Delhi District Court
Da vs . Pardeep Gupta Page 1 Of 18 on 3 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BALWANT RAI BANSAL
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEII
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
C.C. No. 264/03
Food Inspector
Department of PFA
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
A20, Lawrence Road
Indl. Area, Delhi - 35
........ Complainant
Versus
Sh. Pardeep Gupta S/o Sh. Lakhpat Rai
M/s Gupta Store,
7/3, Roop Nagar, Delhi 7
R/o F101, Old Gupta Colony, Delhi 9
........ VendorcumProprietor
COMPLAINT U/S 16 OF THE PREVENTION OF
FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954
Serial number of the case : 264/03
Date of the commission of the offence : 25.3.2003
Date of filing of the complaint : 07/07/03
Name of the Complainant, if any : Shri Virendra Singh, Food Inspector
CC No. 264/03
DA Vs. Pardeep Gupta Page 1 of 18
Offence complained of or proved Violation of provisions of Section 2
(ia) (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 : 12.11.2013
Judgment announced on : 03.01.2014
J U D G M E N T
1. The present complaint has been filed on 07.07.2003 by the Delhi Administration through FI Sh. Virendra Singh against the accused Pardeep Gupta. It is stated in the complaint that on 25.03.2003 at about 6.30 PM, FI Sh. Virendra Singh purchased a sample of Dal Arhar a food article for analysis from Pardeep Gupta S/o Sh. Lakhpat Rai from the premises of M/s Gupta Store, 7/3, Roop Nagar, Delhi 7, where the said food article was found stored for sale and where accused Pardeep Gupta was found conducting the business of the said food article at the time of sampling. FI Sh. Virendra Singh purchased approximately 1500 gms of Dal Arhar taken from an open gunny bag bearing no label declaration. The sample was taken after proper mixing the Dal Arhar with the help of clean and dry Jhaba under the supervision and direction of Sh. S.L. Batra, 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 CC No. 264/03 DA Vs. Pardeep Gupta Page 2 of 18 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 and price of sample was also paid to him vide vendor's receipt dated 25.3.2003. Panchnama was also prepared at the spot. All these documents prepared by Food Inspector were signed by accused Pardeep Gupta and the other witness namely Sh. S. Mishra, 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. Mishra, FA joined as witness.
2. It is further stated that one counterpart of the sample bearing LHA Code No. SLB/LHA/3955 in intact condition was sent to the Public Analyst, Delhi and two counterparts of the sample in intact condition 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 stated that during investigation it was found that Pardeep Gupta S/o Sh. Lakhpat Rai was the VendorcumProprietor of M/s Gupta Store, 7/3, Roop Nagar, Delhi7, at the time of sampling and as such he is incharge and responsible for day to day conduct of the business of the said shop. After conclusion of the investigation, 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 CC No. 264/03 DA Vs. Pardeep Gupta Page 3 of 18 provisions of Section 2 (ia) (j) and (m) of the PFA Act, violation of Rule 23 r/w Rules 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 was summoned vide order dated 07.07.2003. The accused appeared and moved an application U/s 13 (2) of the PFA Act to get analyzed the second counterpart of the sample from Central Food Laboratory (CFL). The said application was allowed and consequently second counterpart of the sample was sent to CFL, Pune for analysis. Director, CFL on analysing the second counterpart of the sample in question opined vide his Certificate dated 06.09.2003 that "sample does not conform to the standards of split pulse (Dal) Arhar as per PFA Rules 1955 ".
5. The prosecution examined Food Inspector Sh. S.L. Batra, the then SDM/LHA under whose direction sample proceedings were conducted as PW1, FI Sh. Virendra Singh, who conducted the sample proceedings, as PW2 and FA Sh. S. Mishra, who was made a witness in the sample proceedings, as PW3 towards precharge evidence and vide order dated 03.03.2008, precharge evidence was closed.
6. Charge for violation of sub clause (j) and (m) of Section 2 (ia) the PFA Act and for violation of Rule 23 r/w Rule 28 and 29 of PFA Rules 1955; punishable U/s 16 (1A) r/w section 7 of the Act was framed against the accused vide order dated 19.01.2009 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
CC No. 264/03 DA Vs. Pardeep Gupta Page 4 of 187. Thereafter, in order to prove its case, in post charge evidence the prosecution examined three witnesses including Sh. S.L. Batra, the then SDM/LHA as PW1, FI Sh. Virendra Singh as PW2 and FA S. Messey as PW3 and PE was closed vide order dated 02.01.2010.
8. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 17.04.2010 wherein accused claimed himself to be innocent and opted to lead evidence in his defence.
9. In his defence, the accused has examined only one witness namely Sh. Satish Gupta as DW1 and DE was closed vide order dated 04.06.2010.
10. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
11. Ld. Counsel for accused has vehemently argued that the Food Inspector has not applied correct procedure for lifting the sample as Jhaba by which the sample was lifted was not made clean and dry by him and due to bad sampling, the sample commodity got contaminated with other food articles or colouring material which resulted in detection of synthetic colour in the sample for which accused cannot be held guilty. He further argued that Food Inspector did not homogenize the sample before lifting it and a representative sample was not lifted by the Food Inspector which is evident from the variations in the report of Public Analyst and Director, CFL, benefit of which is liable to be given to the accused. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon various judgments reported in State Vs. CC No. 264/03 DA Vs. Pardeep Gupta Page 5 of 18 Suresh Kumar 2010 (2) FAC 204, State Vs. Ram Rattan Malhotra 2012 (2) FAC 398, Raja Ram Seth Vs. DA 2012 (II) FAC 523, Khusi Ram Vs. State 1984 (II) FAC 256. Ld. Counsel for accused has further argued that test applied by both the Analysts for detecting the synthetic colour in the sample commodity is paper chromatography test, which is not a sure and valid test and for this reason also accused is liable to be acquitted. To fortify this argument, he has placed reliance upon Maya Ram Vs. State of Punjab 1987 (II) FAC 320 and State Vs. Subhash Chand 2012 (2) JCC 1052.
12. On the other hand, Ld. SPP for complainant argued that in the present case clean and dry Jhaba was used in the sample proceeding. He further argued that so far the variations in the report of both the Analysis are concerned, as per report of Director, CFL, the sample was found not conforming to the standards of Dal Arhar as per PFA Rules and the report of Director, CFL being conclusive, supersedes the report of Public Analyst and, therefore, the accused cannot be given benefit of variations in the reports of PA and CFL. He further argued that paper chromatography test to detect the colour in the sample is a valid test. The Ld. Prosecutor has vehemently argued that prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused and hence he is liable to be convicted.
13. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed as per the averments made in the complaint.
CC No. 264/03 DA Vs. Pardeep Gupta Page 6 of 1814. PW2 FI Virendra Singh, who conducted the sample proceedings in the present case has deposed in his examinationinchief that on 25.03.2003, he along with FA S. Mishra under the supervision of SDM/LHA Sh S.L. Batra visited the premises of M/s Gupta Store, 7/3, Roop Nagar, Delhi7, where accused Pardeep Gupta was found conducting the business of said store. He further deposed that he disclosed his identity and intention for purchasing sample of said Dal Arhar for analysis to which accused agreed and thereafter at about 6.30 p.m., he purchased 1500 gms of Dal Arhar from accused on payment of Rs. 42/ vide vendor's receipt after mixing the Dal Arhar with a clean and dry Jhaba by rotating it. He further deposed that thereafter he divided the sample into three equal parts by putting them into three clean and dry glass bottles and each sample bottle was separately packed, fastened and sealed according to PFA Act and Rules. He further deposed that notice was given to the accused and Panchnama was also prepared at the spot and all the aforesaid documents were signed by the accused and other witness. He further deposed that one counterpart of the sample was deposited with Public Analyst and remaining two counterparts were deposited with LHA on 26.03.2003 and report of Public Analyst was received according to which sample was found adulterated. He further deposed that during investigation accused Pardeep Gupta was found to be vendor/proprietor of the store and after conclusion of investigation, the entire file was sent to the Director, PFA who accorded the requisite consent for launching the prosecution against the accused and accordingly he filed the present complaint.
CC No. 264/03 DA Vs. Pardeep Gupta Page 7 of 1815. PW1 Sh. S.L. Batra, the then SDM/LHA corroborated the testimony of PW1 in his examinationinchief and has placed on record the vendor's receipt by which price of sample was paid to the accused as Ex. PW1/A, notice in Form VI and Panchnama prepared at the spot as Ex. PW1/B & Ex. PW1/C respectively, statement given by the accused at the spot as Ex. PW1/D, receipt showing deposition of two counterparts of sample with him as Ex. PW1/F, receipt showing deposition of one counterpart of sample with Public Analyst as Ex. PW1/E, report of Public Analyst as Ex. PW1/G, letter sent by FI to STO, Ward No. 75 as Ex. PW1/H, consent given by the Director, PFA for initiating the prosecution against the accused as Ex. PW1/J, complaint filed by FI Virendra Singh as Ex. PW1/K, copy of intimation letter sent to the accused along with PA report as Ex. PW1/L and photocopy of postal registration receipt as Ex. PW1/M.
16. PW3 Sh. S. Mishra, FA who was made a witness at the time of sample proceedings has also deposed more or less on the similar lines as deposed by PW1 & PW2 in their examinationinchief regarding sample proceedings.
17. PW1 in his crossexamination after charge stated that the capacity of the gunny bag was 4050 kg and there was approximate 1.5 Kg. of Dal lying in the gunny bag. He denied the suggestion that there was hardly 1 Kg. of Dal lying in the gunny bag. He stated that Dal was mixed by the FI with the help of a Jhaba. He further stated that bottles were already clean and dry and the same were not made again dry and clean at the spot. He denied the suggestion that Food Inspector did not make efforts CC No. 264/03 DA Vs. Pardeep Gupta Page 8 of 18 to join the public witnesses.
18. PW2 in his crossexamination after charge stated that he did not count how many Jhabas were lying with the vendor but he provided the clean and dry Jhaba to him. He denied the suggestion that vendor was using the same Jhaba which was provided to him for mixing in Dal Arhar.
19. PW3 in his crossexamination before charge stated that he does not remember how many jhabas the shopkeeper was having, but he gave them one jhaba only. He further stated that he did not see that the shopkeeper was using the same jhaba for collecting other articles to deliver customers. In his crossexamination after charge, he stated that bottles were already dry and clean and the same were not made again dry and clean at the spot. He denied the suggestion that bottles were containing some colour and were dirty. He stated that Jhhaba was made clean by the vendor but he does not remember how Jhaba was made clean by the vendor.
20. The accused in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. has not disputed the fact that on 25.3.2003 at about 6.30 PM, he was found present conducting the business of food articles including Dal Arhar at his shop at M/s Gupta Store, 7/3, Roop Nagar, Delhi 7, when PFA Team including FI Virendra Singh and FA Sh. S. Mishra under the supervision and direction of SDM/LHA Sh. S.L. Batra visited his shop and a sample of Dal Arhar was lifted by the FI Virendra Singh from him which on being analyzed by the Public Analyst and Director, CFL was found to be adulterated as synthetic colour 'Tartrazine' was detected. However, it was contended by the accused CC No. 264/03 DA Vs. Pardeep Gupta Page 9 of 18 that the bottles, jhaba and envelopes were not made clean and dry at the spot and sample failed due to bad sampling.
21. The present case has been launched against the accused on the basis of report of Public Analyst which has been proved on record as Ex. PW1/G. The Public Analyst vide its report Ex. PW1/G found the sample lifted from the accused adulterated on account of containing synthetic colouring matter viz. Tartrazine which is not permissible in pulses as per PFA Act and Rules. The accused on appearing exercised his right u/s 13 (2) of the PFA Act and got analyzed the second counterpart of the sample from Director, Central Food Laboratory (CFL), Pune, who also vide his report/certificate dated 06.09.2003 found the sample not conforming to the standards of Dal Arhar as per PFA Rules 1955 as synthetic colour 'Tartrazine' was detected.
22. From the crossexamination of PWs and the statement of accused recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the main defence of the accused appears to be that synthetic colour was detected in the sample due to bad sampling on the part of the Food Inspector as he had not made the Jhaba clean and dry before using the same in the sample proceedings.
23. In the present case, admittedly, the sample of Dal Arhar was mixed with the help of the Jhaba. Now, it has to be seen as to whether clean and dry Jhaba was used in the sample proceedings or not. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the crossexamination of PWs.
CC No. 264/03 DA Vs. Pardeep Gupta Page 10 of 1824. PW2 FI Virender Singh, who conducted the sample proceedings stated in his crossexamination that he did not count how many Jhabas were lying with the vendor but the vendor provided the clean and dry Jhaba to him. Whereas, PW3 FA S. Mishra, who was made a witness in the sample proceedings stated in his crossexamination that Jhaba was made clean by the vendor but he does not remember how Jhaba was made clean by the vendor.
25. From the aforesaid crossexamination of PWs, it is evident that there is contradiction in the statement of PWs regarding cleaning of Jhaba. As per PW2, the Jhaba by which sample was lifted was provided by the vendor and same was already in dry and clean condition. Whereas, as per PW3, Jhaba was made clean and dry at the spot by the vendor. As such, PWs themselves are not sure that whether the Jhaba was made clean and dry at the spot or not and it raises a doubt that in fact clean and dry Jhaba was used at the time of sample proceedings or not. In the given circumstances, where accused has raised a plea that clean and dry Jhaba was not used in the sample proceedings and the PWs are making contradictory statement to each other regarding cleaning of Jhaba, the complainant was required to lead positive evidence to the effect that clean and dry Jhaba was used while taking the sample to rule out any kind of possibility of contamination of Jhaba with some colouring material.
26. In a criminal revision titled as Rajinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryna & Anr. (supra), a sample of chilly powder was taken, which on CC No. 264/03 DA Vs. Pardeep Gupta Page 11 of 18 analysis was found adulterated. In the said case, as per the witness examined by the prosecution, the sample of chilly powder was taken from an open tin with the help of a ladle, which was not cleaned before using the same. The sample of chilly powder was put into a paper envelope, and thereafter, it was weighed and thereafter ultimately the sample was put into bottles, which were also not cleaned in the presence of the witness. In those circumstances, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that, "The prosecution was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the paper envelope in which, in the first instance, the sample of chilly powder was put from the tin, in which the same was earlier lying, was not smeared with any colour or colouring material and was completely clean. It was also requirement of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the ladle, with which the chilly powder was taken from the tin, and put on the paper envelope, in the first instance, was cleaned, and was not smeared with any colour or colouring material. It was also requirement of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the bottles, in which ultimately, the sample after dividing into portions, was put from the envelope, were dry and clean and were not smeared with any colour or colouring material. Since, there is not even a whisper in the statement of witness, on the aforesaid aspects of the matter, it could be said that the sample was not taken, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules." It was further held that the possibility of the paper envelope, ladle and the bottles having presence of some colour or colouing material cannot CC No. 264/03 DA Vs. Pardeep Gupta Page 12 of 18 be ruled out.
27. In the present case also, no positive evidence has been led by the prosecution to the effect that clean and dry Jhaba was used in the sample proceedings. Rather, the case of the prosecution that clean Jhaba was used in the sample proceedings, became doubtful on account of contradictions in the statement of PWs regarding cleaning of the Jhaba by which the sample was taken.
28. Accused has also examined his brother namely Sh. Satish Gupta as DW1 to prove his contention that clean and dry Jhaba was not used in the sample proceedings. DW1 stated in his examinationinchief that on 25.03.2003 at about 6.00 to 7.00 pm. he came from market and saw that vehicle of SDM was stationed outside the shop. He further stated that three persons were inside the shop and they were taking the sample of Dal Arhar and when he reached there, they took the Dal Arhar with the help of Jhaba on the pan Scale. He further deposed that after weighing, they took the Dal in an envelope and thereafter Dal was put into the sample bottles. He further deposed that some food article used to fall down on the Jhaba and on the pan scale and bottles were looking MelliMelli.
29. Though, in the crossexamination DW1 stated that they did not make any call at 100 number that the sample was taken in Melli bottles from the accused nor they made any complaint to police or any higher authorities after sampling that bottles were Melli. He also admitted that his brother also did not mention on Ex. PW1/D which is in his own hand CC No. 264/03 DA Vs. Pardeep Gupta Page 13 of 18 writing that Bottles were Melli, but the aforesaid statement of DW1 in his crossexamination does not make any difference in view of contradictory statement of PWs regarding cleaning of the Jhaba as stated above.
30. It has also come on record from the evidence of PWs that accused was found conducting the business of other food articles apart from the Dal in question. In this regard, PW2 and PW3 also admitted in their crossexamination that vendor was also selling Haldi Powder, Mirch Powder, pulses and other food articles in the shop at the time of sampling. Now, though the PWs feigned ignorance regarding the number of Jhaba lying in the shop of the accused at the time of sampling, but since the accused was also selling other food articles, the possibility of contamination of Jhaba with the other food articles cannot be completely ruled out and it leads credence to the contention of accused that clean Jhaba was not used in the sample proceedings and synthetic colour was found by the Public Analyst due to contamination in jhaba for which accused cannot be held guilty as also argued by Ld. Counsel for accused.
31. There is another aspect of the matter. Though, as per report of Public Analyst and Director, CFL, the sample of Dal Arhar failed on account of detection of synthetic colour viz. 'Tartrazine', but a perusal of reports of both the Analysts shows that there are variations in both the reports in respect of different parameters of sample commodity, which are beyond the permissible limit of .3%. As per report of Public Analyst (PA) Ex. PW1/G , the moisture determined by heating the pulverized grains at CC No. 264/03 DA Vs. Pardeep Gupta Page 14 of 18 130133 deg. C was found to the tune of 8.34%, while Director, Central Food Laboratory found the same to the tune of 9.16%. Similarly, Public Analyst vide its report found the 'Other Food Grains' to the extent of 1.11% and 'Grain damaged by fungus, moisture or heating internally in the sample upto 1.89%, but the Director CFL found the 'Other edible grains' to the extent of 0.04% and 'Damaged grains' to the extent of 0.8%.
32. The aforesaid variations are higher than .3% i.e. the permissible range of variation, which shows that the sample was not properly mixed up and hence it cannot be said to be representative sample. In State Vs. Rama Rattan Malhotra 2012 (2) FAC 398 after relying upon various judgments titled as Kanshi Nath Vs. State 2005(2) FAC 219 and State Vs. Mahender Kumar & Ors, 2008 (1) FAC 177, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that, "Since in the present case, variation in public analyst and CFL certificates is more than .3%, it would clearly imply that samples in the present case were not representative.". In Kanshi Nath Vs. State (Supra) even while certain other contentions of the accused were rejected, the contention concerning the samples sent to the two test labs not being representative was accepted and the accused were acquitted. In this judgment after referring to the judgment of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Vs. Pawan Kumar Saraf 1999(1) FAC 1 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Bishan Sarup 1972 FAC 273, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed that, "Therefore, on the facts of the present case, CC No. 264/03 DA Vs. Pardeep Gupta Page 15 of 18 it can be said that the variation is beyond the acceptable range and would clearly imply that the samples were not representative. In view of this finding and in the background of the law which is well settled, no conviction can be sustained". Similarly in State Vs. Mahender Kumar & Ors. (Supra) has been observed that, " While both reports have concurred in the conclusion that the sample was adulterated, the variation in the material parameters in the sample sent to each of them is not insignificant. In the sample sent to the Public Analyst the ash content is 4.04% whereas in the sample sent to the CFTRI it is 6%. The ash insoluble in dilute HCL is 2.55% in the sample sent to the Public Analyst whereas it is 1.95% in the sample sent to the CFTRI. The lead content is Nil in the first and 5.4 ppm in the second. These variations are more than y.3% which is stated to be the permissible limit. It cannot therefore be said that identical representatives samples were sent to both the Public Analyst as well as the CFTRI".
33. It has been held further by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s Raja Ram Seth & Sons & Anr. Vs. Delhi Administration 2012 (2) FAC 523 that, "If the variations in the report of PA and CFL is more than 0.3 % which is stated to be permissible limit, it cannot be said that identical representative samples were sent to both the Public Analyst and CFL and therefore it raises a doubt about the sample of being not homogenized and no conviction is permissible on the basis of said reports and benefit of doubt is liable to be given to the accused." Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court CC No. 264/03 DA Vs. Pardeep Gupta Page 16 of 18 of Delhi in State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Ram Singh & Ors. 2009 (1) FAC 371. Reliance may also be placed upon State Vs. Suresh Kumar & Anr. 2010 (2) FAC 204.
34. In view of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities, since there are variations in the report of Public Analyst (PA) and Director, Central Food Laboratory, which are beyond the permissible limit of .3 %, I find considerable force in the argument of Ld. Defence Counsel that samples sent to both the Analysts were not representative one.
35. Further, a perusal of report of Public Analyst Ex. PW1/G as well as certificate of Director, CFL shows that Paper Chromatography method has been applied by both the Experts 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 FAC 1987 (II) 320 has held that paper chromatography test is not a sure test to detect the colour in the sample commodity. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in State Vs. Subhash Chand 2012 (2) JCC 1052, after relying upon the various judgments of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh 1991 (1) FAC 38, Kartar Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2000 (2) FAC 243, Maya Ram Vs. The State of Punjab (cited supra) and Balmukand Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2008 Cril. LJ 1084, held that the paper chromatography test was not sufficient to conclude as to whether permitted or unpermitted colouring material has been used. The expert has to examine carefully the colouring matter by CC No. 264/03 DA Vs. Pardeep Gupta Page 17 of 18 applying various tests by excluding the use of permitted colours, before reaching to the conclusion to detect the unpermitted colour. Thus, it was all the more necessary for the concerned laboratory to have had conducted such necessary tests to rule out the use of permitted colouring material.
36. In the present case, no other method apart from the Paper Chromatography test has been applied by both the Analysts to detect the adulteration or presence of colouring matter in the sample commodity. Therefore, in view of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities cited supra, report of both the Analysts cannot be said to be a valid and sure report.
37. In view of above reasons and discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, benefit of which must go in favour of accused. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is given to the accused and he is acquitted of the charges leveled against him.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal)
on 3rd January, 2014 ACMMII/ PHC/ New Delhi
CC No. 264/03
DA Vs. Pardeep Gupta Page 18 of 18
CC No. 264/03
DA Vs. Pardeep Gupta
03.01.2014
Present: Sh. Masood Ahmad, Ld. SPP for complainant.
Accused with 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. He has furnished the B/B & S/B in the sum of Rs. 20,000/. Same is accepted.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ACMMII/PHC/ND/03.01.2014 CC No. 264/03 DA Vs. Pardeep Gupta Page 19 of 18