Delhi District Court
State vs Harvinder Singh on 27 March, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VEENA RANI, CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
FIR No:181/95
U/S 40/51/63/68 A of Copy Right Act
Police Station: Kalkaji
State Versus Harvinder Singh
Date of filing of the charge sheet : 12-03-1996
Date of reserving order : 25-03-2014
Date of pronouncement : 27-03-2014
1. Date of Commission of Offence :10041995
2. Name of complainant :Satish Kapoor
3. Name & address of accused :Harvinder Singh S/o Sh.
Jasbir Singh , R/o E88,
Kalkaji,New Delhi110019.
4. Offence complained of :U/S 40/51/63/68 A of
Copy Right Act
5. Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty.
6. Final order :Acquittal
7. Date of order :27032014
JUDGMENT
1. Case of the prosecution is that on 10041995, at 9:15 p.m, at E7, Kalkaji, New Delhi, accused Harvinder Singh being the proprietor of cable Television Net work Crystal Vision, State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 2 apprehended, illegally exhibiting English film for public viewing "Forrest Gumb" thus he is liable to be punished for the offence punishable under sections 40/51/63/68 A of Copy Right Act.
2. The charge was framed on 23081996 against the accused Harvinder Singh for the offence punishable u/s U/S 63/68 A of Copy Right Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. After framing of charge, initially till 28042005, despite repeated opportunities, the prosecution has examined only four witnesses in order to prove its case and out of the four witnesses the examination & cross examination of PW2 and PW4 were not completed, therefore, the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 2842005 and the case was fixed for recording of statement of accused.
4. On 18102005 the statement of accused was recorded and accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
5. On 24122005, on the application of Ld. APP filed u/s 311 Cr.PC, the state was permitted to recall the witnesses namely PW2 for further examination and PW Sanjeev Kumar for his examination. After examination of above witnesses the State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 3 prosecution evidence was again closed and as nothing incriminating has come on record in the examination of above witnesses, therefore, the recording of statement of accused u/s 281 Cr.PC was dispensed with vide order dated 05092013 and the case was fixed for final argument.
6. PW1 , ASI Vijay Kumar is the IO, who recorded the present case FIR on 1041995. Copy of the FIR is Ex.PW1/A.
7. PW2 is Sh. Satish Kapoor deposed that on 1041995, he had given a written complaint to SHO, P.S. Kalkaji against Crystal Vision E7, Kalkaji and on that day he along with SI Rishi Pal Sharma and Ct. Desh Raj reached at E7, Kalkaji at about 9:15 p.m and they found that from the control room one English Movie Foresh Gumo was being screened, which picture belongs to Motion Picture Export Association of America. PW2 deposed that that picture belongs to member company of the Association. It is deposed by PW1 that in the control room owner of the Crystal Vision Cable Network was also present there, who was questioned by IO to produce licence or authority for exhibition of said film but he could not produce any authority or licence. PW2 further deposed that a VCR which was playing said film along with the cassette of film, name was written on cassette was "FOREST GUMP", was also recovered State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 4 from the control room. PW2 deposed that one VCR, modilator, portable TV, implifier, cable wires and cassettes were taken into possession by the police and sealed with the seal of RPS, Ct. Deshraj took rukka etc to PS, seizure memo and other documents were prepared at the spot. It is deposed by PW1 that he signed the documents at the spot. Complaint filed by PW2 is Ex.PW2/A signed by him at point X. Sezure memo of recovered articles Ex.PW2/B bears the signature of PW2 at point X, photographs of the spot are mark A1 to A9. PW2 also identified the cassette Ex.P1. PW2 also deposed that attested photograph copies of Power of Attorney given by Loyal B Strong Vice President Motion Pictures Exports Association of America in favour of Super Media Network in which PW2 is the the partner which is mark X1 and X2 and the name of member company of the association who was holder of copy right are shown in attested photocopy mark Y. Attested photocopy of registered partnership certificate is mark Z in fvour of M/s Super Media Network. Affidavit onbehalf of member company authorizing Lowell B. Strong, V. President of MPEAA is marked Z1 to Z15 and marked W1 to W3 showing authorization of the member companies to Lowell B Strong. List showing film under MPAA is marked V1 to V18 and the film "Forest Gump" of paramount picture is shown in the list of page mark V14. During the examination of PW2 MHC(M) has produced one white cloth State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 5 pullanda sealed with the court seal of "SS'. The seal was broken and pullanda was opened and a video cassette with a white sticker carrying the title of "Forest Gump (Action)" * INGTom Hank shown to the witness who has identified the same as the same cassette which had been recovered from the office of the accused. The cassette is already Ex. P1.
In his cross examination by the counsel for the accused PW2 has stated that the complaint Ex. PW2/A was not typed on the same day. PW1 admitted that on the pretyped complaint he had filled up the blank portions at point A, B and C and had signed the same. PW2 stated that he cannot tell the name, address or particulars of the person from whom he received the information that the film "Forest Gump" was being exhibited on cable. PW2 further stated that the accused was present at E7, Kalkaji when he had reached there with the police, and remained there for about 2 hours. It is stated by PW2 that IO had made request to 23 persons to join the proceedings but he did not know the names of such persons however, IO may be aware. PW2 stated that he can not say if those persons were neighbors or passers bye. PW2 further stated that they did not visit any house in the locality to see if the movie was being exhibited on the cable network or IO had made an enquiry from any person subsequently regarding his having seen the said State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 6 movie on cable network. PW2 stated that he has the originals of Mark X1, X2 and Y, the executors of these documents were alive at the time when this complaint was made by me, however, he cannot say so about them as on date. PW2 stated that he know Mr. Strong whom he had met at Delhi. PW2 denied the suggestion that no such persons as named in document X1, X2 and Y had ever existed or that he had forged the names as well as signatures of such persons. PW2 further denied that there is no authorization in his favour in respect of any movie of movie maker. PW2 denied that he is in the business of extorting money from the people by implicating them in false cases. PW2 further stated that he has seen the document Mark DB and he has no personal knowledge about its contents. PW2 voluntarily deposed that this document might have been published in the year 2004 by his business rivals containing false and scandalous allegations whereas his case pertains to the year 1995. PW2 also deposed that he is aware of the document Ex. PW2/D1 (earlier marked as DA). PW2 further stated that it is not within his knowledge as to whether the authenticity or otherwise of the video cassette was also got verified and examined from any government department concerned or from censor board etc. During his cross examination PW2 further stated that the photographer was called by the IO. It is stated by PW2 that there were other State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 7 cassettes as well lying at the spot, however, none of the other such cassettes were either checked or taken into possession. PW2 denied the suggestion that the movie in the video cassette was not being publically exhibited on cable T.V. but the said cassette was only lying there or that the accused was also not present at the spot rather he was called thereafter two hours of our reaching there. PW2 denied that the cassette was already sealed before calling the accused and the same was also not shown to him despite his repeated requests or that none of the cassettes lying in the shop were illegal or without certification. PW2 further stated that he had never facilitated any talks of the IO with either of the persons named in documents X1, X2 and Y. PW2 further denied that he got made a false case against the accused in connivance with the police in order to extort money. Certain Court questions were also put to the accused which are as under: Q. With whom the copy right of this movie vested?
Ans. Paramount pictures. Q. whether paramount pictures was the producer or the director of this movie? Ans. Paramount picture was the producer of this movie. Q. By virtue of which communication paramount picture had
authorized you to safe guard its interest in respect of the movie?
State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 8 Ans. Since the paramount pictures was a member of Motion Pictures Export Association of America which had authorized me to safe guard the interest of its members hence, I was authorized in respect of paramount pictures as well.
8. PW3 ASI B Brahm Parkash deposed that on 10495, he was posted at P.S. Kalkaji, at about 9 p.m to 9:15 p.m., he alongwith Ct. Desh Raj and SI Rishi Pal and complainant went to E7, Kalkaji, New Delhi, there they found one office by the name of crystal Vision, there they saw one Harwinder S/o Jasbir sitting inside, cable TV was being run inside the office and one picture was being shown, IO got taken photographs using the camera of the complainant, , VCR TV was stopped and the cassette was taken out, cassette was put in Pullanda using cloth and seal of RPS was affixed and VCR, TV, Amplifier, Cable wire, two leads, modulator were also seized through seizure memo already Ex.PW2/B bearing his signature at point Y. PW3 further deposed that seal after use was handed over to him, IP prepared tehrir and sent Ct. Desh Raj with it to register the FIR in the police station, IO prepared site plan and questioned the accused and arrested the accused vide personal search memo Ex. PW3/A bearing his signature at point A. PW3 further deposed that the photographs of the spot are mark A1 to A9 and the cassette is Ex.P1. PW3 identified the accused and cassette Ex.P1 in the State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 9 court. During his cross examination PW3 remained stick to his statement made by him in his examinationinchief. However, during his cross examination PW3 admitted that they had not seen the said movie being shown on any other TV/Monitor at any other premises except Crystal Vision. PW3 denied the suggestion that he was not the member of raiding party or no proceedings were conducting in his presence.
9. PW4 SI, Rishi Pal, also deposed on the same line as deposed by the PW3. However, during his cross examination PW4 stated that he can not tell as to who are the persons shown in the photographs placed on record. He further stated that accused was not present at the time when they raised the premises and accused had come later on from his house. PW4 stated that all the memos were prepared after the registration of FIR. PW4 also stated that he did not sent the seized video cassette for any kind of forensic cinematography or sensor verification. It is stated by PW4 that he went by the word of the complainant who stated that the movie contained in the video is "Forest Gumb".
10. PW 5, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeev Kapoor deposed in his examinationinchief that on 10.04.1995 he had gone to PS Kalkaji alongwith Mr. Satish Kapoor. PW5 Sanjeev Kapoor State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 10 deposed on the same line as deposed by PW2 Sh. Satish Kapoor. During his cross examination by Sh. Sugam Puri, Advocate for accused, PW5 stated that he does not remember if he had stated in his statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.c regarding the fact that film Forest Gump was running on T.V. in the control room at the spot or that the said video cassette was a pirated cassette of film Forest Gump without any copyright particulars and censor certificate. PW5 further stated that the copyright related documents i.e power of attorney granting the complainant company, exclusive copyrights in India along with other such documents were annexed with the complaint filed in the PS. PW5 further stated that he personally had not information that the said movie was being telecasted on cable network of the accused. PW5 admitted that they had a set of pretyped complaints having blanks for filling information like the PS the name and address of the accused and the movie being shown in a situation when they got sudden information in this regard. It is stated by PW5 that the complainant took photographs of the spot. PW5 stated that he does not remember if the accused was present at the time when the said photographs were being taken. The witness further state that in the photographs Mark A1 to A9, no photographs shows that the said movie was being telecasted on a television. PW5 denied that complainant was not having right, title or interest in the movie or copyright in the State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 11 said movie granted to him by the original copyright holder. PW5 further denied that accused Harvinder Singh was not present at the spot when the said raid was conducted. PW5 denied the suggestion that he was deposing in this court fraudulently on the behest of my elder brother (complainant) who was regularly indulging in malpractices of extorting money from innocent cable operators. PW5 also denied that he was not never part of such raid and the entire memos and incriminating evidence has been planted on the accused.
11. I have heard ld. Counsel for the accused person and Ld. APP for the state.
12. Copyright in India The copyright in India has travelled a long way since it was introduced during the British rule. The first law on copyright was enacted in the year 1847 by the then Governor General of India. When Copyright Act 1911 came into existence in England, it became automatically applicable to India, being India an integral part of British Raj. This act was in force in the country until after independence when a new copyright act (the Act of 1957) came into effect in 1958. Thereafter the Act has undergone many amendments. The latest in the series is the 1994 Amendment, which came into force in May 1995.
State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 12
13. The Indian Copyright Act confers copyright on a. original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, b. cinematographic films and c. sound recordings.
14. Cinematographic Works Copyright in cinematographic works is more complex in nature as there exists a variety of copyrights in a single work and many a times these rights are also overlapping. The first right in a film is the `theatrical right' i.e. the right to exhibit films in theatres. The producer is the copyright holder. The distributors buy theatrical rights from producers and then make some arrangements with the theatre owners for actual exhibition to the public. The theatrical rights are limited by territory and time. Films are also released in video cassettes. In fact, these days viewing film at home has become more popular than seeing the same at theatres. The producers sell the video rights to another party, who makes video cassettes for sale in the market. These cassettes are meant for `home viewing' only i.e. one can buy a copy of it for seeing at home with family members and friends. Such cassettes can not be used for showing the film in cables or through satellite channels.
State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 13 Because showing films in cables or satellite channels require acquisition of separate sets of rights namely `cable rights', and `satellite rights'.
15. A cable network is generally limited to local areas as it requires receivers (viewers' TVs) which are to be physically connected through cable wire to the operators. In case of satellite channels, however, there is no such physical limit as transmission takes place through air and received at the users end by dish antenna(s). Interestingly in India satellite transmissions, in most of the cases, reach to endusers through cable networks only.
16. The cable networks in India work in a twotier system. At the top there are main operators who transmit their programmes through numerous small local operators on a franchise basis. As mentioned earlier programmes of satellite channels reach the viewers through cable networks. The (main)cable operators do not pay anything to satellite channels for showing latter's programmes in the network, except for pay channels (e.g. ESPN, Zee Cinema, Movie Club etc). The small cable operators, however, share their incomes with their respective main operators. The revenue for small operators come from the subscription of viewers.
17. Piracy of cinematographic works takes two principal forms, namely `video piracy' and `cable piracy'. However, piracy in one State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 14 form can spill over and affect the revenues of the other. Video piracy takes place when a film is produced in the form of video cassette without taking proper authorisation from the right holder i.e. producer. Many times producers of films sell video rights to another party (generally after six weeks or more of release in theatres ) who makes video cassettes for selling or lending. The video cassettes kept for sale are meant for home viewing only. Any commercial use of such cassettes like in video parlours or in cable networks amounts to copyright violation. Two types of video piracies are common in India. One, where video right for films has not been sold at all (by the producer) but video cassettes are available in the market for buying or borrowing. And two, when video right is (legally) sold to a party, but cassettes are made and sold by others (pirates) as well.
18. Cable piracy is unauthorised transmission of films through cable network. As mentioned above, showing a film in a cable network requires acquisition of proper authorisation from the rightholder. But many a time, films , especially the new releases, are shown through cables without such authorisation, which tantamount to piracy. Piracy is a rare phenomenon in satellite channels because such channels are organised and generally do not show films without buying proper rights. But there are cases where right of one channel operator is violated by others. It is very difficult to give even a rough estimate of video piracy in India because information in this regard is State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 15 scanty and not accessible. But video piracy in both the forms are quite rampant here. Besides this, piracy through video parlours is largely prevalent normally in the rural India or smaller towns. Perhaps more widespread and damaging is the cable piracy. These days almost all new releases are shown in the cable simultaneously with the exhibitions in theatres . As per a resolution adopted by the Film Makers Combine, video release of a film can be made only after six weeks of theatrical release. But cable operators show such films much before the stipulated time period. This is a clear case of cable piracy and its extent is considerably high in country. All parties involved in the legitimate transaction of films from the producers to the theatre owners, lose heavily because of widespread video or cable piracy. The Government also loses because pirates' activities do not bring in any revenue such as entertainment tax at theatres and excise duty and sales tax at the points of legitimate production/selling.
19. When we talk of Videos Rights visàvis Cinematic Rights, there are distinct groups. The original producers of a cinema, who are the sole rightholders, can sell cinematographic rights, Video rights, Cable rights, commercial rights and satellite rights. These are:
Cinematic Rights Video Rights
Theatrical Home rental
Non theatrical Home see through
State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 16 Public Video Commercial
20. Video rights are generally sold for home rental and home see through. In the case of home rental rights, the right holders after producing the cassettes rent these out to the homes for a specified time for which some fees are charged. They mostly arrange these through the video libraries. Similarly, for home see through the video cassettes can be bought from dealers/shops etc. and can be seen at home only. However, in both the cases, these video cassettes cannot be utilised for cable or any other commercial purposes e.g. showing in video parlour, hotels, transport carriers, etc. If the cassettes are used for any of these commercial purposes it would be violation under Indian copyright law. This form of copyright violation in the video originates from the act that even if the producers have not sold the right for a film, the same can be seen in cable network. According to S.2(ff) of the copy right act "communication to the public" means making any work available for being seen or heard or otherwise enjoyed by the public directly or by any means of display or diffusion other than by issuing copies of such work regardless of whether any member of the public actually sees, hears or otherwise enjoys the work so made available.
THE DELIBERATIONS ON THE MERITS OF THE PRSENT CASE State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 17
21. Now coming to the case in hand. The defence of the accusedherein is that he was privately viewing the movie and that it was not being transmitted to anyone else in the public. The PW3 has also admitted that the police team had not seen the movie being played anywhere else other than 'Crystal Vision'.
S63. Offence of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act. Any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of
(a) the copyright in a work, or
(b) any other right conferred by this Act, [except the right conferred by section 53A] 126[shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees :
Provided that [where the infringement has not been made for gain in the course of trade or business] the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine of less than fifty thousand State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 18 rupees.] Explanation.Construction of a building or other structure which infringes or which, if completed, would infringe the copyright in some other work shall not be an offence under this section.
AUTHORIZATION OF THE COMPLAINANTHEREIN TO LODGE THE PRESENT COMPLAINT
22. In order to appreciate the issue we need to appreciate the core of S.64 of Copy Right Act, 1957:
Section 64:Power of police to seize infringing copies: [(1) Any police officer, not below the rank of subinspector, may , if he is satisfied that an offence under section 63 in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed,, seize without warrant, all copies of the work, and all plates used for the purpose of making infringing copies of the work, wherever found, and all copies and plates so seized shall, as soon as practicable, be produced before a Magistrate].
(2)Any person having an interest in any copies of a work [,or plates] seized under sub section (1) may, within fifteen days of State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 19 such seizure, make an application to the magistrate for such copies [or plates] being restored to him and the Magistrate, after hearing the applicant and the complainant and making such further inquiry as may be necessary, shall make such order on the application as he may deem fit.
23. An aspect being harped upon by the accused is that the complainant was not authorised to lodge a complaint against the accused. The witness PW4 has been crossexamined at length on this issue of competence of the complainantherein to lodge the complaint. The copyright act nowhere suggests the criteria / qualification of a complainant. The section 64 of the Indian Copyright Act confers the power on the police to seize infringed copies of copyrighted works. The section authorises any Police officer, not below the rank of a subinspector, to seize without warrant, all copies of the work wherever found if he is satisfied that an offence under section 63 in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work has been, is being, or is likely to be committed and all copies and plates so seized shall, as soon as practicable, be produced before a magistrate. As per the sub section (1) of the section 64, the power of seizing infringing copies has been conferred on sub inspector and above. The wordings of the provisions do not revolve around the requirement of an complainant as much as it does on the satisfaction of the police in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed. The arguments of the accusedherein is therefore State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 20 are not forceful on that account.
Crucial Evidence of PW5 Sh. Sanjive Kumar
24. The PW5 (Sh. Sanjiv Kumar) accompanied the complainant to the police station and remained with him throughout the entire proceedings. His statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was not recorded on spot but in the police station. The Ld. Counsel for the accused confronted PW5 on two facts which were stated during the chiefexamination in the court but were not mentioned under S.161 Cr.P.C. statement:
i. That the movie 'Forest Gump' was running on the T.V. in the control room of M/s Crystal Vision (this was not mentioned by PW5 under S.161 Cr.P.C. statement);
ii. That the video cassette was pirated and without any copyright particular and the censor certificate (this was also not mentioned by PW5 under S.161 Cr.P.C. statement)
25. It is the established principle of law that under Cr.P.C. the statement under S.161 Cr.P.C. can be used for confrontation. The fact of the pirated movie being played in the control room is the core issue. When the complainant testifies something State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 21 before the court which was not mentioned before the police, there are doubts that the witness has deliberately improved upon his statement.
26. It was indeed an offense on part of the accusedherein if he was showing the movie to the public through his cable network. The whole defence of the accused is that he was not doing so. PW3 (ASI Balram Prakash) has also admitted that he had not checked by visiting any other neighbouring locality / house whether the movie was being played to the public. This gives some benefit of doubt to the accusedherein. The testimony of PW5 (Sh. Sanjive Kumar) would be crucial who admitted that he kept blank cyclostyled complaints which could be filled up with the P.S. and the movie being displayed. Though having cyclostyled blank complaints would not vitiate the proceedings per se, it would be given due consideration under the 'overall' circumstances. The PW5 was further put questions regarding the conduct of the complainant Sh. Satish Kapoor that he extorted money from people after lodging complaints. PW5 was specifically asked that ACP (IPR Section) had warned public by way of public notice to be beware of Sh. Sanjive Kapoor who was extorting money by representing himself as representative of foreign cinema companies. The copy of the said public notice is placed on record as Mark 'DA' (English) and Mark 'DB' (Hindi). I may add here that though there is no requirement of a complainant here, the background and the conduct of the complainant is generally seen by the court.
State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 22 Therefore another benefit of doubt goes to the accusedherein.
27. The witness PW5 has confirmed that the photographs were being taken by the complainant himself. It was the duty of the I.O. to take photographs without depending on the complainant. Furthermore the PW5 had also admitted that the accused was not seen in any of the nine photographs A1 to A9. He further said none of the photograph showed the movie was telecasted on a television. The said PW5 had correctly identified the accused in the court. The irresistible inference is that the presence of the accused at the time of the offence is not established.
28. The witness PW5 also said regarding the was no public witness present at the spot. It is general law that search should be made in the presence of public witnesses in order to rule out 'planting'.Though, it is not the case that police witnesses were not material witnesses or on their sole testimonies accused could not have been convicted but it is well settled that inthe absence of any independent witness,the contradictions in the testimonies though minor in nature should also be viewed seriously as decided in Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Haryana, 2004(4) RCR 103 wherein it was held that:
Recovery effected at a place where independent witness were available but not joined Discrepancies in statement of official witnesses Discrepancies State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 23 assume importance when no independent witness was joined.
29. In Passi @ Parkash V State of Haryana, 2001(1) RCR 435 wherein it was held that:
Discrepancies in statement of witnesses assumed importance due to non joining with independent witness. Had an independent witness been joined these discrepancies would not have affected the prosecution.
30. In Pawan Kumar Vs Delhi Admn. 1987 CC. Cases 585(HC) wherein it has been held that:
Inthe normal circumstances, the FIR number should not find mention on the recovery memo or the sketch plan which had come into existence before the registration of the case.
31. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt therefore the accusedherein Harvinder Singh stands acquitted for the offence U/s 63/68 A of Copy Right Act. His bail bond and surety bond, if any, stands cancelled and discharged. Original Documents of surety, if any, be returned to State Vs. Harvinder Singh, FIR No:181/1995 24 its rightful claimant(s) after cancellation of endorsement on the same. File be consigned to record room after completion of other necessary formalities in this regard.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
TODAY ON 27032014 ( VEENA RANI)
CMM/SE/SAKET COURT/ND.