Delhi District Court
State/Central Bureau Of Investigation ... vs Sunita Kumar on 16 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF Ms. KIRAN BANSAL, SPECIAL JUDGE-07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
Criminal Appeal No.129/17
CNR NO. : DLCT01-008825-2017
State/Central Bureau of Investigation (Wildlife)
Through
CBI, EOU-V, EO-II
CBI Building, Plot No.5-B
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. ......Appellant
VERSUS
Sunita Kumar
W/o Sh. Ray Ajay Kumar
R/o Y-86, Hauz Khas, New Delhi
& Shop No.21, M/s Kargha
Santushti Shopping Arcade
New Delhi. ...Respondent.
Date of Institution on : 06.06.2017
Judgment reserved on : 16.01.2018
Judgment delivered on : 16.01.2018
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present criminal appeal under section 377 Cr.P.C., the appellant has assailed the order on sentence passed by the Ld. Trial Court dated 17.01.2017 whereby the respondent/convict was held guilty for the offence punishable under section 51 of the Wildlife Crl. Appeal No.129/17 CBI (Wildlife) Vs Sunita Kumar 1 Protection Act 1972 for contravention of section 49/49B(1) read with Section 51of the Act and convict was released on probation for a period of 6 months.
2. The facts of the case giving rise to the appeal are that the appellant/complainant has filed the complaint alleging that contraband Shahtoosh Shawls were put to trade in a shop named Kargha 21, Santoshi Shopping Arcade, New Delhi, a raid was conducted by the team of CBI officials alongwith an independent witness at the above said shop on 28.07.1998 at 04:30 pm. At the time of raid Sunita Kumar (A-1) was present. It is alleged that during search 17 Shahtoosh Shawls seemingly made of wool derived from Tibetan Antelope, a scheduled animal specified in Schedule-I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 were found and the accused Sunita Kumar did not produce any license/authority for running the shop of above shawls, hence the shawls were seized by the CBI. During search of the said shop a bill/memo of M/s S.S. Shawls dated 25.07.1998 also recovered vide which the recovered 17 Shahtoosh shawls were purchased from M/s S.S. Shawls. Accused no. 2 Abdul Samad Shah is the owner of M/s S.S. Shawls. It is further alleged that the case was registered on the special report/complaint of Smt. Neelam Singh, Inspector, CBI/SIU-XI, Crl. Appeal No.129/17 CBI (Wildlife) Vs Sunita Kumar 2 New Delhi on 28.07.1998 under section 51 of WL (P) Act, 1972. It is alleged that the said recovered 17 Shahtoosh Shawls were sent to the Director, Wild Life Institute of India, Dehradun for expert opinion. The expert opinion confirmed that 11 shawls out of 17 recovered shawls are made of Tibetan Antelope (Pantholops Hodqsoni) which is a prohibited animal and listed in Scheduled-I of Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972.
3. It is further alleged that after investigation the case file was handed over by CBI to Wild Life Department to file the complaint punishable under section 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 and the complaint was filed under section 55 Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 against the accused Sunita Kumar and Abdul Samad Shah for commission of offence under section 49 & 49(B)(1) of Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 punishable under section 51 of the said Act by wild life department. It is further alleged that on the basis of above mentioned complaint cognizance was taken and accused were summoned. It is further alleged that the Ld. Trial Court framed the charges against accused Sunita Kumar on 24.03.2014 for contravention of provision of section 49 and 49(B)(1) of the Act punishable under section 51 of Wilfe Life (Protection) Act, however accused no. 2 i.e. Abdul Samad Shah was discharged vide Crl. Appeal No.129/17 CBI (Wildlife) Vs Sunita Kumar 3 order dated 21.02.2014 from the case. It is further alleged that for proving the case prosecution has examined total 10 witnesses and after completion of prosecution evidence the matter was fixed for statement of accused which was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and further accused did not choose to lead evidence in her defence. It is alleged that the Ld. Court convicted the accused for the offence under section 49 and 49B(1) of Wild Life (Protection) Act and hold guilty vide order dated 17.01.2017 and while adopting the lenient view against the old age female (about 61 years) female convict, released her on probation on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount for a period of six months and also imposed fine of Rs.1.50 Lakhs as cost of proceedings in the court. It is further alleged that the convict was also released on probation. It is further alleged that release of convict on probation is illegal as the sub-section 5 of section 51 of the WL (P) Act, 1972 bars to release the convict held guilty for offences mentioned in Chapter-V A on probation unless the convict is under the age of 18 years. The sub-section 5 of section 51 of the said Act read as under :
"Nothing contained in section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958) shall Crl. Appeal No.129/17 CBI (Wildlife) Vs Sunita Kumar 4 apply to a person convicted of an offence with respect to hunting in a sanctuary or a National Park or of an offence against any provision of Chapter VA unless such person is under eighteen years of age".
4. It is further alleged that as per the said section relief under section 360 Cr.P.C. and Probation of Offenders Act is given only to the convict who is under the age of 18 years, if convicted for the offence punishable under chapter VA of the Act. The convict in the present case does not fall in the category of person who is under 18 years of age. It is alleged that the Ld. Trial Court has held guilty to the convict under section 49/49B(1) which falls in chapter VA of the Act, therefore, the benefit of 360 of Cr.P.C. and Probation of Offenders Act cannot be given to the convict because of the sub- section 5 of section 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act. It is further alleged that in view of the above discussion, it appears that the Ld. Trial Court has not taken the said provision into account while awarding sentence to the convict as it bars release of the convict held guilty for offence mentioned in chapter VA on probation unless the convict is under the age of 18 years.
5. It is further alleged that the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the gravity of the offences committed by the accused person and has taken lenient view while sentencing the accused without applying Crl. Appeal No.129/17 CBI (Wildlife) Vs Sunita Kumar 5 its judicial mind as release of convict on probation is inadequate and against the provisions of section 51(5) of the WL(P) Act, 1972. It is further alleged that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the provisions of the offences as mentioned in sub-section 5 of section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act which falls under chapter VA of Wild Life Protection Act which prohibits the release of convict on probation unless the convict is under the age of 18 years. It is further alleged that the order on sentence dated 17.01.2017 passed by the Ld. Trial Court deserve to be set aside as this is not sustainable in the eyes of law, since the same is against the mandatory provisions of laws enumerated in section 51(5) of the Act and the convict be sentenced as per the provisions of law for a maximum sentence.
6. The facts of the case giving rise to the appeal are that the appellant had filed the complaint against the respondent/accused stating that on the basis of information that unlawful shahtoosh shawls were put to trade in shop named Kargha at 21, Santushti Shopping Arcade, New Delhi. A raid was conducted by a team of CBI officials headed by Insp. Neelam Singh of CBI alongwith an independent witness. It was further alleged that on the date of raid on 28.07.1998 at about 4:30 pm, the accused no. 1 was found Crl. Appeal No.129/17 CBI (Wildlife) Vs Sunita Kumar 6 present at the shop. A search was conducted which revealed that accused was in possession of 17 shahtoosh shawls made from wool of Tibetan Antelope. It was further stated that the accused no. 1 could not produce any license for running the shop and for sale of above shawls. The recovered shawls were seized. A seizure memo was prepared and accused was arrested. It was further stated that during investigation seized property was sent to Directorate, Wildlife, Institute of India, Dehradun,U.P. from where opinion was sought. As per the report, out of the 17 shawls which had been recovered, 11 shawls Mark-4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 were made of Tibetan Antelope which is mentioned at Schedule-19 Wildlife (Protection) Act. It was further alleged that during investigation it was revealed that the seized shawls were purchased from one Abdul Samsad Shah of M/s S.S. Shawls. After the completion of investigation, the complaint case was filed.
7. Both the accused were summoned. Copies of complaint and that of documents were supplied to them.
8. Thereafter, pre-charge evidence was recorded. The complainant examined as many as 10 witnesses in pre-charge evidence.
9. Sh. V.B. Dasan (CW-1) is the complainant, Sh. Manjeet Singh is Independent witness (CW-2), Insp. Neelam Singh (CW-3) and Insp. Crl. Appeal No.129/17 CBI (Wildlife) Vs Sunita Kumar 7 Rajesh Chahal (CW-4) are the investigating officers and other witnesses are Ms. Sanjana Nayar (CW-5), Sh. Sudesh Kumar (again as CW-5), Dr. S.P. Goyal, Scientist (CW-6), Sh. M.C. Joshi (CW-7), Sh. Rattan Singh, SDO (CW-8), Sh. Jasbir Pal Singh, Ex. DSP CBI (CW-9) and Sh. Khalil Sarvar Inspector CBI (CW-10).
10. CW-1 Sh. V.B. Dasan, Wildlife Inspector is the complainant and has testified about his having filed the present complaint. He has further deposed that on 11.12.1998 Mr. J.P. Singh, DSP SIU came to his office and handed over case property and case file of the present case and that the same were seized in his office vide memo dated 11.12.1998 Ex. CW1/A. He has further deposed that on the basis of the same, this witness filed the present complaint Ex.CW1/B on 27.01.1999. This witness has further deposed that investigation in the present case was conducted by CBI and that this witness complied Section 55 of Wildlife (Protection) Act.
11. CW-2 Sh. Manjeet Singh, independent witness, CW-3 Insp.
Neelam Singh and CW-4 Insp. Rajesh Chehal are all the members of raiding team and they have testified in detail about their visit to the shop of accused no. 1 on 28.07.1998 and about seizure of 17 Shahtoosh shawls, arrest of accused no. 1 and about her personal search and also about other facts on the similar lines of the Crl. Appeal No.129/17 CBI (Wildlife) Vs Sunita Kumar 8 complaint. All the witnesses have correctly identified the accused as well as case property Ex.P-1 to P-17 in court during their examination.
12. In its pre-charge evidence, the complainant has examined the wild life Inspector PW-1 who deposed that he had filed the complaint and further stated that on 11.12.1998, the case file and case property was entrusted to him which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. PW-1 further stated that he has filed complaint Ex.PW1/B which bears his signatures. He further stated that investigation was conducted by CBI. PW-2 Sh. Manjeet Singh has joined as an independent witness stated that at the relevant time he was employed as Assistant in the Department of Motion Development. He further stated that on 28.07.1998 requisition was made by CBI for deputing independent witness and his office deputed him and he accordingly went to CBI headquarters where he was briefed by Insp. Neelam Singh and he had accompanied the CBI Team to Kargha shop. He further stated that on reaching the shop Kargha, one informer met Insp. Neelam Singh and told her that the items demanded by her were available inside the shop and he alongwith Insp. Neelam Singh and Insp. Rajesh Chehal went inside the shop. He further stated that Insp. Rajesh Chehal Crl. Appeal No.129/17 CBI (Wildlife) Vs Sunita Kumar 9 demanded a shawl from accused Sunita Kumar, correctly identified, and Sunita Kumar had shown 17-18 shawls. He further testified that Insp. Neelam Singh disclosed her identity and raiding team waiting outside the shop was called. PW-2 further testified that 17 shawls were taken into custody and sealed. He further stated that as electricity was disconnected remaining proceedings were conducted outside the shop. Witness identified the requisite shawls Mark-X and further stated that the recovery memo Ex.PW2/A was prepared.
13. PW-3 stated that on 28.07.1998, an information was received that one Sunita Kumar was engaged in the business and trade of Shahtoosh shawls at a shop namely Kargha, Santushti Shopping Arcade, New Delhi, the same was reduced into writing and submitted to S.P. of the Branch who marked the same to her for verification. She further deposed that she formed a raiding team comprising of police officials and independent witness and entered the shop Kargha and found accused Sunita Kumar present. PW-3 further deposed that Insp. Rajesh Chehal who was deputed as decoy customer asked for shahtoosh shawl upon which accused Sunita Kumar shown 17 shahtoosh shawls. PW-3 further testified that thereafter she disclosed her identity and signaled to the raiding party to reach the shop. PW-3 further stated that she told accused Crl. Appeal No.129/17 CBI (Wildlife) Vs Sunita Kumar 10 Sunita that she sold the shawls which are banned articles. PW-3 further testified that the Shahtoosh shawls were then seized and thereafter the search of the shop was conducted and incriminating documents seized. Accused Sunita was arrested. Documents were prepared at the spot. The case property was deposited in the Malkhana. She had submitted her report Ex.PW3/A to the S.P. of the Branch who ordered registration of FIR. PW-3 further proved the memo of rate list Ex.PW3/C, witness correctly identified the case property.
14. PW-4 Insp. Rajesh Chehal corroborated the version of PW-3 and correctly identified the accused and case property. PW-5 Sanjana Nayar deposed that the shop Kargha at Santushti Arcade, New Delhi was owned by her father and she did not know anything carried out at the shop under the name and style of S.S. Shawls and she has also never visited the shop. The witness resiled from her previous statement. She was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP and in her cross-examination nothing could be elicited which could be of any help to the prosecution.
15. PW-6 Dr. S.P. Goyal, Scientist cum Nodal Officer, Wildlife Sanctuary proved the report Ex.PW6/A, according to which the woolen shawls Mark-, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 were of Crl. Appeal No.129/17 CBI (Wildlife) Vs Sunita Kumar 11 wool of Tibetan Antelope and other shawls were not of Tibetan Antelope. It was further stated that Tibetan Antelope was mentioned in the Schedule-I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act.
16. PW-7 Sh. M.C. Joshi, Dy. Government Examiner Questioned Documents stated that the letter Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B and opinion given by him on the questioned writings is Ex.PW7/J. PW-8 Ratan Singh who was at the relevant time posted in the Defence State office, Delhi Circle, Delhi Cantt., stated that shop no. 21, Santushti Shopping Complex, Air Force Station, New Delhi was in possession of M/s Rugs International. As per the agreement dated 11.03.1997, the said agreement expired in March 1998 but the shop continued to remain in the possession of Flight Lt. Rai Ajay Kumar. PW-9 Jasbir Singh stated that he was at the relevant time posted as DSP, CBI and the investigation of the case was entrusted to him. He had examined the witness and send the case property to the Director, Forest Institute, Dehradun and thereafter handed over the case file to the Wildlife Directorate for filing the case. Pre-charge evidence was thereafter closed.
17. Ld. Trial Court found that sufficient material was on record to frame charge against the accused and accordingly framed charge under section 49/49(B)(i) punishable under section 51 of the Act, to Crl. Appeal No.129/17 CBI (Wildlife) Vs Sunita Kumar 12 which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The other accused Abdul Samad Shah was discharged. The case was thereafter adjourned for post charge evidence and the witnesses were tendered for cross-examination. After the post charge evidence was concluded, the statement of accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution witnesses and stated that she was innocent and has been falsely implicated. The accused did not lead evidence in her defence.
18. The contentions of the appellant are that the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses to prove its case. The Ld. Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under section 49/49B of the Wildlife (Protection) Act vide judgment dated 17.01.2017 but the Ld. Trial Court instead of sentencing the accused released on probation and also imposed fine of Rs.1,50,000/- on her. It is contended that the release of convict on probation is illegal in view of section 51(5) of the Act which provides that nothing in the Section -63 of the Criminal Procedure or the Probation Act shall apply to any person convicted of offence with respect to hunting in sanctuary or an offence against any probation of chapter-5A unless such person is under 18 years of age. It was submitted that keeping Crl. Appeal No.129/17 CBI (Wildlife) Vs Sunita Kumar 13 in view the gravity of the offence, lenient view could not have been taken as it was barred under section 51(5) of the Act. It is prayed that impugned order dated 17.01.2017 vide which accused had been released on probation be set aside and maximum sentence be awarded to her .
19. Alongwith the appeal, an application has also been filed for condonation of delay of 106 days against the order of sentence dated 17.01.2017. In the application, it is admitted that the period of limitation expired on 19.02.2017 and after deducting the period for getting certified copies of order, there is delay a delay of 106 days in filing the appeal. It is further stated that in CBI, for filing of appeal approval of the competent authority is required and the delay in filing the appeal is due to procedural approval from the concerned authority. It is further stated that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate rather the same is bonafide and the delay is only due to examination of matter at various levels and due to procedure prescribed for obtaining the sanction to file an appeal from the Central Government.
20. The respondent has filed reply to the appeal as well as reply to the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is stated that the application has not been filed with bonafide reasons and Crl. Appeal No.129/17 CBI (Wildlife) Vs Sunita Kumar 14 therefore, deserves to be dismissed. It is further stated that the applicant has to satisfy the court that he has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the appeal within the prescribed period. It is further stated that sufficient cause has to be determined from the view points of a reasonable standard of cautious man. It also means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner and should not have remained inactive. The respondent has also relied upon judgment titled State of Delhi (Govt. of NCT) Vs Shashi Shekhar @ Neeraj @ Raju 154 (2008) DLT 678. The respondent has therefore, prayed that the application for condonation of delay be dismissed.
21. Heard the Ld. PP for the CBI and Ld. counsel for the respondent and also perused the record carefully. The appellant has filed the list of events in support of the application for condonation of delay which is as follows : -
1. Certified copy of order applied on : 17.01.2017
2. Certified copies prepared by Copy Agency 20.01.2017 on:
3. Certified copies obtained on : 23.01.2017
4. Date of obtaining PP's comments : 25.01.2017
5. The judgment was under consideration 28.04.2017 in department till :
6. Proposal for filing the appeal : Proposal was signed on 28.04.2017 and was dispatched on 01.05.02017.
Crl. Appeal No.129/17 CBI (Wildlife) Vs Sunita Kumar 15 (29.04.17 & 30.04.17 were Saturday & Sunday.)
7. DoPT approval for filing the appeal 02.06.2017 (03.06.17 & received on : 04.06.2017 were Saturday & Sunday)
8. The appeal was filed on : 05.06.2017
9. The appeal was listed for hearing in court 06.06.2017.
no. 25 on :
22. Admittedly the certified copies were received on 23.01.2017.
Perusal of the Trial Court Record reveals that the uncertified copies were received on 17.01.2017 itself by Sh. T.D. Tripathi, SI, EO-II, CBI. The copies were also supplied to the convict on 17.01.2017 and though the certified copies were received by the appellant on 23.01.2017, the uncertified copy of order and judgment was available to them on 17.01.2017 itself. From 25.01.2017 till 28.04.2017 i.e. more than three months, the judgment was under
consideration with the department. What took the appellant such a long time to consider whether the appeal was to be filed or not, has not been explained by the appellant. The proposal for filing the appeal was signed on 28.04.2017 and was dispatched on 01.05.2017.
23. It is a settled law that the Court is only required while considering the sufficiency of the cause whether the cause shown is reasonable looking to all the facts of the cases. However, such a question of Crl. Appeal No.129/17 CBI (Wildlife) Vs Sunita Kumar 16 the existence of the sufficient cause has to be decided on the facts and circumstances existing in a particular case. It is also well settled that a party who has been successful in the litigation and has been granted an order in his favour cannot be deprived of such a right and advantage that has accrued to him. There is no denying the fact that the Court is required to take a broad view in the matter of condonation of limitation so as to advance the cause of justice.
However, the very enactment of laws relating to limitations postulate that the parties concerned are supposed to follow their matters with due diligence. The fact that it was the "State" which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogehter irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. In case titled as State of Bihar Vs Puran Chandra Mahto, AIR 1998 Pat. 171, it has been observed that no doubt, if the delay is caused simply on account of redtapism, some amount of latitude deserves to be granted; but, if unexplained delay is caused by the State Officers, no indulgence deserve to be shown for excusing the inordinate delay.
24. Ld. Counsel for CBI has relied upon Executive Officer, Antiyur Crl. Appeal No.129/17 CBI (Wildlife) Vs Sunita Kumar 17 Town Panchayat Vs G. Arumugam (D), Civil Appeal No. 8577 of 2014, Supreme Court of India, wherein delay of 1373 days was condoned. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent relied upon Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs Living Media India ltd. & Anr., MANU/SC/0132/2012, wherein it has been observed as follows :
"It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and Crl. Appeal No.129/17 CBI (Wildlife) Vs Sunita Kumar 18 instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay."
25. In the present case also, the department i.e. CBI has not given any proper explanation for the delay except mentioning the various dates in the list of events filed on 08.11.2017. The appellant i.e. CBI is possessed with competent persons who were familiar that the period of limitation of filing the appeal is one month. The judgment is stated to be under consideration from 25.01.2017 till 28.04.2017 i.e. for more than three months. Whether the same has been considered by one person or by several persons, has also not been explained. Why the appellant took more than three months in Crl. Appeal No.129/17 CBI (Wildlife) Vs Sunita Kumar 19 considering whether the judgment was fit for appeal or not, has not been explained by the appellant. Till 25.01.2017, there does not seem to be any delay. The certified copies were admittedly obtained within three days. However, from 25.01.2017 to 28.04.2017, there is no acceptable explanation so as to satisfy the court that there is no deliberate delay on the part of the appellant. In the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 106 days, it has only been stated that the delay is on account of examination of matter at various levels in the department and due to the procedure prescribed for obtaining the sanction from the Central Government. The proposal for filing the appeal was sent on 28.04.2017 as per the list of events filed and even if delay from 28.04.2017 to 25.06.2017 is condoned, the delay when the judgment was under consideration with the department i.e. from 25.01.2017 to 28.04.2017 cannot be condoned, when admittedly, comments of the Ld. PP were already obtained on 25.01.2017. As the appellant has not been able to explain the delay of the period from 25.01.2017 to 28.04.2017 sufficiently, the application of the appellant under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is thus, dismissed. As a consequence to dismissal of the application under section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of Crl. Appeal No.129/17 CBI (Wildlife) Vs Sunita Kumar 20 delay, the appeal must also suffer dismissal. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed.
26. A copy of order be sent to Ld. Trial Court. Trial Court record be sent back. Appeal file be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court on 16th January, 2018.
(KIRAN BANSAL) Special Judge-07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC, Delhi Crl. Appeal No.129/17 CBI (Wildlife) Vs Sunita Kumar 21