Delhi District Court
State vs . : Nikesh @ Mukesh & Anr. on 4 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF DR.JAGMINDER SINGH:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 - (SOUTH-WEST)
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
State Vs. : Nikesh @ Mukesh & Anr.
S.C. No. : 1066/2018
FIR No : 397/2018
U/s : 307/392/34 IPC and 411 IPC
P.S. : Janakpuri
JUDGEMENT
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW01-020014-2018 2. Date of commission of offence : 20.09.2018 3. Date of institution of the case : 13.11.2018
4. Date of committal to Sessions Court: 05.12.2018
5. Name of the complainant : Sh. Ram Charan Singh
6. Name of accused, parentage & :1) Nikesh @ Mukesh address S/o Sh. Shankar Sahu, R/o H. No. E-77, Chanakay Place, Sita Puri, Dabri, Delhi and
2) Md. Nasim S/o Sh. Md. Anamul, R/o H. No. B-20, Bindapur, Pocket-4, JJ Colony, Delhi.
7. Offence complained off : u/s 307/392/411/34 IPC
8. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
9. Date on which order was reserved : 01.05.2023
10. Final order : ACQUITTED
11. Date of final order : 04.05.2023 Brief statement of reasons for decision :
1. The present case was registered on the basis of DD State vs. Nikesh @ Mukesh & Anr. PS:Janakpuri FIR No.397/2018 Page No. 1 of 16 No.50A dated 20.09.2018 Ex.PX1 that two boys after pressing the neck had snatched the money and mobile phone from A-1 Park, Janakpuri, New Delhi. On the basis of the information, the FIR was registered on 21.09.2018. Thereafter, the complainant got recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in which he alleged that on 20.09.2018, he went out of his home for routine walk and at about 03:45 PM, when he was walking on a road alongside a park, then, when he reached in front of Kothi No. A-1/351 to 353, one boy suddenly came in his behind who pressed his neck from behind forcefully because of which he fell down.
Meanwhile, one other boy came there who forcefully snatched his mobile from his pocket. Due to pressing of neck, he became unconscious for about 2 minutes. When he regained consciousness, then a passerby called the police. He further stated that he could not got recorded his statement on the date of incident as he was not feeling comfortable due to the incident. He further stated that he could not see the said boys and therefore, he is unable to identify the assailants.
2. Thereafter, investigation started and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed qua both accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 307/392/411/34 IPC.
3. Accused persons were summoned after taking cognizance. After complying of Section 207/208 Cr.P.C., the matter was committed to Sessions Court. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, charge was framed against both accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 307/392/34 IPC and charge was also framed against accused Md. Nasim for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State vs. Nikesh @ Mukesh & Anr. PS:Janakpuri FIR No.397/2018 Page No. 2 of 16
4. In order to substantiate the charge, prosecution has filed list of 10 witnesses and examined 9 witnesses. Both accused persons had also admitted the genuineness of one document u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
5. PW1 Sh. Ramcharan Singh stated that he is the complainant in present case and as usual, he was on evening walk as per the directions of doctors as he have some problem of his legs. On 20.09.2018, he was on evening walk in a park in A-1 Block, Janakpuri, Delhi and when he was walk in front of Kothi No. A-1/353, Janakpuri, Delhi all of a sudden, he felt some pressure on his legs and he fell down. When he got conscious, he found his mobile phone make Nokia No. 9717368648 and his pocket diary and some documents were missing. Some other persons made call to police. Some other person made a call at his home and he was sent to his home. Police official made inquiry from him and after few days, his statement was recorded. He had shown the place of incident to police during investigation and IO had prepared the site plan at his instance Ex.PW1/A. He had also handed over tax invoice Ex.PW1/C and box Ex.PW1/D of said mobile phone Ex.P1 to IO which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/B.
6. PW2 Sh. Laksh Grover stated that he has installed CCTV cameras in his house. One day a notice u/s 191 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW2/1 was served upon him by the IO in which IO had demanded CCTV footage of his CCTV camera of dated 20.09.2018 from 03:45 pm to 04:05 pm. In pursuance of notice, he stored the footage of abovesaid period in a CD Ex.PW2/4 and handed over the same to the IO. He had also given the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW2/2 to the IO. The footage of abovesaid period was properly saved in the CD and State vs. Nikesh @ Mukesh & Anr. PS:Janakpuri FIR No.397/2018 Page No. 3 of 16 was handed over by him to the IO which was seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW2/3.
7. PW3 Ct. Manjeet stated that on 22.09.2018, he was posted as Constable in PS Janakpuri. On that day, he joined the investigation alongwith ASI Bijender and Ct. Anuj and went to bus stand Uttam Nagar at about 04:00 pm. One secret informer met IO there who told that the persons involved in present case would come there to sell the mobile and they could be apprehended. At about 05:15 pm, two boys came to spot. Secret informer pointed out towards them upon which one of them was apprehended by him whose name was revealed as Mohd. Nasim on interrogation. The other one was apprehended by Ct. Anuj whose name was revealed as Nikesh @ Mukesh. On personal search of accused Mohd. Nasim, one mobile phone make Nokia of black colour Ex.P1 was recovered. IO matched the IMEI number of that phone and same was found wanted in present case. Then IO seized said mobile phone vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/1. IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused persons at the spot. IO arrested and personally searched both accused persons vide memos Ex.PW3/2 to Ex.PW3/5. Then accused persons were taken to DDU hospital for their medical examination. Thereafter, they were brought to the PS. Then IO recorded his statement.
8. PW4 Ct. Anuj deposed the identical version as of PW3 Ct. Manjeet. PW4 further stated that IO recorded the disclosure statements of accused persons Ex.PW4/1 & Ex.PW4/2 at the spot. IO prepared the site plan of place of recovery Ex.PW4/3. Then accused persons were taken to DDU hospital for their medical examination. Thereafter, they were brought to the PS. Then IO recorded his statement. On 23.09.2018, the State vs. Nikesh @ Mukesh & Anr. PS:Janakpuri FIR No.397/2018 Page No. 4 of 16 clothes of accused persons were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/4. He identified the recovered mobile phone during his evidence before the Court as Ex.P1 and also identified the seized one yellow colour T-shirt, one black colour half pant, one black colour T-shirt and one half pant of light blue colour as Ex.P2 (Colly).
9. PW5 ASI Sunder Lal stated that on 03.10.2018, on receipt of message from my concerned senior officers, he went to PS Janakpuri where he met ASI Rajinder and he alongwith ASI Rajinder went to Tihar Jail, Central Jail no.8, where the concerned Jail officials had produced the accused Mohd. Nasim and Nikesh @ Mukesh before them and he conducted the videography of walking and running style of both accused persons by using his official video camera make Sony. Thereafter, he prepared two CDs of the same, which he produced to the IO alongwith certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The said two CDs were separately sealed by the IO with the seal of 'RS' by marking them as serial no.A and B. Thereafter, the said parcels of CDs were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/1. The certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW5/2. The parcel bearing serial no. A was deposited in the Malkhana by the IO. He identified the said CD during his evidence before the Court as Ex.PW5/3.
10. PW6 ASI Preet Singh was partly examined-in-chief but his further examination-in-chief could not be completed and he was dropped by Ld. Addl. PP for State as the document for which PW6 was summoned was admitted by accused persons vide their statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
11. PW7 W/ASI Sudesh stated that on 20.09.2018, while he was posted as HC at PS Janakpuri and was on duty as State vs. Nikesh @ Mukesh & Anr. PS:Janakpuri FIR No.397/2018 Page No. 5 of 16 Duty Officer from 08:00 AM to 04:00 PM. On that day, at about 02.14 PM, he received a Rukka from ASI Satish Kumar, on the basis of which he got recorded FIR No. 397/2018 Ex.PW7/A with the help of CCTNS. He put his endorsement Ex.PW7/B on the Rukka. During investigation, he issued a certificate u/s 65-B of I.E. Act Ex.PW7/C. After registration of FIR, he handed over copy of FIR and original Rukka to ASI Rajender for further investigation on the directions of the SHO.
12. PW8 Retd. SI Satish Kumar stated that on 20.09.2018, he was posted at PS Janakpuri as ASI. On that day, he was on emergency duty from 08:00 AM to 08:00 PM in the area of PS Janakpuri. At about 03:45 PM, he received a information vide DD No.50A that two persons had snatched a mobile phone at A-Block Park, Janakpuri, New Delhi. On receiving this information, he reached at the spot i.e. A-1 Block Park, Janakpuri, New Delhi, where complainant Sh. Ram Charan met him. When he made inquiry from complainant, complainant refused to gave statement by saying that he (complainant) will give statement after discussing. Thereafter, he returned to the police station and DD No. 50A was kept pending. On next day i.e. 21.09.2018, he again try to made enquiry from complainant but complainant did not gave any response. Having no option he made his endorsement on DD No.50A vide his endorsement Ex.PW8/A and got the case registered. After registration of case, further investigation of present case was assigned to ASI Rajender for further investigation.
13. PW9 SI Rajender Singh stated that on 21.09.2018, he was posted at PS Janakpuri as ASI. On that day, duty officer handed over him copy of FIR and original Rukka as the further investigation of this case was marked to him by the then SHO, State vs. Nikesh @ Mukesh & Anr. PS:Janakpuri FIR No.397/2018 Page No. 6 of 16 PS Janakpuri. He contact the complainant of present case, wherein, complainant came to PS and handed over him Bill and Box of mobile phone make Nokia. Thereafter, he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, he took the complainant at the spot, where, he prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/A at the instance of complainant. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of complainant u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he made inquiry from the spot, wherein, he found that a CCTV Camera was installed at the premises at A-1/355, Ground Floor, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Thereafter, he asked the owner of the said premises to show the footage of 20.09.2018. Thereafter on 21.09.2018, he served a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW2/1 to owner of said premises Ex.PW2/1. The owner of the said premises shown him the footage of the date of incident, wherein, it was clearly found captured the incident in CCTV Camera. He had seen the CCTV Footage in which faces of both accused persons are clearly seen while committing the offence. On 22.09.2018, he again join the investigation of present case along with Ct. Anuj and Ct. Manjeet. At about 06:00 PM, both accused persons were apprehended on the information of secret information from Pankha Road, Red Light near Bus Stand. He made inquiry from them. Both accused persons made their disclosure statements vide memos Ex.PW4/1 & Ex.PW4/2. Both accused persons were arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW3/2 to Ex.PW3/5. On casual search of accused Nasim, a mobile phone make Nokia was recovered, he asked from the accused about the ownership of the mobile phone but accused could not account for the possession of said mobile phone and disclosed that he (Accused Md. Nasim) along with co-accused had snatched the said mobile phone on 20.09.2018. The said mobile phone was State vs. Nikesh @ Mukesh & Anr. PS:Janakpuri FIR No.397/2018 Page No. 7 of 16 taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW3/1. Thereafter, the clothes of both accused persons were separately seized which they were wearing on the day of incident and the clothes of both accused persons were separately converted into Pullanda and sealed with the seal of 'RS' and were taken into possession vide single memo Ex.PW4/4. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan Ex.PW4/3 of the place where both accused persons were apprehended. Thereafter, both accused persons were produced before the Court concerned for getting their medical examination and from there, both accused persons were sent to JC. On that day, he recorded the statement of witnesses and the case property was deposited with MHC(M) and during investigation from the disclosure statement of accused persons and from the CCTV Footage, Section 307 IPC was added in present case. In pursuance of the notice, owner Sh. Lakshay Grover handed over him two CDs of dated 20.09.2018 on 24.09.2018. He gave the Sr. Number 1 & 2 to the said CDs and were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/3. Sr. No.1 was kept in judicial file along with certificate u/s 65-B of I.E. Act and Sr. No. 2 was deposited with MHC(M). Certificate u/s 65-B of I.E. Act in this regard is Ex.PW2/E. During investigation on 03.10.2018, he visited the Tihar Jail for the investigation of present case with the permission taken from the Court to get the specimen of the walking and running sample (Gait) of both accused persons. At that time, Government Photographer was with him and with the permission of Jail Superintendent, photographer took the video recording of walking and running samples of both accused persons and thereafter on 04.10.2018, the photographer who was with him handed over two CDs and certificate u/s 65-B of I.E. Act in this regard. Both CDs were taken into possession vide State vs. Nikesh @ Mukesh & Anr. PS:Janakpuri FIR No.397/2018 Page No. 8 of 16 memo Ex.PW5/1 and both the CDs were given Sr. No. A & B. CD Sr. No.A was deposited with MHC(M) while CD Sr. No. B Ex.PW5/3 was kept on judicial record. During investigation, the CD which was given to him by Lakshay Grover and the CD was given to him by Government Photographer of the Gait pattern of the accused persons and which were deposited by him with MHC(M) got deposited with FSL through one constable whose name he do not recollect due to passage of time and collected the FSL result Ex.PW9/A of the same. During investigation, he collected the relevant papers to complete the chain of events and recorded the statement of witnesses and filed the charge-sheet before the Court. CD Ex.PW2/4 was also played on the computer system installed in the Court during his evidence and it was found visible capture of the incident clearly.
14. No other witness had been examined by the prosecution. Accused persons admitted the genuineness of DD No.50A dated 20.09.2018 Ex.PX1 without admitting any incriminating contents against them vide their joint statement recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, PE was closed at request of Ld. Addl. PP and the separate statements of both accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied all the allegations levelled against them and stated that they are falsely implicated in this case and they not opted for defence evidence. Thereafter, final arguments heard.
15. It is submitted by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State that allegations against the accused persons are proved by the prosecution during evidence. The complainant as well as other witnesses had given corroborative statement. The accused persons attempted to murder of the complainant while committing robbery with him and further robbed the mobile State vs. Nikesh @ Mukesh & Anr. PS:Janakpuri FIR No.397/2018 Page No. 9 of 16 phone of the complainant. The recovery of the mobile phone from accused Md. Nasim has been duly proved during evidence. The incident has been captured in the CCTV installed near the spot. The accused persons are actual culprit. They had committed a heinous offence. Therefore, accused persons are liable to be convicted.
16. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused persons stated that accused persons are falsely implicated in this case by the police in collusion with the complainant. The alleged recovery is planted upon them. They are not the persons who are allegedly seen in the CCTV Footage. Complainant/eye witness failed to identify them. There is no any public witness regarding the alleged recovery of mobile phone. There is delay in the FIR. During evidence nothing came on record against any of the accused. Therefore, accused persons are liable to be acquitted.
17. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the record. Charge against both the accused persons is that they pressed the neck of the complainant in furtherance of their common intention with intention to cause his death and thereafter, they committed robbery of his mobile phone. Charge is also framed against accused Md. Nasim that he was found in possession of the robbed mobile phone of the complainant.
18. Date of incident is of 20.09.2018 at 03:45 PM. However, the FIR was registered on 21.09.2018 at about 02:14 PM. The complainant's statement was also recorded on 21.09.2018. There is no any reasonable ground for delay in the FIR and for not recording the statement of complainant on the date of incident. There is no any medical document placed on record by the prosecution that on the date of incident, the State vs. Nikesh @ Mukesh & Anr. PS:Janakpuri FIR No.397/2018 Page No. 10 of 16 complainant was not fit for making statement. In endorsement Ex.PW8/A which was made upon the DD No. 50A Ex.PX1, it has been mentioned that on the date of incident, complainant met the police but had not given his statement stating that he will give his statement after discussing with the family. Accordingly, without any reasonable ground complainant got recorded his statement with an unreasonable delay of one day.
19. It is held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ramesh & others Vs. State of The NCT of Delhi 2012 IX AD (Delhi) 15 that "it is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment which is a creature of after thought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, but danger creeps in of introduction of coloured vision, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation".
20. As per the charge-sheet, while narrating the incident the complainant told the police that one boy came from his behind who pressed his neck from behind because of which he fell down. However, in his statement before the Court as PW1, he stated that when he was walking, all of sudden he feel some pressure on his legs and then, he fell down. Therefore, he had given contradictory version regarding his falling down.
21. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., complainant further stated that when he fell down second boy came there who forcibly took away his mobile phone from his pant's pocket and thereafter, he became unconscious for about 2 minutes. However, in his statement before the Court as PW1 he had not stated such thing but he had stated that after his felling down, when he got conscious, he found his mobile phone, his pocket dairy and some documents were missing.
State vs. Nikesh @ Mukesh & Anr. PS:Janakpuri FIR No.397/2018 Page No. 11 of 16
22. In his starting information which was recorded vide No. 50A, the allegations were regarding snatching of mobile and money, in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. complainant stated regarding snatching of only his mobile phone. On the contrary in his statement before the Court, he stated regarding the snatching of his mobile phone, pocket dairy and some documents. As per the prosecution story the statement of complainant was recorded on next day of incident i.e. on 21.09.2018. However, complainant stated in his statement before the Court that his statement was recorded by the police after few days. Complainant nowhere stated in his statement that he had seen any of the accused while committing the offence and accordingly, he had not identified any of the accused. He had stated this fact even in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that he could not see any of the accused persons. Therefore, there is no evidence in the statement of complainant to establish identity of any of the accused as assailant.
23. To establish the identity of accused persons, prosecution had placed on record CD Ex.PW2/4 in which the incident in question was captured. During evidence of the IO, the said CD was played on the computer system installed in the Court, wherein, happening of the incident is found visible. However, as admitted by the IO in cross-examination that face of accused persons were not clearly visible. During evidence of PW2 who had handed over the CCTV Footage to the IO in furtherance of notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. when the CD was played during his statement, the witness had only stated that the said CD was given by him to the IO but had not stated anything about the identity of any of the accused in the footage. He had not given any statement regarding identification of the accused persons present in the Court as the same as seen in the CCTV Footage.
State vs. Nikesh @ Mukesh & Anr. PS:Janakpuri FIR No.397/2018 Page No. 12 of 16 During cross-examination he had stated that he did not see the incident personally. IO/PW9 further admitted in his cross- examination that no any FSL opinion has been taken regarding face identification of the persons seen in the CCTV Footages.
24. The prosecution had also placed on record another CD Ex.PW5/3 which was recorded by PW5 in the Jail regarding videography of walking and running style of accused persons for their comparison with the walking and running style of accused persons seen in the CCTV Footage Ex.PW2/4. The said CD was sent to FSL for scientific examination. However, as per FSL examination report Ex.PW9/A the comparison could not be possible because of low pixel resolution in different orientation in CCTV Footage.
25. Another evidence to identify the accused persons is placed on record by the prosecution is the clothes allegedly worn by both accused persons at the time of committing of the incident for matching the same with the clothes worn by the persons captured in the CCTV footage. The clothes of accused persons were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/4. The sealed clothes were also sent to the FSL for matching the same with the images in CCTV Footage but as per FSL Report Ex.PW9/A, there is no opinion has been given due to the aforesaid reason of low pixel resolution. Further during cross-examination, it is admitted by the IO that such kind of clothes which were allegedly recovered from accused persons are easily available in the market. As per the IO, when accused persons were apprehended, then, they were wearing the same clothes which were seized vide memo Ex.PW4/4. However, there is no any evidence i.e. photograph etc. to show that at the time of apprehension, accused persons were wearing the same clothes State vs. Nikesh @ Mukesh & Anr. PS:Janakpuri FIR No.397/2018 Page No. 13 of 16 which were seized from them. IO had also not clarified that how and from where the arrangement of alternative clothes for accused persons was made when the clothes which they were wearing were seized by the IO at the time of their apprehension.
26. As per statement of IO before the Court, he seized the clothes on 22.09.2018 after the seizing of mobile phone. However, date of seizure memo of mobile phone Ex.PW3/1 is 22.09.2018 whereas date of seizure memo of clothes Ex.PW4/4 is 23.09.2018. The witness upon the seizure memo of clothes is Ct. Anuj who has been examined as PW4 and he stated that the clothes were seized on 23.09.2018.
27. As per IO after seizure of the clothes, he sealed the Pullanda with the seal of 'RS'. However, he had neither mentioned in the seizure memo nor stated in the statement before the Court that he had handed over the seal to any other person after its use to rule out any kind of tempering with the Pullanda/seal before their deposition with the Malkhana. Therefore, seizure of the clothes from accused persons vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/4 becomes doubtful.
28. In view of aforesaid discussion, Court finds that there is no evidence linking any of the accused with the alleged incident of attempt to murder or robbery with the complainant. Regarding recovery of mobile phone, as per prosecution version, the recovery was effected from accused Mohd. Nasim vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/1. There are two recovery witnesses with the IO who are examined as PW3 and PW4 who deposed identical version as and when secret informer pointed out towards accused persons, then, one of them was apprehended by PW3 and other one was apprehended by PW4. Thereafter, on personal search of accused Mohd. Nasim the alleged robbed State vs. Nikesh @ Mukesh & Anr. PS:Janakpuri FIR No.397/2018 Page No. 14 of 16 mobile phone was recovered. However, PW9/IO had not stated anything that which of the accused was apprehended by which of the official and only stated that they were apprehended in furtherance of secret informer and on casual search the robbed mobile phone was recovered from the possession of accused Md. Nasim. Admittedly after seizure of the mobile phone vide memo Ex.PW3/1, the same was not sealed. No any explanation is given by IO that why the said mobile phone was not sealed after its recovery which put a serious doubt on the genuineness of the recovery. During evidence when the mobile phone Ex.P1 was produced before the Court and was identified by the witness, it has been produced in an unsealed envelope. Therefore, the recovery of mobile phone from accused Md. Nasim also becomes doubtful.
29. Other witnesses examined by the prosecution are procedural formal witnesses. None of them had seen the happening of the incident. There is no any scientific or circumstantial evidence placed on record by the prosecution to link any of the accused with the offence alleged against them.
30. As per the settled principles of criminal justice, prosecution has to prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt. However, in this case prosecution failed to do so. Hence, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, Court comes at the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against both accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Benefit of doubt goes to accused persons. Therefore, accused persons namely Nikesh @ Mukesh S/o Sh.Shankar Sahu and Md. Nasim S/o Md. Anamul stands acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 307/392/34 IPC and accused Md. Nasim S/o Md. Anamul also stands State vs. Nikesh @ Mukesh & Anr. PS:Janakpuri FIR No.397/2018 Page No. 15 of 16 acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC in present case FIR No. 397/2018, PS: Janakpuri.
31. Fresh bail bonds and surety bonds u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. are furnished on behalf of both accused persons and same are accepted till six months from the date of judgment. Previous bail bonds of both the accused persons stands cancelled and sureties stands discharged.
32. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by JAGMINDER JAGMINDER Announced in open court SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.05.04 on 04.05.2023 13:11:47 +0530 (DR. JAGMINDER SINGH) ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi/04.05.2023
Note: This judgment contains 16 (Sixteen) pages and having my signature on each page. Digitally signed JAGMINDER by JAGMINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.05.04 13:11:54 +0530 (DR. JAGMINDER SINGH) ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi/04.05.2023 State vs. Nikesh @ Mukesh & Anr. PS:Janakpuri FIR No.397/2018 Page No. 16 of 16