Delhi District Court
3. Title Of The Case : State vs Inder Narain & Anr. on 28 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANISH YADUVANSHI : ACMM0I
(CENTRAL) : TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
1. Case No. : 0054/2
2. Unique I.D. No. : 02401R0339342005
3. Title of the Case : State Vs Inder Narain & Anr.
FIR No. 464 of 1996
PS : I.P.Estate
U/s 420 IPC
4. Date of Institution : 12.12.1996
5. Date of reserving judgment : 22.01.2013
6. Date of pronouncement : 28.01.2013
J U D G M E N T :
a) The Sl. No. of the case : 0054/2
b) The date of commission
of offence : In between May 1985 and January 1986
c) The name of complainant : Sh. Ram Lal, Sales Tax Officer,
Ward No. 21, Bikri Kar Bhawan, Delhi
New Delhi110002
d) The name of accused :1) Inder Narain
S/o Sh. Kallu Mal
R/o 2800,Gali Arya Samaj, Sita Ram Bazar,
Delhi
2) Kailash Chand
S/o Kallu Mal
R/o 2800,Gali Arya Samaj, Sita Ram Bazar,
Delhi
FIR No. 464 of 1996 State Vs Inder Narain & Anr. Page 1
of 18
e) The offence complained of : U/s 420/468/471/120B IPC &
U/s 50 Delhi Sales Tax Act
f) The offence charged with : U/s 420/468/471/120B IPC
g) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) The final order : Acquitted
i) The date of such order : 28.01.2013
j) Brief facts of the decision of the case :
1. The prosecution's case came up to be registered on a written complaint of Sh. Ram Lal (PW7), the then Sales Tax Officer, Ward No.21 made over to the DCP (Crime)/Delhi. The said Sales Tax Officer made a complaint against M/s K.C.Traders, H.No.3983/9, Chawri Bazar, Delhi06 for launching criminal proceedings U/s 420/468/471 IPC read with section 50 of Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. The dealer namely M/s K.C.Traders was registered dealer with Ward No. 21 of Sales Tax Department. During the course of hearing of appeal No. 233/STT/9293 titled "M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Company Vs CST", it was observed by the Appellate Tribunal that the dealer aforestated is guilty of furnishing false information in the STII Account i.e. utilization account of statutory forms issued to them. The dealer in the original and duplicate portion of STI form had shown the amount indicated in the table attached with the complaint, however, in the utilization account submitted to the department, the said dealer had shown the same issued to some other dealers for lesser amount and therefore deceived the department of the due revenue. Accused persons i.e partners of the dealer namely M/s K.C.Traders were named as Kailash Chand, FIR No. 464 of 1996 State Vs Inder Narain & Anr. Page 2 of 18 Inder Narain, Ram Rati Devi and Urmila Devi.
2. As per table (Ex.PW7/C) , the following comparative analysis of the STI forms and STII account were noted viz;
(1) In the form A/9/954976 against bill No. 187 issued to M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co., the amount shown in the original and duplicate portion of STI form was Rs. 1,90,095/ whereas as per corresponding STII Account, the same was issued to M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co. for Rs. 2,08,624/.
(2) In the form A/9/954977 against bill No. 253 issued to M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co., the amount shown in the original and duplicate portion of STI form was Rs. 2,14,140/ whereas as per corresponding STII Account, the same was issued to M/s Om Prakas Jitender Kumar & Co. for Rs. 58,283/.
(3) In the form A/9/954971 against bill No. 554 issued to M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co., the amount shown in the original and duplicate portion of STI form was Rs. 1,22,320/ whereas as per corresponding STII Account, the same was issued to M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co. for Rs. 26,524/.
(4) In the form A/9/954970 against bill No. 936 issued to M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co., the amount shown in the original and duplicate portion of STI form was Rs. 1,46,547/ whereas as per corresponding STII Account, the same was issued to M/s Om Prakas Jitender Kumar & Co. for FIR No. 464 of 1996 State Vs Inder Narain & Anr. Page 3 of 18 Rs. 23,647/.
(5) In the form A/9/32499 against bill No. 961 issued to M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co., the amount shown in the original and duplicate portion of STI form was Rs. 2,08,624/ whereas as per corresponding STII Account, the same was issued to M/s Goyal Paper Co. Ch. Bazar, Delhi for Rs. 2,30,388.40/.
(6) In the form A/9/954969 against bill No.1040 issued to M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co., the amount shown in the original and duplicate portion of STI form was Rs. 2,46,580/ whereas as per corresponding STII Account, the same was issued to M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co. for Rs. 30,870/.
(7) In the form A/9/436688 against bill No.557 issued to M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co., the amount shown in the original and duplicate portion of STI form was Rs. 1,25,639/ whereas as per corresponding STII Account, the same was issued to M/s H.S.Goal & Sons, Ch. Bazar, Delhi for Rs. 2,04,789.35/.
(8) In the form A/9/436693 against bill No.562 issued to M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co., the amount shown in the original and duplicate portion of STI form was Rs. 1,04,820/ whereas as per corresponding STII Account, the same was issued to M/s H.S.Goal & Sons, Ch. Bazar, Delhi for Rs.1,46,278/.
3. The original STI form submitted with the Sales Tax Department FIR No. 464 of 1996 State Vs Inder Narain & Anr. Page 4 of 18 could not be recovered. The record of the accused firm was gutted in fire. The record obtained from M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co. by the IO i.e. the original STI forms aforestated are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW4/G.
4. The STII account statements referred to above collected from the witness namely Diwan Dass Nirmal (PW3), the then statistical investigator, Sales Tax Department are Ex.PW3/B to E respectively. This is how the relevant entries in regard to the aforesaid eight STI forms were correlated with the corresponding STII account statements.
5. On the basis of aforestated complaint, rukka (Ex.PW8/A) was prepared by SI Sukhbir Singh (PW8) upon which the present FIR (Ex.PW5/A) was registered in respect of aforesaid named offences by the Duty Officer/HC Jagbir (PW5) who also made an endorsement on the rukka (Ex.PW5/B) to that effect. The rukka was presented to him by Ct. Shiv Shankar. The order of the Appellate Tribunal (MarkPW7/A) was received by Sh. Ram Lal/PW7 who was the then STO in Ward No.21. The said STO made his complaint (Ex.PW7/B) to the DCP (Crime). He also examined the account of M/s K.C.Traders as well as M/s Moti Lal & Co. He furnished photocopy of the relevant documents alongwith his complaint. Subsequently, investigation was assigned to Sukhbir Singh Rathi, ACP (PW8).
6. During investigation, the IO contacted Sh. Diwan Dass Nirmal, Ward FIR No. 464 of 1996 State Vs Inder Narain & Anr. Page 5 of 18 No.21, Sales Tax Department who provided him original STII account (Ex.PW3/B to E) which were taken into police possession by execution of memo (Ex.PW3/A). Further, Sh. Manender Kumar (PW1), Accountant of M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co. produced eight duplicate STI forms given by M/s K.C.Traders on 23.10.1996 upon execution of seizure memo (Ex.PW1/A). STI forms are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW4/G in the statement of Sh. Raj Singh Dhaiya (PW4), the then UDC, Ward No.21, Sales Tax Department were are re exhibited as Ex.PW6/A1 to A7 and Ex.PW4/A respectively.
On 09.10.1996, Sh. Raj Singh Dhaiya (PW4) also furnished photocopy of issuance register of STI forms of Serial No.A/9 9549512 to 955000 and A/8 436651 to 436700 issued to M/s K.C.Traders. He also furnished a vakalatnama executed by Kailash Chand in favour of Advocate Kamal Nanda (Ex.PW4/C); affidavit signed by Kailash Chand (Ex.PW4/B) and order sheet of the Sales Tax Department in regard to M/s K.C.Traders (Ex.PW4/D & 6/C1 respectively). The said documents were seized by the IO by execution of memo (Ex.PW3/A). The IO also obtained specimen signatures of Inder Narain (Ex.PW6/B1 to B5). Likewise, he also obtained specimen signatures of Kailash Chand (Ex.PW6/D1 to D5). These specimen signatures were sent for analysis with questioned documents to FSL, Malviya Nagar, Delhi. All the accused persons were formally arrested in this case. The result of FSL was obtained. The same is Ex.PW6/D prepared by Sh. Harshwardhan, Assistant Director, FSL, Delhi.
FIR No. 464 of 1996 State Vs Inder Narain & Anr. Page 6 of 18
7. It is important at this stage to delineate the expert opinion visavis questioned and admitted writings:
(a) Q1 is the questioned signatures of accused Inder Narain on photocopy of STI form No. A/9/954976 (the copy of the same obtained by the IO from PW1/Sh. Manender Kumar, Accountant of M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co. is Ex.PW6/A1 which is again Q1).
(b) Q2 is the questioned signatures of accused Inder Narain on photocopy of STI form No. A/9/954977 (the copy of the same obtained by the IO from PW1/Sh. Manender Kumar, Accountant of M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co. is Ex.PW6/A2 which is again Q1).
(c) Q9 is the questioned signatures of accused Kailash Chand on photocopy of STI form No. A/9/954971 (the copy of the same obtained by the IO from PW1/Sh. Manender Kumar, Accountant of M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co. is Ex.PW4/A which is again Q9).
(d) Q10 is the questioned signatures of accused Kailash Chand on photocopy of STI form No. A/9/954970 (the copy of the same obtained by the IO from PW1/Sh. Manender Kumar, Accountant of M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co. is Ex.PW6/A5 which is again Q10).
(e) Q11 is the questioned signatures of accused Kailash Chand on photocopy of STI form No. A/9/32499 (the copy of the same obtained by the IO from PW1/Sh. Manender Kumar, Accountant of M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co. is Ex.PW6/A6 which is again Q11).
(f) Q12 is the questioned signatures of accused Kailash Chand on photocopy FIR No. 464 of 1996 State Vs Inder Narain & Anr. Page 7 of 18 of STI form No. A/9/954969 (the copy of the same obtained by the IO from PW1/Sh. Manender Kumar, Accountant of M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co. is Ex.PW6/A7 which is again Q12).
(g) Q3 is the questioned signatures of accused Inder Narain on photocopy of STI form No. A/8 436688 (the copy of the same obtained by the IO from PW1/Sh. Manender Kumar, Accountant of M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co. is Ex.PW6/A3 which is again Q3).
(h) Q4 is the questioned signatures of accused Inder Narain on photocopy of STI form No. A/8 436693 (the copy of the same obtained by the IO from PW1/Sh. Manender Kumar, Accountant of M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co. is Ex.PW6/A4 which is again Q4).
(i) Q5 is the questioned signatures of accused Inder Narain on STII Account (Ex.PW3/E).
(j) Q6 is the questioned signatures of accused Inder Narain on STII Account (Ex.PW3/B).
(k) Q7 is the questioned signatures of accused Inder Narain on STII Account (Ex.PW3/D).
(l) Q8 is the questioned signatures of accused Inder Narain on STII Account (Ex.PW3/C).
8. The description of admitted writings are as under :
(a) A1 to A4 are the admitted signatures of accused Inder Narain on order sheet (Ex.PW6/C1) FIR No. 464 of 1996 State Vs Inder Narain & Anr. Page 8 of 18
(b) A5 to A8 are the admitted signatures of accused Inder Narain on order sheet (Ex.PW4/D).
(c) A9 is the admitted signatures of accused Kailash Chand on Vakalatnama (Ex.PW4/C).
(d) A10 & A11 are the admitted signatures of accused Kailash Chand on Affidavit (Ex.PW4/B).
9. Specimen signatures are as under: i. Sheets S1 to S5 are specimen signatures of accused Inder Narain which are Ex.PW6/B1 to B5 respectively.
ii. Sheets S6 to S10 are specimen signatures of accused Kailash Chand which are Ex.PW6/D1 to D5 respectively.
10. As per the opinion of expert, the accused Inder Narain is the preson who had signed at point Q1 to Q4 on STI forms (Ex.PW6/A1 to A4). It is also borne out that it is the accused Inder Narain who signed at the points Q5 to Q7 on STII account (Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/B & Ex.PW3/D respectively).
Further, the coaccused Kailash Chand is the person who has signed on point Q9 on STI form (Ex.PW4/H); Q10 on Ex.PW6/A5; Q11 on Ex.PW6/A6; Q12 on Ex.PW6/A7 and at point Q8 on Ex.PW3/C.
11. Equipped with the aforestated investigations, chargesheet was filed FIR No. 464 of 1996 State Vs Inder Narain & Anr. Page 9 of 18 in this court.
12. On 12.10.1998, the accused persons were charged firstly to the effect that between May 1985 to Jan 1986, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy to commit offence of cheating and forgery, the accused persons, being partners of M/s K.C.Traders submitted utilization account under STII forms to the Sales Tax Department, Delhi for lesser amount as against the sales made by them to the purchaser for higher amount as per ST forms issued by them to the purchaser as per discrepancies mentioned in AnnexureA (Ex.PW7/C) and thereby cheated the Sales Tax Department to assess them for lesser tax liability thereby committed offences U/s 420/120B IPC. Secondly, the aforesaid accused persons are alleged to have issued STI forms No. 32499 (Ex.PW6/A6); No. 436688 (Ex.PW6/A3) and No. 436693 (Ex.PW6/A4) for Rs. 2,08,624/, Rs. 1,25,639/ & Rs. 1,04,820/ respectively in favour of purchaser M/s Om Prakash Jiternder Kumar & Co. whereas utilization/STII forms were given for lesser amount in favour of M/s Goyal Papers Co. and M/s H.S.Goel & Sons thereby forging the said STII utilization forms and using the said false document as genuine to cheat the Sales Tax Department in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy thereby committing offences punishable U/s 468/471/120B IPC. Both the accused denied the charge and pleaded not guilty.
13. As stated earlier, Sh. Mahender Singh, Accountant of M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co. is PW1. Sh. Amar Singh, Registrar, Appellate Tribunal, FIR No. 464 of 1996 State Vs Inder Narain & Anr. Page 10 of 18 Sales Tax as PW2 produced certified copy of orders passed by the Tribunal as Ex.PW2/A. He also produced the statement of accused Kailash Chand recorded before the Sales Tax Officer, Ward No.8 on 28.12.1995 and the statement of Hari Shankar dated 28.12.1995 as Ex.PW2/B & C respectively. Sh. Diwan Dass Nirmal, the then Statistical Investigator with Sales Tax Department is PW3. Sh. Raj Singh Dhaiya, the then UDC, Ward No.21, Sales Tax Department is PW4. He proved forms No. A/9 & A/8 as collectively exhibited as Ex.PW4/A; affidavit already mentioned earlier as Ex.PW4/B; Vakalatnama already mentioned earlier as Ex.PW4/C and order sheet of M/s K.C.Traders alongwith assessment order (already mentioned earlier) as Ex.PW4/D. He did not produce original issue register of STI forms.
14. Sh. Harshwardhan, Assistant Director, FSL as PW6 proved his report as Ex.PW6/D. PW5/HC Jagbir proved copy of FIR (Ex.PW5/A) and his endorsement (Ex.PW5/B). The complainant Sh. Ram Lal is PW7. The IO ACP Sukhbir Singh Rathi is PW8.
15. The incriminating evidence on record was explained to both the accused persons in their statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused Kailash Chand submitted that this is a false case. He stated that he was unaware of filing of documents and they were filled up by his Accountant. He claimed that he had stated in writing as well as orally to the Sales Tax Officer and the IO that the forms were filled up by their Accountant and at his instance. He claimed that FIR No. 464 of 1996 State Vs Inder Narain & Anr. Page 11 of 18 Sales Tax was paid in advance and no loss was caused to the government. It was also claimed that calculation mistake was made by the Accountant. It was also pointed out that revised account statement was filed by him on the asking of the Sales Tax Department by his Accountant. Similar defence was taken by the accused Inder Narain. Option was given to lead defence evidence. No DE was, however, adduced.
16. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. Om Dutt Sharma on behalf of both the accused persons.
17. The accused persons are stated to have operated in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy to submit utilization/STII account to the Sales Tax Department, Delhi for lesser amount as against actual sales which were made for higher amounts as per the STI forms actually issued to them. It is alleged that in furtherance of their aforestated design of conspiracy, they cheated the Sales Tax Department, Delhi on the basis of false STII account (Ex.PW3/B to E respectively). Further, the accused persons issued STI forms (Ex.PW6/A6, A3 & A4) which are 'false documents'. The form (Ex.PW6/A6) indicated the actual sale of Rs. 2,08,624/; form (Ex.PW6/A3) indicated the actual sale of Rs. 1,25,639/ and the form (Ex.PW6/A4) indicated the actual sale of Rs. 1,04,820/. As per the charge dated 12.10.1998, the corresponding STII utilization forms are alleged to be false in as much as they were declared to have been issued to M/s 'Goyal Papers & Co.' and 'H.S.Goal & Sons' respectively as against the actual FIR No. 464 of 1996 State Vs Inder Narain & Anr. Page 12 of 18 purchaser 'M/s Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co.' Further, as per the charge, the utilization amount was undervalued.
18. It is no so. Perusal of Ex.PW7/C would reveal that in all the aforesaid three cases, the amounts are not 'undervalued' but actually 'over valued'.
19. Similar is the position in respect of form No. A/9/954976. However, the form No. A/9/954977; A/9/954971; A/9/954970 are the forms which as per the STII amount are undervalued. However, the accused persons are not charged qua said forms.
20. In any case, it is factual position on record that the prosecution did not produce the original issue register of STI forms. The corresponding witness of the prosecution in this regard is Sh. Raj Singh Dhaiya (PW4), the then UDC, Ward No.21, Sales Tax Department, Delhi.
21. In this regard, PW7 Sh. Ram Lal, the then STO, Ward No.21, Sales Tax Department, Delhi stated that the ST forms were issued to M/s K.C.Traders by the department through order sheets dated 03.12.1984, 15.03.1985 and 06.08.1985. The copy of the same is Ex.PW7/B. Perusal reveals that on 01.12.1984, 50 STI forms from S.No. A/8 436651700 were issued. On 15.03.1985, 25 forms of S.No. A/9/32476500 were issued. On 06.08.1985, 50 STI forms from S.No. FIR No. 464 of 1996 State Vs Inder Narain & Anr. Page 13 of 18 A/9/9549515000 were issued. The said document (Ex.PW7/D) is stated to be the copy of order sheets, however perusal of the same reveals that it does not bear the signatures of the authorized persons who had issued the said forms. I have already pointed out that the original issue register was never produced by PW4. The complaint was made by PW7.
22. The allegations against the accused persons is that they dishonestly and with fraudulent intention caused wrongful loss to complainant to gain themselves by submitting false STII utilization accounts thereby causing pecuniary loss to the Sales Tax Department. The complaint (Ex.PW7/B) as well as details (Ex.PW7/C) are silent about the quantum pecuniary loss. I have already pointed out that perusal of STI forms (Ex.PW6/A6, A3 & A6) reveal that as against the charge, the same have not been monetarily undervalued as alleged. It is admitted by PW7 that he did not make any inquiry from the accused before making the complaint. It is also admitted that he did mention the amount of loss to the Sales Tax Department. He also admitted that he did not provide any information about the alleged loss to the police or to the higher officers of the Sales Tax Department. Admittedly, no inquires were conducted from 'Moti Lal & Sons and Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co.'. This is despite the fact that the prosecution could not get the original STI forms which were submitted by the accused persons with Sales Tax Department. The IO could only collect the second copy/duplicate copy of the original STI forms which were Ex.PW6/A1 to A7 and Ex.PW4/G from the dealer i.e., Om Prakash Jitender Kumar & Co. In this FIR No. 464 of 1996 State Vs Inder Narain & Anr. Page 14 of 18 regard, the prosecution produced their accountant SH. Maninder Kumar/PW1. I have already pointed out that the recovery of the said forms particularly Ex.PW6/A6, A3 & A4 are of no avail to the prosecution for want of the allegations of undervaluing the STII utilization account. No pecuniary loss is therefore deducible from perusal of the documents.
23. As per opinion of handwriting expert, the accused persons had signed on STI account. However, accused persons never denied the aforesaid fact. They submitted that the same were signed by them at the instance of their accountant and in any case, they had submitted the revised statement of STII account, copies of which are on record. No such copies were collected by the IO. No such inquiries were made as evident from the statement of IO/PW8.
24. It is also a case of the prosecution that as per copy of order sheet (Ex.PW7/D), the accused firm was issued with as many as 125 STI forms. Despite the aforesaid fact, the only allegation against the accused persons is in respect of eight forms mentioned in Ex.PW7/C. I have already pointed out that the same reveals that contrary to the allegations made by the prosecution, as many as four STII account out of them are actually overvalued. The relevant STI forms for which the accused persons faced trial i.e., Ex.PW6/A6, A3 & A4 are actually overvalued and not 'undervalued' as alleged.
25. In order to prove the offence of cheating, it is imperative for the FIR No. 464 of 1996 State Vs Inder Narain & Anr. Page 15 of 18 prosecution to prove that the accused persons had dishonest and fraudulent intention at the time of committing the alleged forgery.
26. The definition of offence of 'forgery' declares the offence to be completed when the false document or false particulars of the document is made with specified intention. The questions are (1) is the document false, (2) is it made by the accused and (3) if is it made with an intent to defraud. It is held in "Ram Narayan Popli Vs CBI" AIR 2003 SC 2748 that if all the aforestated questions are answered in the affirmative, the accused is guilty. It is further held that, "in order to constitute the offence of forgery, the documents must be made dishonestly or fraudulently but dishonest or fraudulent are not tautological. Fraudulent does not imply the deprivation of property or the element of injury. In order to be fraudulent, there must be some advantage on the one side with a corresponding loss on the other. Every forgery postulate false document either in whole or in part'.
27. Further, it is also imperative on the part of prosecution to have proved the amount of wrongful gain and wrongful loss as per section 23 of IPC. As per section 24 of IPC, whoever does anything with an intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly.
28. I have pointed out that in the present case, no said elements are found. FIR No. 464 of 1996 State Vs Inder Narain & Anr. Page 16 of 18 The original STI form could never be seized. The duplicate were sent for comparison/signature analysis regarding which report of PW6 is on record. The prosecution did not place the proof of issuance of concerned STI form on record. The prosecution also did not probe the role of purchaser namely Goyal Papers & Co. and H.S.Goal & Sons of Chawri Bazar, Delhi.
29. The utilization amount in the concerned STII account is actually over valued as against the basic allegation of the prosecution.
30. In these circumstances, there is no iota of existence of any criminal conspiracy. Mere signatures of the accused persons on the original STII account (in the absence of proof of corresponding allegations of undervaluing the same visavis the amount for which the corresponding STI form was issued) does not constitute preparation of 'false document'. There is no iota of proof regarding 'dishonest intention' on the part of the accused persons. The basic ingredient of the offence of cheating as discussed in the judgment are not proved. In the absence of the same, the offence of cheating in pursuance to criminal conspiracy is not made out. The prosecution also could not prove that the accused persons made false documents and committed forgery with an intent to cheat. In the absence of the aforestated, the user of the false document as genuine is also not proved.
31. In the result, the accused persons are accordingly acquitted in the present case. Their PB/SB are extended for further period of six months in FIR No. 464 of 1996 State Vs Inder Narain & Anr. Page 17 of 18 compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (MANISH YADUVANSHI) on 28.01.2013 ACMM01 DELHI
It is certified that this judgment contains 18 (eighteen) pages and each page bears my signature.
(MANISH YADUVANSHI) ACMM01 DELHI FIR No. 464 of 1996 State Vs Inder Narain & Anr. Page 18 of 18