much vehemence that prosecution has followed the procedure as prescribed under Rule 17 and 18 of the PFA Rules 1955 and there is no violation of the same.
28. For appreciating this argument, it is relevant to discuss the relevant provisions of law. Rule 17 of PFA Rules 1955 provides the manner of dispatching containers of samples and reads as under:
(a) The sealed container of one part of the sample for analysis and a memorandum in Form VII shall be sent in a sealed packet to the public analyst immediately but not later than the succeeding working day by any suitable means;
(b) The sealed containers of the reminding two parts of the sample and two copies of the memorandum in Form VII shall be sent in a sealed packet to the Local (Health) Authority immediately but not later than the succeeding working day by any suitable means.
(c) The sealed container of one of the remaining two parts of the sample and a copy of the memorandum in Form VII kept with the Local (Health) Authority shall within a period of 7 days be sent to the public analyst on requisition made by him to it by any suitable means.
CC No. 51/06 FI Vs. Raj Kumar Garg & Anr. Page 15 of 19
Provided that in case of a sample of food which has been taken from container bearing Agmark seal, the memorandum in Form VII shall contain the following additional information namely;
(a) Grade;
(b) Agmark label No./ Batch No;
(c) Name of packing station Rule 18 of PFA rules reads as under:
"A copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent, in a sealed packet separately to the Public Analyst by any suitable means immediately but not later than the succeeding working day"
29. It would be relevant to refer the evidence of PWs in this regard. PW1 FI Bal Mukund deposed in his evidence that the remaining two counter parts of sample in intact condition along with two copies of Memo of Form VII in a sealed packet were deposited with the LHA on 17.11.2005 vide receipt Ex. PW1/E bearing his signatures at point A with the intimation that one counter part of the sample in intact condition has already been deposited with the PA. He further deposed that all the copies of Memo of Form VII were marked with the impression of seal which was used to seal the sample counter parts stating that one counterpart of the sample was deposited in intact condition with the PA on 17.11.2005 vide receipt Ex. PW1/F along with one copy of Memo in Form VII and another CC No. 51/06 FI Vs. Raj Kumar Garg & Anr. Page 16 of 19 copy of Memo Form VII in a separately sealed envelope. PW2 Sh. I.D. Pandey has also deposed verbatim on the similar lines as deposed by PW1 in his examinationinchief.
30. Perusal of Ex. PW1/F shows that Public Analyst has received the sample bearing No. 32/1015/124/05 and LHA No. 32/LHA/13856 duly sealed along with copy of the Form VII sent separately in a sealed packet.
31. I have gone through the authorities relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. There is nothing in these authorities which prohibits in putting seal impression in Form VII and the conclusion of the said judgments is that the Memo in Form VII and sample counterpart are to be sent to the Public Analyst separately to rule out any tampering.
32. As per Rule 17 of the PFA rules, the sealed container of one part of the sample for analysis and a memorandum in Form VII is to be sent in a sealed packet to the Public Analyst and as per Rule 18, a copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet is to be sent, in a sealed packet separately to the Public Analyst. The PWs have deposed to the same effect that all the copies of Memo of Form VII were marked with the impression of seal which was used to seal the sample counter parts stating that one counter part of the sample was deposited in intact condition with the PA on 17.11.2005 vide receipt Ex. PW1/F along CC No. 51/06 FI Vs. Raj Kumar Garg & Anr. Page 17 of 19 with one copy of Memo in Form VII and another copy of Memo Form VII in a separately sealed envelope. The public analyst has also received the sample duly sealed along with copy of the Form VII sent separately in a sealed packet vide receipt Ex. PW1/F. Therefore, it cannot be said that provisions of Rule 17 and 18 have not been complied by the prosecution.
33. However, there is discrepancy in the case of the prosecution regarding the sample collected from the accused for analysis and the sample sent to the Public Analyst for its analysis. It is apparent from the documents prepared by the Food Inspector at spot i.e. Vendor's receipt Ex. PW1/A, notice in form VI Ex. PW1/B and Panchnama Ex. PW1/C that the sample collected from the accused bears the LHA Code No. 32/LHA/13856. However, the Food Inspector Bal Mukund vide receipt Ex. PW1/E sent the sealed container of two parts of the sample bearing LHA Code No. 32/LHA/13857, while the Public Analyst received the sample baring LHA Code No. 32/LHA/13856 and it shows that sample sent by the Food Inspector to Public Analyst and to the LHA are not same. In view of the aforesaid discrepancy, a reasonable doubt has been cast on the prosecution that the sample collected from the accused has been sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and the same sample was analyzed by the Public Analyst.
CC No. 51/06 FI Vs. Raj Kumar Garg & Anr. Page 18 of 19
34. From the report of Public Analyst Ex. PW1/G, it has come on record that Chromatography method has been applied for detecting the artificial colouring matter in the sample commodity of Dal Arhar. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Maya Ram Vs. The State of Punjab has held that paper chromatography test is not a sure test to detect the colour in the sample commodity. In the present case, no other method apart from the Chromatography test has been applied by the Public Analyst to detect the adulteration or presence of colouring matter in the sample commodity, therefore, in view of law laid down in the aforesaid authority cited supra, report of Public Analyst Ex. PW1/G cannot be said to be a valid report.
35. In view of aforesaid discussions, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Even the prosecution has not complied the provisions of Section 13 (2) of PFA Act and Rule 14 of the PFA Rules 1955. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, accused is acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal)
on 21st March, 2013 ACMMII/ PHC/ New Delhi
CC No. 51/06
FI Vs. Raj Kumar Garg & Anr. Page 19 of 19
CC No. 51/06
DA Vs. Raj Kumar Garg
21.03.2013
Present: Sh. Masood Ahmad, Ld. SPP for complainant.
Accused with the counsel Sh. R.D. Goel.
Vide my separate Judgment of even date dictated and announced in the open court, accused stands acquitted of the charges leveled against him. Previous Bail Bond / Surety Bond stands cancelled. Surety stands discharged. Endorsement on the documents of the previous surety, if any, be cancelled.
Accused is directed to furnish fresh bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C. Accused has furnished B/B & S/B in the sum of Rs. 20,000/. The same is accepted.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ACMMII/PHC/ND/21.03.2013 CC No. 51/06 FI Vs. Raj Kumar Garg & Anr. Page 20 of 19