Delhi District Court
Da vs . Kewal Kishan Etc. on 4 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BALWANT RAI BANSAL
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEII,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
C.C. No. 143/00
Food Inspector
Department of PFA
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
A20, Lawrence Road
Indl. Area, Delhi - 35
........ Complainant
Versus
1. Sh. Kewal Kishan
S/o Sh. Sukh Dayal
M/s Sangam Pan Bhandar,
92/8, Ganda Nala Market,
Moti Nagar, New Delhi15
........ VendorcumPartner
2. M/s Sangam Pan Bhandar,
92/8, Ganda Nala Market,
Moti Nagar, New Delhi15
.........................Vendor firm
3. Sh. P.K. Puri
CC No. 143/00
DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc.
S/o Sh. K.K. Puri
Partner of M/s Sangam Pan Bhandar
92/8, Ganda Nala Market,
Moti Nagar, New Delhi15
................Partner of vendor firm
4. M/s Dharampal Satyapal
A85, Sector2,
Noida201301 (UP)
................Marketing Agent
5. Sh. Pushkar Singh Rana
S/o Sh. A.S. Rana
A85, Sector2,
Noida201301 (UP)
R/o G96, Sector56,
Noida.
(Proceedings abated v/o dated 07.05.2001)
...........................Nominee of Marketing Agent
6. M/s S.R. Fragrances Ltd.,
A41, Sector4, Noida201301 (UP)
...........................Manufacturing Concern.
7. Sh. S.P. Malakar
S/o Late Sh. S.S. Malakar
M/s S.R. Fragrances Ltd.,
A41, Sector4, Noida201301 (UP)
CC No. 143/00
DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc.
R/o N175, Sector12, Noida (201301)
Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar (UP).
.................Nominee of Manufacturing Concern.
8. M/s Swastik Fragrances
B8 & 16, Sector13, Noida201301
Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, (UP)
..................Firm Owned The Trade Mark (Rajnigandha)
9. Sh. Viswa Nath Ajmera
S/o Sh. Hari Prasad
Ajmera M/s Swastik Fragrances,
B8 & 16, Sector3, Noida201301,
Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
R/o E104, Sector36,
Noida201301
............Nominee of Above Firm
COMPLAINT U/S 16 OF THE PREVENTION OF
FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954
Serial number of the case : 143/00
Date of the commission of the offence : 02.01.1999
Date of filing of the complaint : 11.09.2000
Name of the Complainant, if any : Sh. R.P. Singh, F.I.
CC No. 143/00
DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc.
Offence complained of or proved : Violation of provisions of Section
2(ia) (a) & (b), provision of Rule
62; punishable U/s 16(1)(a) r/w
section 7 of the PFA Act.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted.
Arguments heard on : 04.01.2014
Judgment announced on : 04.01.2014
J U D G M E N T
1. The present complaint has been filed on 11.09.2000 by the Delhi Administration through FI R.P. Singh against the above said accused persons. It is stated in the complaint that on 02.01.1999 at about 3:45 PM, FI Baljeet Singh purchased a sample of Flavoured Pan Masala (Rajnigandha), a food article for analysis from Sh. Kewal Kishan, S/o Sh Sukh Dayal of M/s Sangam Pan Bhandar, 92/8, Ganda Nala Market, Moti Nagar, New Delhi15, where the said food article was found stored and accused Kewal Kishan was found conducting the business of the said food article at the time of sampling. FI Baljeet Singh purchased 9 originally sealed packets of 200 gms each (each packet containing 50 pouches of about 4 gms) of Flavoured Pan Masala (Rajnigandha), bearing identical label declaration. The sample was taken under the supervision and CC No. 143/00 DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc. directions of SDM / LHA Sh. S.S. Rana. Thereafter, FI prepared three counterparts by putting three originally sealed packets as such as one counterpart and each counterpart containing the sample commodity was separately packed, fastened, marked and sealed according to PFA Act and Rules. The signatures of accused Kewal Kishan were obtained on the LHA slips and on the wrapper of the three counterparts containing the sample. Notice was given to accused and price of sample was also given to him. Panchnama was also prepared at the spot. All these documents prepared by Food Inspector were signed by accused Kewal Kishan and the other witness namely Sh. Manohar Lal, FA. It is stated in the complaint that before starting the sample proceedings, efforts were made to get the public witnesses to join the sample proceedings, but none came forward and as such Sh. Manohar Lal, FA joined as witness.
2. It is further stated that one counterpart of the sample in intact condition was sent to the Public Analyst, Delhi and two counterparts of the sample in intact conditions were deposited with LHA. The Public Analyst analysed the sample and opined that "the sample does not conform to the standards laid down under item no. A.30 of Appendix 'B' of PFA Rules, 1955 because ash insoluble ash is more than the prescribed limit of 0.5%. The sample also shows presence of Megnesium Carbonate". CC No. 143/00 DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc.
3. It is further stated in the complaint that accused Kewal Kishan was VendorcumPartner of M/s Sangam Pan Bhandar (A2), which was a partnership firm, having two partners namely Kewal Kishan (A1) and Sh. P.K. Puri (A3) and, as such both of them were responsible for conducting its day to day business. It is further stated in the complaint that accused no. 3 M/s Sangam Pan Bhandar had purchased the sample commodity from M/s Dharampal Satyapal (A4) of which accused Pushkar Singh Rana (A5) was Nominee. It is further stated in the complaint that M/s S.R. Fragrances Ltd. (A6), was the manufacturing concern of the sample commodity of which accused S.P. Malakar (A7) was Nominee. It is further stated in the complaint that M/s S.R. Fragrances Ltd. was the manufacturer of the sample commodity under trade mark name Rajnigandha under license from M/s Swastik Fragrances (A8). It is further stated in the complaint that M/s Swastik Fragrances was the firm which was owing the Trade Mark Rajnigandha of and accused Vishwa Nath Ajmera was Nominee of accused no. 8 M/s Swastik Fragrances. Thereafter, the entire case file was sent to the Director, PFA who accorded the requisite consent U/s 20 of the Act and consequent thereto the present complaint was filed for violation of provisions of Section 2 (ia) (a) (b) & (m), provision of Rule 62 of PFA Rules 1955, punishable U/s 16 (1) (a) r/w Section 7 of the PFA Act. CC No. 143/00 DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc.
4. The accused persons were summoned vide order dated 11.09.2000. On appearing, accused no. 7 S.P. Malakar moved an application U/s 13 (2) of the 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, Calcutta for analysis. The Director, CFL on analysing the second counterpart of the sample in question opined vide his Certificate dated 27.10.2000 that "the sample of Pan Masala is adulterated".
5. It is pertinent to mention herein that during the trial, accused no. 5 died and the proceedings qua him stood abated vide order dated 07.05.2001.
6. Thereafter, Notices for the violation of Section 2 (ia) (a) & (b) of PFA Act 1954, provision of Rule 62 of PFA Rules 1955, punishable U/s 16 (1)(a) r/w Section 7 of the Act were framed upon all the accused persons vide order dated 17.04.2009 to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined four witnesses namely Sh. Baljeet Singh, Food Inspector as PW1, Sh. R.P. Singh, Food Inspector as PW2, Sh. Manohar Lal, Field Assistant as PW3 and Sh. S.S. Rana, SDM / LHA as PW4 and PE was closed vide order CC No. 143/00 DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc. dated 29.05.2012.
8. Statements of accused persons U/s 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded on 09.08.2012 wherein all of them claimed themselves to be innocent and opted to lead evidence in their defence but none of the accused persons led any evidence in defence and hence, DE was closed vide order dated 21.01.2013.
9. I have heard the Ld. Counsel of both the parties and perused the record carefully.
10. Ld. Counsels for accused persons have collectively argued that a representative sample was not taken in this case and that is why there are variations in the reports of both the experts and the benefit of the same must be given to the accused persons. Apart from above, Ld. counsel for accused no. 4,6 to 9 argued that there is no bill to show that the sample commodity was purchased from accused no. 4 M/s Dharampal Satyapal who is alleged to be the marketing agent of accused no. 6 M/s S.R. Fragrances Ltd and hence, they were not liable to be prosecuted. He further argued that accused no. 8 M/s Swastik Fragrances had an agreement Mark X8 with accused no. 6 M/s S.R. Fragrances Ltd. to use trade mark 'RAJNIGANDHA' with certain conditions that the Licensor i.e. accused no. 8 M/s Swastik Fragrances shall not be liable for any special, incidental CC No. 143/00 DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc. or consequential damages of any kind whatsoever, therefore he argued that accused no. 8 & 9 could not have been prosecuted. Reliance has been placed on Prakash Singh Chauhan & Anr Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors 2000(1) FAC 260, Kanshi Nath Vs. State 2005(2) FAC 219 and State Vs. Rama Rattan Malhotra 2012(2) FAC 398.
11. On the other hand Ld. SPP for complainant argued that a representative sample was taken by the FI and so far the arguments advanced by the Ld. counsels for accused persons w.r.t variations is concerned, the second counterpart of the sample has been got analyzed from Central Food Laboratory (Calcutta) and the report of Director CFL being conclusive and supersedes the report of Public Analyst, therefore, the accused persons can not be given benefit of variations in the reports of both the experts. He further argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused persons are liable to be convicted.
12. All the four witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed more or less as per the averments made in the complaint and substantiated the averments.
13. PW1 FI Baljeet Singh who has lifted the sample in this case has deposed in his examinationinchief that on 02.01.1999 he along with FA Manohar Lal, under the supervision and directions of SDM/LHA Sh. CC No. 143/00 DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc. S.S. Rana had visited the premises of M/s Sangam Pan Bhandar, 92/8, Ganda Nala Market, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, where accused Kewal Kishan was found present conducting the business of food articles stored there for sale for human consumption including Flavoured Pan Masala (Rajnigandha). He has further deposed that he disclosed his identity to the accused and showed his intention to purchase the sample of Flavoured Pan Masala (Rajnigandha). He has further deposed that he purchased 9 sealed packets of 200 gms each (each packet containing 50 pouches of about 4 gms) of Flavoured Pan Masala (Rajnigandha), having identical label declaration, from accused Kewal Kishan on payments of Rs. 1800/ vide vendor's receipt Ex. PW 1/A. He has deposed that he prepared three counterparts by putting three originally sealed packets as one counterpart and all the three counterparts were separately packed, marked, fastened and sealed accordingly to PFA Act and Rules. He has further deposed that before starting the sample proceedings, efforts were made to join public witnesses in sample proceedings by requesting some customers, passersby and neighbouring shopkeepers but none agreed and then on his request, FA Manohar Lal joined as witness in sample proceedings.
14. PW1 has further deposed that he prepared Notice in Form VI Ex. PW 1/B and the label was reproduced on Notice in Form VI and a copy CC No. 143/00 DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc. was given to the accused as per his endorsement at portion A to A. He has further deposed that vendor / accused Kewal Kishan disclosed that he purchased the sample commodity from M/s S.R. Fragrances Ltd., 7/22, Ansari Road, New Delhi. He has further deposed that at the disclosure of the vendor, a Notice u/s 14 A Ex. PW 1/D was prepared at the spot and was addressed to M/s S.R. Fragrances Ltd., 7/22, Ansari Road, New Delhi, through registered post. He further deposed that Panchnama Ex. PW 1/C was also prepared at the spot. He further deposed that all the documents were read over and explained to the accused in Hindi and after understating the same accused Kewal Kishan signed the same at point A, witness signed the same at point B and he signed the same at point C.
15. PW1 has further deposed that one counterpart of the sample was deposited in intact condition with PA on 04.01.1999 alongwith one copy of Memo in Form VII in a sealed packet and another copy of Memo in Form VIII in a separate sealed enveloped. He further deposed that the remaining two counterparts of the sample were deposited with LHA on 04.01.1999, under intimation that one counterpart has already been deposited with PA. He has further deposed that he received the report from Public Analyst which is Ex. PW 1/F, according to which the sample was not conforming to standards.
CC No. 143/00 DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc.
16. PW 2 FI R.P. Singh who had conducted the investigation of this case has deposed that in the year 1991, the investigation of this case was marked to him. He has proved the letters sent and received as Ex. PW 2/A, Ex. PW 2/B, Ex. PW 2/B1, Ex. PW 2/C, PW 2/C1, Ex. PW 2/D, Ex. PW 2/E, Ex. PW 2/E1, Ex. PW 1/E2, Ex. PW 2/E3, Ex. PW 2/E4, Ex. PW 2/E5, Ex. PW 2/F, Ex. PW 2/F1, Ex. PW 2/G, Ex. PW 2/G1, Ex. PW 2/H, Ex. PW 2/H1, Ex. PW 2/I, Ex. PW 2/I1, Ex. PW 2/I2, Ex. PW 2/I3, Ex. PW 2/J, Ex. PW 2/J1, Ex. PW 2/J2, Ex. PW 2/K and Ex. PW 2/K1 respectively. He has proved the Sanction as Ex. PW 2/L, complaint Ex. PW 2/M, intimation letter as Ex. PW 2/N and postal registration receipts as Ex. PW 2/O.
17. PW3 FA Manohar Lal and PW 4 SDM / LHA Sh. S.S. Rana, under whom supervision and directions the sample proceedings were conducted have deposed on the similar lines as deposed by PW1 in his examinationinchief.
18. In the Statement under section 313 Cr. P.C accused no. 1 has admitted that on 02.01.1999 at about 3:45 PM, FI Baljeet Singh alongwith FA Sh. Manohar Lal, under the supervision and directions of SDM / LHA Sh. S.S. Rana had visited the premises of M/s Sangam Pan Bhandar, 92/8, Ganda Nala Market, Moti Nagar, New Delhi15 and a sample of Flavoured CC No. 143/00 DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc. Pan Masala (Rajnigandha), having identical label declaration was lifted from him. He has taken a plea that he is not concerned with the standard of the food commodity. The manufacturer / distributor got the sample retested from CFL, since they were concerned with the sample commodity. He has also taken a plea that neither he is the manufacturer nor the distributor of the sample commodity. He has also taken a plea that when the supplier came to know about the sampling, they stopped further supply and did not issue the Cash Memo regarding the sampled commodity.
19. In the Statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. the accused no. 3 who also represents accused no.2 has feigned ignorance about lifting of the sample commodity and has pleaded that he as well as the firm are innocent.
20. In the Statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. accused no. 7 who also represents accused no. 4 & 6 has also feigned ignorance about lifting of the sample commodity and has taken a defence that the sample commodity does not belong to them.
21. In the Statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. accused no. 9 who also represents accused no. 8 has also feigned ignorance about lifting of the sample commodity.
22. PW 1 Food Inspector Baljeet Singh in his crossexamination conducted by accused no. 1 to 3 has deposed that vendor informed at the CC No. 143/00 DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc. spot that he purchased the sample packets from M/s S.R. Fragrances. He has admitted that the vendor was not manufacturer but he was a retailer. In his crossexamination conducted by counsel for accused no. 4,6 to 9 he has deposed that vendor made an endorsement on Notice in Form VI in Urdu language but he verbally disclosed that he purchased the sample commodity from M/s S.R. Fragrances but no copy of bill of purchase was given. He further deposed that the label of the packets was reproduced by him on Notice in Form VI. He has admitted that it was mentioned on the label that M/s S.R. Fragrances manufactured the same under license from Swastik Fragrances, Noida.
23. PW2 Food Inspector R.P. Singh during his crossexamination conducted by counsel for accused no. 4, 6 to 9 has deposed that during his entire investigation till the filing of the complaint, accused Kewal Kishan never handed over to him any bill of purchase of the sample commodity. He has admitted that the brand name of the sample commodity was Rajnigandha. He has further deposed that as per investigation and copy of agreement submitted to him, M/s Swastik Fragrances was only owner of the brand name Rajnigandha and had permitted M/s S.R. Fragrances Ltd., to manufacture the product under the brand name 'Rajnigandha'. He has further deposed that he did not investigate as to whether M/s Dharampal CC No. 143/00 DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc. Satyapal had received the sample commodity from the manufacturer M/s S.R. Fragrances Ltd through any bill or stock transfer.
24. PW2 has admitted that the label of the sample commodity was reproduced by FI on Notice in Form VI Ex. PW 1/D. He has further admitted that the Cardamom, betal nuts and Lime were shown in the list of ingredients used as mentioned on the label of sample commodity. He has further deposed that he is not aware if Magnesium is inherently present in betal nuts and cardamom and carbonate is present in Lime. He could not comment that the Magnesium and Carbonate detected by the CFL were carry overs from above mentioned ingredients. He has denied the suggestion that M/s Swastik Fragrances have been wrongly prosecuted as there is no criminal liability of the brand name owners.
25. PW4 has admitted that the vendor had disclosed at the spot that he had purchased the sample commodity from M/s S.R. Fragrances Ltd and told that he will produce the bill of purchase lateron.
26. First of all I shall deal with the contention of Ld. counsel for accused no. 4,6 to 9 that there is no bill to show that the sample commodity was purchased by accused no. 2 from accused no. 4 M/s Dharampal Satyapal who is alleged to be the marketing agent of accused no. 6 M/s S.R. Fragrances Ltd and hence, they are not liable to be convicted. In this CC No. 143/00 DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc. regard, perusal of Notice in Form VI Ex. PW 1/B revealed that on the label of the sample commodity which was reproduced by Food Inspector on Notice in Form VI, accused no. 4 M/s Dharampal Satyapal has been shown as Marketing Agent and accused no. 6 M/s S.R. Fragrances Ltd. has been shown the manufacturer of the sample commodity under the license of accused no. 8 M/s Swastik Fragrances. To substantiate his arguments, Ld. counsel for accused no. 4,6 to 9 has only argued that since there is no bill of purchase produced by accused no. 1 to connect the sample commodity with accused no. 4,6 & 7, therefore, the sample commodity does not belongs to them. Apart from this, no suggestion has been put forth to any of the witnesses that the sample commodity does not belong to them. In my considered opinion merely because that the accused no. 1 could not produce the bill of purchase, it can not be a ground to exonerate accused no. 4,6 & 7 from their liability more so when there is clearly mentioned on Notice in Form VI that accused no. 4 M/s Dharampal Satyapal is Marketing Agent and accused no. 6 M/s S.R. Fragrances Ltd. is the manufacturer of the sample commodity which fact is not in dispute, hence, this contention of Ld. counsel for accused no. 4, 6 to 9 is rejected.
27. The other contention of Ld. counsel for accused no. 8 & 9 is that accused no. 8 M/s Swastik Fragrances was the brand owner / licensor CC No. 143/00 DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc. of the trade mark RAJNIGANDHA and had an agreement with accused no. 6 M/s S.R. Fragrances Ltd., and according to this agreement, licensor / brand owner was not responsible or liable for any claims, losses, damages, injuries or other liabilities of any kind whatsoever. The relevant portion of agreement Mark X8 dated 15.02.1990, formed between accused no. 8 & 6 is as under:
"Responsibility LICENSOR shall not be responsible or liable for any claims, losses, damages, injuries or other liabilities of any kind whatsoever, arising on account of, or in connection with, the exercise by LICENSEE of any rights granted hereunder, or for any other acts, faults or omissions of or attributable to LICENSEE, including but not limited to any liability for use of the Authorized Trademark by LICENSEE, an LICENSEE shall defend, indemnify, release and hold LICENSOR and its Associated Companies harmless from and against all such claims, losses, damages, injuries and other liabilities. In no event shall LICENSOR be liable for any special, incidental or consequential damages of any kind whatsoever."
28. Perusal of the agreement Mark X8 and the aforesaid Clause of that agreement revealed that there was mutual understanding between accused no. 8 & 6 that the Licensee i.s. M/s S.R. Fragrances Ltd. shall use CC No. 143/00 DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc. the trademark RAJNIGANDHA but the Licensor i.e. M/s Swastik Fragrances shall not be liable for any liability arising out from any fault or omission on behalf of the Licensee.
29. The facts of the authority Prakash Singh Chauhan & Anr Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (supra) relied upon by counsel for accused no. 8 & 9 are that the FI had inspected the factory of G.E.I. Food Ltd. and had lifted three bottles of Parle Bailey Aqua Water for test. The Public Analyst after analysing the same opined that the sample is misbranded and accordingly prosecution was launched against the firm G.E.I. Food Ltd and Managing Director of Parle Agro Ltd. Company. Thereafter, Managing Director of Parle Agro Ltd. Company filed an application U/s 20 A and prayed that there was an agreement between G.E.I. Foods Ltd. and Parle Agro Ltd Company whereby G.E.I Foods Ltd was permitted to use the brand / the trade mark of Parle Agro Company and a Nominee, Production Incharge was appointed by the company Parle Agro Ltd and therefore the Managing Director was not liable to be prosecuted. Ld. M.M. accepted the nomination of the Production Incharge but simultaneously held that the Managing Director was to remain as an accused. Against the said order a revision was preferred before the Ld. Sessions Judge which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, Prakash CC No. 143/00 DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc. Singh Chauahn and Anr. (Petitioners) filed a petition before Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh after scrutinizing the clauses in the agreement held that the petitioners had only given its brand name and therefore the petitioners were not responsible for manufacturing and the allegations in the complaint does not ascribe any role that the appellant / company or its functionaries are involved in the manufacturing process.
30. Keeping in view the conditions of agreement Mark X8 between accused no. 6 & 8 and placing reliance on the aforesaid authority, accused no. 8 & 9 are not liable to be convicted because they are only the brand owner of RAJNIGANDHA and further there is no allegation in the complaint that they were involved in the manufacturing process of the sample commodity in question.
31. The other contention of the Ld. counsels for accused persons is that a representative sample was not taken and therefore there are variations in the reports of both the experts and on the basis of an unrepresentative sample, accused persons can not be convicted. Perusal of both the reports, it is revealed that there are variations in the results of both the experts. For instance, PA has found Total Ash to the tune of 4.45% whereas the Director CFL has found the same to be 5.0%. Furthermore, PA has adjudged CC No. 143/00 DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc. Magnesium Carbonate to the tune of 1.42 while the Director CFL has adjudged the same to the tune of 0.6%. As such there are variations which are more than 0.3%, which is stated to be the permissible limit of variations. These variations in the reports of both the experts do show that the sample was not a representative one hence, on the basis of an un representative sample, the accused persons can not be held guilty. 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 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 has observed that, " Therefore, on the facts of the present case, It can be said that the variation is beyond the acceptable range and CC No. 143/00 DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc. 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".
32. In view of aforesaid discussions and observations, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the benefit of the same is liable to be given to the accused persons. Accordingly, all the accused persons are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal)
on 4th January, 2014 ACMMII/ PHC/ New Delhi
CC No. 143/00
DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc.
CC No. 143/00
DA Vs. Kewan Kishan Etc.
04.01.2014
Present: Sh. Masood Ahmad, Ld. SPP for complainant.
Accused no. 1 and accused no. 3 (representing accused no. 2 as well) with counsel Sh. M.C. Sanghi.
Proceedings qua accused o. 5 have already been abated. Accused no. 7 (representing accused no. 4 & 6 as well) and accused no. 9 (representing accused no. 8 as well) are present with counsel Sh. M.K. Gupta.
Further arguments heard. Put up for order at 3:00 PM.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ACMMII/PHC/ND/04.01.2014 At 3:15 PM Present: As above.
Vide my separate Judgment of even date dictated and announced in the open court, all the accused persons stand acquitted of the charges leveled against them. Their previous Bail Bonds / Surety Bonds stand cancelled. Sureties stands discharged. Endorsement on the documents of the previous sureties, if any, be cancelled.
Accused persons are directed to furnish fresh bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C. They have furnished B/Bs & S/Bs in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ each. The same are accepted. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ACMMII/PHC/ND/04.01.2014 CC No. 143/00 DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc. CC No. 143/00 DA Vs. Kewal Kishan Etc.