Delhi District Court
Anil vs State on 25 March, 2026
Anil @ Kale Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CA No.:- 51/2026
CNR NO.:- DLWT01-001440-2026
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Anil @ Kale
S/o Sh. Balwan Singh
R/o House No. 220, Gali No.7,
Subhash Nagar, Rohilla Chowk,
Bahadurgarh, Haryana .... Appellant
VERSUS
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) .... Respondent
Date of institution of the appeal : 30/01/2026
Date on which judgment was reserved : 14/03/2026
Date of judgment : 25/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall conscientiously adjudicate upon criminal appeal under section 416 (II) r/w section 401 of the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.03.25 17:19:57 +0530 CA No. 51/2026 Page No.1/17 Anil @ Kale Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as "BNSS") r/w section 3/4 of The Probation of Offenders Act filed by the appellant against the order on sentence dated 13/12/2025 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order') passed by Sh. Gaurav Singal, Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class-06, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in case titled as " State Vs. Anil @ Kale & Ors." bearing FIR No.147/2019 PS Mundka u/s. 457/380/411/34 IPC.
In the present appeal, the appellant has prayed to allow the present appeal and to set-aside the order on sentence dated 13/12/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court and to release the appellant on probation.
2. Appellant has preferred the present appeal against the order on sentence dated 13/12/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
On 28/11/2025, appellant/accused Anil @ Kale had pleaded guilty for the offences u/s. 457/380/411/34 IPC and vide order on sentence dated 13/12/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, the appellant/accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of two years and fine of Rs.5000/- for offence u/s 457 IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for the period of three months and he was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of two years and fine of Rs.5000/- for offence u/s 380 IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for the period of three months and he was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of two years and fine of Rs.5000/- for offence u/s 411 IPC and in Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.03.25
17:20:11
+0530
CA No. 51/2026 Page No.2/17
Anil @ Kale Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for the period of three months. It was also directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. BRIEF FACTS AS MENTIONED IN THE APPEAL Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present appeal as stated in the present appeal are that the appellant has filed the present appeal against the order on sentence dated 13/12/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. In the present case, FIR No. 147/2019 u/s 457/380/411/34 IPC PS Mundka was got registered and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Ld. Trial Court. On 20/08/2019, charge for the offence u/s. 457/380/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On 28/11/2025, appellant and other co-accused persons have voluntarily pleaded guilty for the offence u/s. 457/380/411/34 IPC and vide order on sentence dated 13/12/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, sentence and fine were awarded to the appellant. Being aggrieved with the order on sentence dated 13/12/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. Appellant has not filed any other appeal/revision against the impugned order on sentence before this Court or any other Court.
Appellant has challenged the impugned order on sentence on the grounds, as mentioned in the present appeal. Grounds of appeal- Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant and other co-accused namely Rajan and Sumit have accepted the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.03.25 17:20:20 +0530 CA No. 51/2026 Page No.3/17 Anil @ Kale Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) charge for the offence punishable u/s 457/380/34 IPC and voluntarily pleaded guilty before the Ld. Trial Court on 28/11/2025. Ld. Trial Court has noted that the appellant's voluntarily plea of guilt was indicative of remorse of his conduct. Charge was framed on 20/08/2019 by the Ld. Trial Court and after understanding such accusation, contents of charge and the sentence prescribed for such offences, appellant has pleaded guilty to all such charges on 28/11/2025. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant was wrongly convicted by the Ld. Trial Court u/s. 457/380/411/34 IPC vide order dated 13/12/2025 as charge for the offence u/s. 411 IPC was not framed against the appellant and other co-accused persons. Order dated 13/12/2025 has been passed by the Ld. Trial Court in a casual manner and the Ld. Trial Court has failed to implement its judicial mind to correctly appreciate the fervent request of the appellant and his conduct before convicting the appellant. Appellant was about 22 years old at the time of commission of the alleged offence. Judicial custody for almost nine months is sufficient for the appellant to realize his mistake to reform himself as a sign of mitigating factor. Appellant is differently abled person. Appellant never attempted to strike any kind of bargain, which even otherwise was not permissible in law. They all were, actually speaking, utmost remorseful and repentant for the alleged acts attributed to them and without any expectation, they had pleaded guilty before the Court. They were made aware about the fact that they can be meted out maximum sentence. But despite knowing fully well the aforesaid maximum sentence, they chose to plead guilty.
Physical condition of the appellant, who lived in a miserable life and relies on Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.03.25 17:20:28 +0530 CA No. 51/2026 Page No.4/17 Anil @ Kale Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) wheel chair for his movement, was clear to the Court. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the appellant is the first time offender and is a disabled person due to fatal accident, in which, his limbs (both legs and right side of arm) were amputated. In such circumstances, the Ld. Trial Court did not give due weightage to the mitigating circumstances and awarded sentence of simple imprisonment of two years, merely on the basis of the gravity of offences u/s. 457/380/411/34 IPC and has completely failed to extend the benefit of Section 401 BNSS and The Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant. Ld. Trial Court has failed to call the socio-economic report of the appellant, which can reveal the socio-economic condition of family of the appellant. However, Ld. Trial Court sans considering both the aggravating as well as the mitigating circumstances, has delivered the quantum of sentence with hefty fine upon the appellant despite the fact that he was person with disability. Ld. Trial Court has taken into consideration all the relevant factors, which were germane for deciding the quantum of sentence and the appellant without any expectancy pleaded guilty before the Court, it does not lie in his mouth to now raise any grudge with respect to the extent of the sentence. Enormity of the allegations cannot be the sole determining factor for finalizing the quantum of sentence. Thus, when it comes to sentencing, the yardstick has to be somewhat different and a balanced one. The Court is required to take note of all the mitigating circumstances including the age and the previous antecedents of the appellant. His candid and unconditional plea of guilt should also be in the reckoning. If the case had been put to trial, it would have taken years together in concluding the matter. Thus, in hindsight, there is significant saving of precious Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.03.25 17:20:44 +0530 CA No. 51/2026 Page No.5/17 Anil @ Kale Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) judicial time. It will be hazardous to assume that the appellant merely because of his despicable past, have no future. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the appellant does not deserve any unjustifiable leniency although at the same time, considering his candid confession at first opportunity, inclination of reformation and his young age and disability condition, the quantum of sentence should be warranted. Character of the appellant was unblemished and not a single punishment has been recorded against him by the jail authority during his entire custody. The ultimate purpose of imprisonment is not only to realize a convict about his wrong doings but it is also about reformation. It is well settled law that power to grant probation has to be exercised after keeping in mind the character of the offender, nature of the offence and overall circumstances of the case. The main object to grant probation to the offenders is to facilitate his re-integration into the society and aiding in his reformation.
4. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LD. TRIAL COURT Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention here the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court.
(i) In the present case, on the complaint of the complainant Sh.
Mangal Goyal, FIR No. 147/2019 Police Station Mundka u/s.457/380/411/34 IPC was got registered by the Police of Police Station Mundka. After registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated by the police and on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet for the offences u/s. 457/380/411/34 IPC against the accused Anil @ Kale, Rajan @ Bholi and Sumit was submitted in the Ld. Trial Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.03.25 17:20:55 +0530 CA No. 51/2026 Page No.6/17 Anil @ Kale Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Court on 03/06/2019 for trial of the accused persons.
(ii) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as per charge-sheet is that on 14/04/2019 at about 8:30 PM at godown, Baba Haridass Nagar, Chara Mandi, Village Tikri Kalan, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Mundka, accused Anil @ Kale, Rajan @ Bholi and Sumit in furtherance of their common intention had committed lurking house trespass in night by entering in the godown of the complainant and stolen iron scraps.
(iii) Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 03/06/2019. Copies of the charge-sheet were supplied to all accused persons in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.
(iv) Finding a prima-facie case against the accused Anil @ Kale, Rajan @ Bholi and Sumit, charge for the offences u/s. 457/380/34 IPC was framed against all accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(v) Prosecution was then called upon to substantiate its case by examining its witnesses. The prosecution in support of its case had examined complainant/PW-1 Sh. Mangal Goyal, PW-2 Sh. Sandeep and PW-3 HC Devender.
(vi) After the examination of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, all accused had
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.03.25
17:21:05
+0530
CA No. 51/2026 Page No.7/17
Anil @ Kale Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) pleaded guilty for the offences u/s. 457/380/411/34 IPC vide their joint statement recorded on 28/11/2025. On 28/11/2025, appellant/accused Anil @ Kale, Rajan @ Bholi and Sumit had pleaded guilty for the offences u/s. 457/380/411/34 IPC and vide order on sentence dated 13/12/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, the appellant/accused and accused Rajan @ Bholi and Sumit were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of two years and fine of Rs.5000/-
for offence u/s 457 IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for the period of three months and they were also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of two years and fine of Rs.5000/- for offence u/s 380 IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for the period of three months and they were also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of two years and fine of Rs.5000/- for offence u/s 411 IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for the period of three months and all the sentences shall run concurrently.
ARGUMENTS ON THE APPEAL
5. This Court heard the arguments on the present appeal advanced by Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent. Perused the material available on record.
During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that by way of present appeal, the appellant has challenged the order on sentence dated 13/12/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court and order on sentence is liable to be set-aside on the grounds, as mentioned in the present Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.03.25
17:21:14
+0530
CA No. 51/2026 Page No.8/17
Anil @ Kale Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) appeal and benefit of provisions of Section 401 BNSS and The Probation of Offenders Act be given to the appellant. On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent that the Ld. Trial Court has passed the order on sentence in accordance with law and there is no merits in the present appeal and keeping in view the nature of the offence, appellant is not entitled for the benefit of provisions of Section 401 BNSS and The Probation of Offenders Act and present appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed.
6. By way of present appeal, the appellant has challenged the order on sentence dated 13/12/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
Before proceeding further, this Court shall discuss the law relating to sentencing policy.
The object of sentencing policy is to protect the society from the criminals by inflicting punishment upon them under the existing criminal law. There are different theories of sentencing/ punishment i.e. deterrent, preventive, retributive, reformative and expiatory.
Law relating to sentencing policy has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Hazara Singh V. Raj Kumar & Ors" (Crl. Appeal No.603- 604/2013 decided on 18/04/2013) and it was held that:-
"The cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. This Court has repeatedly stressed the central role of Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.03.25 17:21:23 +0530 CA No. 51/2026 Page No.9/17 Anil @ Kale Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases.....
We reiterate that in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. We also reiterate that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment".
It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "State of Uttar Pradesh V. Sanjay Kumar" {(2012) 8 SCC 537} that:-
"Sentencing Policy is a way to guide judicial discretion in accomplishing particular sentencing. Generally, two criteria, that is, the seriousness of the crime and the criminal history of the accused are used to prescribe punishment. By introducing more uniformity and consistency into the sentencing process, the objective of the policy, is to make it easier to predict sentencing outcomes. Sentencing policies are needed to address concerns in relation to unfettered judicial discretion and lack of uniform and Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.03.25 17:21:33 +0530 CA No. 51/2026 Page No.10/17 Anil @ Kale Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) equal treatment of similarly situated convicts. The principle of proportionality, as followed in various judgements of this Court, prescribes that, the punishments should reflect the gravity of the offence and also the criminal background of the convict. Thus the graver the offence and the longer the criminal record, the more severe is the punishment to be awarded. By laying emphasis on individualised justice, and shaping the result of the crime to the circumstances of the offender and the needs of the victim and community, restorative justice eschews uniformity of sentencing. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the public system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under serious threats."
It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Jameel V. State of U.P." {(2010) 12 SCC 532} that:-
"The general policy which the courts have followed with regard to sentencing is that the punishment must be appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the offence committed. Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the Courts respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY SHANKAR Date:
2026.03.25 17:21:44 +0530 CA No. 51/2026 Page No.11/17 Anil @ Kale Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. It was the duty of every Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The sentencing Courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence."
7. FINDINGS By way of present appeal, the appellant has challenged the order on sentence dated 13/12/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
Appellant has filed the present appeal u/s. 416 (II) BNSS. Scope of appeal u/s. 416(II) BNSS is limited only to the extent or legality of the sentence. By way of present appeal, the appellant has challenged the extent and legality of the sentence. Hence, the present appeal u/s. 416(II) BNSS of the appellant is maintainable.
Now, this Court shall discuss the aspect in respect of extent and legality of the sentence awarded to the appellant/accused by the Ld. Trial Court.
Vide order on sentence dated 13/12/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, the appellant/accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.03.25 17:21:52 +0530 CA No. 51/2026 Page No.12/17 Anil @ Kale Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) the period of two years and fine of Rs.5000/- for offence u/s 457 IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for the period of three months and he was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of two years and fine of Rs.5000/- for offence u/s 380 IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for the period of three months and he was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of two years and fine of Rs.5000/- for offence u/s 411 IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for the period of three months and all the sentences shall run concurrently.
Section 457 IPC has prescribed the punishment upto 14 years if the lurking house trespass by night or house breaking by night is committed for committing the theft. Section 380 has prescribed the punishment upto 7 years and fine. Section 411 IPC has prescribed the punishment upto 3 years or fine or with both.
In the present case, charge for the offence u/s. 457/380/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons including the appellant. In the present case, charge for the offence u/s. 411 IPC was not framed against any of the accused persons including the appellant. All accused including appellant had pleaded guilty for the offences u/s. 457/380/411/34 IPC. Despite the fact that the charge for the offence u/s. 411 IPC was not framed against the accused persons, appellant was also sentenced and fined for the offence u/s. 411 IPC. In the impugned order, no reason has been mentioned by the Ld. Trial Court for the same. Merely because the appellant had also pleaded guilty for the offence Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.03.25 17:22:00 +0530 CA No. 51/2026 Page No.13/17 Anil @ Kale Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) u/s. 411 IPC, he cannot be sentenced and fined for the offence u/s. 411 IPC in view of the fact that in the present case, charge for the offence u/s. 411 IPC was not framed against any of the accused persons including appellant. In view of the same, order on sentence dated 13/12/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court sentencing the appellant for the offence u/s 411 IPC is not sustainable and accordingly, the same is set-aside.
Now, this Court shall examine the extent and legality of the sentence awarded to the appellant by the Ld. Trial Court for the offence u/s. 457/380/34 IPC.
In the present appeal, no sufficient ground has been mentioned by the appellant to show that the sentence and fine awarded by the Ld. Trial Court to the appellant for the offence u/s. 457/380/34 IPC are not in accordance with law. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence, fine amount and default sentence awarded by the Ld. Trial Court to the appellant for the offence u/s. 457/380/34 IPC are not excessive and the same are reasonable and justified. Sentence, fine amount and default sentence were awarded by the Ld. Trial Court to the appellant/ accused for the offence u/s.457/380/34 IPC after considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
In the present appeal, the appellant has also prayed that the benefit of provisions of section 401 BNSS and The Probation of Offenders Act be extended to him.
Now, this Court shall examine the aspect as to whether the Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.03.25 17:22:08 +0530 CA No. 51/2026 Page No.14/17 Anil @ Kale Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) appellant is entitled for benefit of provisions of section 401 BNSS and The Probation of Offenders Act or not.
As per nominal roll, one case bearing CC No. 8887/2018 u/s 138 NI Act is pending against the appellant. As per report of SHO, PS Mundka, the appellant has already been convicted in case bearing FIR No. 60/2018, PS Baba Haridas Nagar for the offence u/s 356 IPC. As per nominal roll of the appellant, appellant remained in JC for the period of 11 months and 5 days as on 23/03/2026 and overall jail conduct of the appellant is satisfactory.
Keeping in view the seriousness of the offence and conduct of the appellant as well as punishment prescribed for the offence u/s. 457/380 IPC, the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of provisions of probation in the present case.
CONCLUSION
8. It is well settled law that the Appellate Court will usually not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court will interfere only if it is found that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously and perversely. The first Appellate Court is required to examine the case of the appellant with reference to the grounds urged in the appeal.
All the points and contentions were duly dealt with by the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned order on sentence dated 13/12/2025. In the present case, plea of guilty was made by the appellant/accused voluntarily. Joint statement of all accused including the appellant for plead guilty was recorded on 28/11/2025 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.03.25 17:22:16 +0530 CA No. 51/2026 Page No.15/17 Anil @ Kale Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) by the Ld. Trial Court and order on sentence was passed by the Ld. Trial Court on 13/12/2025. There is nothing on the record to show that plea of guilty was not made by the appellant/accused voluntarily. Even in the present appeal, the appellant has mentioned that after understanding such accusation, contents of charges and the sentence prescribed for such offences, appellant has pleaded guilty to all such charges on 28/11/2025. There is nothing on the record to show that the Ld. Trial Court has exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously and perversely. There is no illegality, impropriety and infirmity in the impugned order on sentence dated 13/12/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and the aforesaid case laws referred by this Court, this Court is held that there is no illegality, impropriety and infirmity in the impugned order on sentence dated 13/12/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court for the offence u/s 457/380/34 IPC against the appellant. Impugned order on sentence dated 13/12/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court awarding the sentence, fine and default sentence to the appellant for the offence u/s 457/380/34 IPC is upheld. Accordingly, the present appeal of the appellant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Fine amount awarded by the Ld. Trial Court has not been paid/deposited by the appellant.
Appellant is already in JC in the present case. He be kept in jail to serve the sentence awarded by the Ld. Trial Court for the offences u/s. 457/380/34 IPC. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to the appellant.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.03.25
17:22:32
+0530
CA No. 51/2026 Page No.16/17
Anil @ Kale Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Copy of this judgment be supplied to the appellant free of cost through Superintendent, Jail No.8/9, Tihar, New Delhi.
Delhi Copy of this judgment be also sent to the Superintendent, Jail No.8/9, Tihar, New Delhi for information and compliance/necessary action.
Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith the copy of this judgment. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
Announced in the open Court SHANKAR Date:
2026.03.25
17:22:39
on 25/03/2026 +0530
(VIJAY SHANKAR)
ASJ-04 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CA No. 51/2026 Page No.17/17