Delhi District Court
In Re: State vs ZiaUlIslam on 1 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF GAURAV RAO: ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
In Re: STATE VERSUS ZIAULISLAM
F.I.R. No: 1195/15
U/s 380 IPC
P.S. Saket
Date of Institution of Case : 20.10.2015
Judgment Reserved for : 01.02.2016
Date of Judgment : 01.02.2016
JUDGMENT:
(a) The serial no. of the case : 167/2/15
(b) The date of commission of offence : 24.09.2015
(c) The name of complainant : Sh. Pramod Chaudhary
S/o Sh. Pram Singh
Chaudhary
R/o H.No. F301, Lado
Sarai, New Delhi.
(d) The name, parentage, of accused : ZiaulIslam
S/o Sh. Kamrul Islam
R/o H.No. F229, Satar
Wali Gali, Devli Village,
New Delhi.
FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 1/18
Permanent Address : As above
(e) The offence complained of : U/s 380 IPC
(f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order : Convicted.
(h) The date of such order : 01.02.2016
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 24.09.2015 at about 6:00 AM at Lado Sarai, Saket, New Delhi within jurisdiction of PS Saket, accused committed theft of one bicycle (make Hero Sprinter) and computer monitor XP (old model) belonging to complainant Sh. Pramod Chaudhary from the above house, used for human dwelling and for custody of property, by moving the same out of the house without consent of complainant and was apprehended red handed at the spot and thus thereby the accused committed offence punishable U/s 380 IPC.
2. Charge sheet was filed in the court and in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. accused was supplied the documents. Thereafter vide orders dated 21.11.2015 charge U/s 380/411 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 2/18
3. In order to prove the charges against the accused, prosecution examined five witnesses, thereafter the PE in the matter was closed and the statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 01.02.2016 wherein he admitted the allegations alleged against him and opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
Brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under.
4. PW01 Sh. Pramod Chaudhary deposed that on 24.09.2015 at about 06.00 AM, he was present at his home i.e. F301, Lado Sarai, Near Qutub Minar, New Delhi and his security guard namely Tej Singh called him at ground floor of the said building and he reached there. He deposed that the security guard told him that the accused (correctly identified in court) was carrying a computer monitor make HP and one cycle make Hero and he apprehended the accused at the main gate of the said building. He deposed that he called to the police at 100 number and police came at the spot. He deposed that he handed over a written complaint to the police as Ex. PW1/A and handed over the accused as well as the stolen articles to the police officials. He deposed that police officials seized the computer monitor and cycle vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. He deposed that police officials prepared the site plan at his instance at the spot as Ex. PW1/C, arrested and carried out personal search of accused vide memos Ex. PW1/D and FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 3/18 E. He deposed that IO recorded his statement again. He identified case properties i.e. computer monitor make HP and one cycle make Hero which was produced by MHC(M) in court in unsealed condition as Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 respectively.
5. Thereafter, this witness was crossexamined by ld. defence counsel Sh. R.V. Singh. During his crossexamination, he stated that he did not give the bill of computer or the cycle to the IO as they were purchased long time back. He stated that Tej Singh was employed as Security Guard 67 years prior to the date of incident. He stated that apart from Sh. Tej Singh, there was one more Security guard who used to perform duty from 08.00 AM till 08.00 PM. He stated that there are two entrances to his house. He stated that the computer used to be kept at basement and the cycle in the garage. He stated that there was no lock on the basement gate. He stated that the distance between the main gate and the washroom is around 4050 feet. He stated that his house is located in a residential area which is thickly populated. He stated that the guard informed him over the telephone as he was in his room on the first floor. He stated that his wife and two kids were present with him at that time. He stated that the Guard had also come to the room personally to inform him. He stated that the Guard told him about apprehension of accused while he was carrying computer monitor and the cycle at the main gate. He stated that at that time the accused was FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 4/18 apprehended and kept in the office under the watch of his father. He admitted that no recovery was effected in his presence. He voluntarily stated that guard had already apprehended accused with the property. He stated that the guard did not raise any hue and cry when he apprehended the accused. He voluntarily stated that the accused was drunk at that time and was not in a position to stand properly. He stated that the accused was apprehended by the guard while he was trying to go outside from the main gate. He stated that he called the police at 100 number and police interrogated him as well as the security guard Tej Singh. He stated that he was called at PS wherein he had also signed some documents. He stated that the arrest memo was prepared at the PS. He stated that he had given the complaint at the spot itself. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that the accused was falsely implicated.
6. PW02 Sh. Tej Singh deposed that on 24.09.2015, he was posted as Security Guard at House No. F301, Lado Sarai, New Delhi which belongs to complainant Parmod Choudhary. He deposed that on that day his duty was from 08.00 PM to 08.00 AM. He deposed that at around 06.00 AM, he went to toilet. He deposed that after sometime, he returned at main gate and saw that the accused (correctly identified in court) was carrying a computer monitor make HP and one cycle make Hero. He deposed that he apprehended accused at the main gate and asked him as to why he was carrying the said articles. He FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 5/18 deposed that the accused did not give any satisfactory reply. He deposed that he called his employer/complainant Parmod Choudhary who came at the main gate and he narrated him the above said facts. He deposed that thereafter Parmod Choudhary called the police at 100 number and police came at the spot. He deposed that they handed over the accused to the police officials and narrated the above said facts to the police officials. He deposed that Parmod Choudhary handed over a written complaint to the police officials and police official seized the said monitor and said cycle vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A. He deposed that IO arrested and carried out personal search of accused vide memos Ex.PW 1/D and Ex. PW 1/E. He deposed that IO recorded his statement.
7. Thereafter, this witness was crossexamined by witness ld. defence counsel. During his crossexamination, he stated that he had been working as Security Guard of GDX for last 67 years. He stated that the monitor was kept in the basement and cycle was kept in garage. He stated that there was no lock on the gate of basement. He stated that the distance between main gate and basement is around 50 feet. He admitted that there are many houses near the house of complainant. He stated that when he had apprehended the accused and confronted him, the accused did not answer anything about the computer and cycle and thereafter he went to call the owner. He stated that he did not raise any hue and cry. He stated that he had called the owner and at that time he had FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 6/18 apprehended the accused. He stated that he had firstly called the owner who was also about to come down from his room. He stated that the accused was kept in the office under the watch of Bauji i.e. complainant's father. He stated that Parmod Chodhary had called the police and police reached within 3045 minutes. He stated that police did not record the statement of Prem Choudhary i.e. the father of complainant. He stated that his statement was recorded at the spot itself. He stated that after the police had come, he had come back to his duty at the gate. He stated that site plan was not prepared in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that the accused was falsely implicated.
8. PW03 W/ASI Kavita deposed that on 24.09.2015, she was posted at PS Saket as Duty Officer from 08.00 AM to 04.00 PM. He deposed that on that day at about 09.20 AM, Const. Amar Sher came with a rukka sent by HC Parveen for registration of FIR and on the basis of rukka, she registered the FIR as Ex. PW 3A (OS&R) and also made endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW3/B.
9. PW04 Ct. Amar Sher Singh deposed that on 23.09.2015, he was posted as constable at PS Saket and was on night picket duty from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM at DDA Park, Lado Sarai. He deposed that at around 6:00 AM, he received a call from Chaudhary Prem Singh' house that one thief was apprehended by them. He FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 7/18 deposed that thereafter, he went to the house of Chaudhary Prem Singh i.e H.No. F301, Lado Sarai where he met Chaudhary Prem Singh, Sh. Pramod Singh and their guard. He deposed that they produced accused ZiaulIslam (correctly identified in court) before him and they told him that the accused had committed theft of a bicycle and a computer monitor. He deposed that thereafter, he informed PS Saket regarding the said theft and after sometime, HC Praveen (IO) reached there. He deposed that IO inquired from Sh. Pramod Chaudhary (complainant) who gave a written complaint to the IO as Ex. PW 1/A. He deposed that IO made endorsement on the same and the rukka was handed over to him for registration of FIR. He deposed that he went to PS and got the FIR registered. He deposed that after registration of FIR, he returned back to spot alongwith original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to IO who seized the stolen article i.e. computer monitor and bicycle vide seizure memo Ex. PW 1/B. He deposed that after interrogation, IO arrested and carried out personal search of accused vide memos Ex. PW 1/D and Ex. PW 1/E, prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant as Ex. PW 1/C. He deposed that IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused as Ex. PW 4/A. He deposed that thereafter, they returned to PS alongwith accused and case property. He deposed that the case properties were deposited in malkhana. He deposed that after medical examination, the accused was produced before concerned court and was sent to JC. He deposed that IO recorded his statement.
FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 8/18
10. PW05 HC Praveen deposed that on 24.09.2015, he was posted as HC at PS Saket and on that day, he was present at PS Saket. He deposed that at around 7:00 AM, he received a call from Ct. Amar Singh who informed that one thief was apprehended at F301, Lado Sarai. He deposed that thereafter, he went to H.No. F301, Lado Sarai and met Chaudhary Prem Singh, Sh. Pramod Singh, guard namely Tej Singh and Ct. Amar Singh who produced the accused ZiaulIslam (correctly identified in court) before him and they told him that the accused had committed theft of a bicycle and a computer monitor. He deposed that he inquired from Sh. Pramod Chaudhary (complainant) who gave a written complaint to him as Ex. PW 1/A. He deposed that he made the endorsement on the same as Ex. PW 5/A and handed over the same to Ct. Amar Singh for registration of FIR. He deposed that Ct. Amar Singh went to PS, got the FIR registered and after registration of FIR, returned back to spot alongwith original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to him. He deposed that he seized the stolen articles i.e. computer monitor and bicycle vide seizure memo Ex. PW 1/B. He deposed that after interrogation, he arrested and carried out personal search of accused vide memos Ex. PW 1/D and Ex. PW 1/E. He deposed that he prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant as Ex. PW 1/C and recorded the disclosure statement of accused as Ex. PW 4/A. He deposed that thereafter, they returned to PS alongwith accused and case FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 9/18 properties. He deposed that the case properties were deposited in malkhana. He deposed that after medical examination, the accused was produced before concerned court and was sent to JC. He deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared the challan and filed the same in court through concerned SHO.
11. This so far is the prosecution evidence in the matter.
12. I have heard the arguments advanced at bar by the Ld. defence counsel as also learned APP, carefully gone through the evidence recorded in the matter and perused the documents placed on record by the prosecution in this case.
13. After hearing the rival contentions raised at bar as well as on careful scrutiny of the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt against the accused.
14. At the outset it will be worthwhile to highlight that today during his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused admitted that on 24.09.2015 at about 6:00 AM at H.No. F301, Lado Sarai, Saket within the jurisdiction of police station Saket, he committed theft of one bicycle make Hero Sprinter and computer monitor XY (old model) from the house of complainant Sh. Pramod Chaudhary.
FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 10/18 The admissions/statements made by the accused are reproduced hereunder: "It is correct. I was intoxicated. I committed theft of above articles to sell them and make easy money.
It is correct that I had committed theft of one computer and one cycle make Hero and I was apprehended by the Guard. It is also correct that police was called and I was arrested in this case."
15. The above answers/statements are admissible against the accused in view of sub clause 4 of section 313 Cr.P.C. and the law laid in cases titled as Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh, (SC) 2002(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 842, Rattan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (SC) 1997 A.I.R. (SC) 768, Sh. Mith kalitha V. State of Assam 2006 Cr.l.J. 2570, State of Rajasthan V. Ganesh Dass 1995 Cr.L.J. 25 (Raj.), Bishwas Prasad Sinha V. State of Assam 2007 (1) Crimes 147 (SC), Anthoney Disuja V State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC 258, State of H.P. V. Wazir Chand AIR 1978 SC 315 and unambiguously prove the presence of accused at the time, date and spot of incident as well as his arrest. It also proves that he had indeed committed the theft as alleged by the prosecution.
16. Apart from admission of the incriminating material brought on record by the prosecution it also stands unambiguously established in view of the deposition of PW1 and PW2 whose testimonies were duly corroborated by other prosecution witnesses that accused ZiaulIslam was caught red handed at FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 11/18 F301, Lado Sarai, New Delhi along with the stolen property on 24.09.2015.
17. The complainant at whose instance the present FIR was registered was examined as PW01 and the said witness categorically proved that on 24.09.2015 at about 06.00 a.m. he was woken up by his Guard Tej Singh who told him that he had apprehended the accused who was carrying a computer monitor and one cycle belonging to the complainant. The complainant proved that after apprehension of the accused he called at 100 number upon which police came to the spot/his house and he gave his written complaint to them. He proved his complaint as Ex. PW1/A and it was this complaint which formed the basis of present FIR. He further proved the arrest of the accused, site plan of the spot and the seizure of the stolen/recovered articles vide Ex. PW1/B to E respectively and identified the same in court as Ex. P1 and P2. This witness/complainant categorically proved/established the identity of the accused as the person who committed theft into his house and was apprehended by his guard namely Tej Singh and later on handed over to the police.
18. Hence, deposition of PW01 Sh. Pramod Chaudhary which remained un impeached is self sufficient to nail the accused. Nonetheless as discussed above the admission made by the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. leaves no doubt whatsoever, regarding the alleged crime being committed by him.
FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 12/18
19. Tej Singh who was the Guard and one who had apprehended the accused along with stolen property was examined by the prosecution as PW2 and he duly corroborated the testimony of PW1. He proved the incident on exactly the same lines as was proved by PW1.
20. Further strength to the prosecution story was lend by PW4 and PW5 i.e. Constable Amar Sher and HC Parveen who proved the arrest of the accused at the instance of complainant and his guard i.e. eye witness. FIR was duly proved on record as Ex. PW3/A by W/ASI Kavita who was examined as PW3. The testimony of PW3 to PW5 remained unchallenged and accordingly I find no reasons to disbelieve them.
21. Hence no doubt remains that accused Zia Ul Islam was apprehended red handed on 24.09.2015 at about 06.00 a.m. immediately after he had committed theft of one computer and cycle belonging to the complainant.
22. As far as the defence is concerned no final arguments were led in defence of accused probably on account of the fact that accused admitted the entire incriminating material against him and left the defence with no alternative but to concede to the prosecution case. Let that be the case the earlier defence FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 13/18 counsel as is evident from the cross examination of PW1 and PW2 had taken a stand that no public witness was joined in the investigation by the IO. It was also defence stand that the father of the complainant was also not cited as a witness though as per the claims of PW1 and PW2 the accused was kept under his watch at the time when the Guard had gone to call the complainant. Even the wife and the children of complainant were not arrayed as witnesses. Furthermore the complainant had not handed over the bill of the computer and the cycle to the IO and that both the articles were produced in unsealed condition during the trial.
23. As far as defence stand as above is concerned firstly in view of admissions made today the defence stand falls completely/holds no ground whatsoever. Nonetheless on merits I find no reasons as to why the complainant, eye witness or the police officials would falsely implicate the accused, there being no previous rivalry/enmity against them. In fact, there is nothing on record to suggest that the accused was known to the complainant or the police officials prior to incident/recovery dated 24.09.2015. The defence has failed to prove on record any motive which could be assigned to the complainant or the IO for falsely implicating the accused.
FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 14/18
24. Just because no independent witness from the locality was joined by the police it cannot be held that the prosecution story is unreliable or false. The deposition of star/material prosecution witnesses i.e. the complainant i.e. Sh. Parmod Choudhary's and Tej Singh's testimony is self sufficient to nail the ac cused. The prosecution story is absolutely consistent as to the apprehension of the accused, receipt of the information at PS, recording of statement of the com plainant, arrest of the accused and deposit of the case property at Malkhana. It is an absolutely flawless story which inspires confidence.
25. Regarding the non joining of the other public persons including the father of complainant or his wife and children who were present at the spot or the adjoining neighborers, it is well settled principle of law that it is the quality of evidence that matters and not the quantity/number of witnesses. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act does not require any minimum number of witnesses to be examined for proving a particular fact ( Sunil Kumar V. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi SC 2004 (1) Criminal CC 524, Krishna Mochi and others Vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 6SCC 81). Further the court/judges cannot sit in an ivory tower of isolation and ignore the fact that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to wash off their hands/desist from joining/assisting the investigation. Civilized people withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante and they keep them selves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. (Ambika Prasad and FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 15/18 others Vs. State, (2002) 2 CRIMES 63 SC) and (AIR 1988 SC 696).
26. There is no requirement of law that everyone who has witnessed the occurrence, whatever there number be, must be examined as a witness. (Amar Singh V. Balwinder Singh (SC) 2003 (1) RCR Criminal 701). In Jawahar v. State, (Delhi) 2007(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 336 it was further observed that (1) It is very hard these days to get association of public witnesses in criminal investigation and (2) Normally, nobody from public is prepared to suffer any inconvenience for the sake of society.
27. As far as the contentions that the IO did not take the bill of computer and cycle on record and also did not seal the case property are concerned, in my opinion this being a case of theft prosecution is not bound to prove the ownership of the goods which have been stolen vizaviz the complainant. For offence u/s 380 IPC which is aggravated form of theft removal of movable property out of the possession of a person without his consent has to be proved only. The ownership of the person regarding the movable property so removed is not requirement of law. In the case at hand the property was removed without the consent of the complainant from the garage and basement of his house. He claimed the property to be his and accused did not claim the same belonged to him. Therefore merely because the IO did not collect the bill it does not effect the FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 16/18 prosecution case in any manner. As far as non sealing of case property is concerned there is no requirement that the case property ought to be sealed after its recovery. It is a matter of caution that the investigating officers are impressed upon to seal the case property so as to rule out its being tempered with. But just because the IO failed to do so that does not render the testimony of the complainant unreliable or untrustworthy. I find no reasons to disbelieve the complainant.
28. Moreover, why should an accused go scott free or the complainant be disbelieved for defective/faulty/negligent investigation (Balwant Singh v. State of Haryana, (SC) 1995 A.I.R. (SC) 84 and Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh 2003 AIR SCW 717). If the IO has failed to perform his duty diligently the complainant cannot be disbelieved or punished for the mistake of the IO.
29. Every faulty investigation or padding in evidence cannot by itself lead to total demolition of prosecution case if it can otherwise stand ignoring these fallacies. Reliance may be placed upon law laid down in Lakshmi v. State of UP (SC) 2002 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 82,. Ram Parshad v. State of Haryana, (P & H) (DB) 1992(3) R.C.R (Criminal) 231, Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujrat (SC), 2004 (4) S.C.C 158 and State of UP v. Jagdeo (SC) 2003 A.I.R. (SC) 660. To do so would tantamount to playing into hands of investigating FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 17/18 officer if investigation is designedly defective.
30. Hence, in view of my above discussion accused ZiaulIslam is convicted in this case U/s 380 IPC.
31. I order accordingly.
32. Copy of the judgment be given to the accused free of cost.
33. Let he be now heard on the point of sentence separately.
Announced in the open (Gaurav Rao)
Court on 01.02.2016 ACMM (South)/Saket Courts/New Delhi.
FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 18/18
FIR No. 1195/15
PS Saket
01.02.2016
Present: Sh. Narender Yadav, ld. APP for the State.
Accused ZiaulIslam on bail present today with proxy counsel Sh. Vipin Chaudhary for Adv. Sh. Dhiraj Kochar.
Statement of accused has been recorded without oath U/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has admitted the allegations levied against him by prosecution and declined to lead defence evidence.
Ld. proxy counsel has submitted on behalf of main counsel that no final argument are to be led on behalf of accused. His separate statement has been recorded to this effect.
I have gone through the material on record and heard the Ld. APP for the State.
Vide separate judgment announced in court today, accused Ziaul Islam S/o Sh. Sh. Kamrul Islam is convicted in this case of offences U/s 380 IPC.
Since, accused is convicted in this case, hence, he is taken into custody and remanded to JC till 03.02.2016.
Renotify the matter now on 03.02.2016 for submissions on the point of sentence.
(Gaurav Rao)
ACMM/South/Saket/01.02.2016
FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 19/18
IN THE COURT OF GAURAV RAO: ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI In Re: STATE VERSUS Zia Ul Islam F.I.R. No: 1195/15 U/s 380 IPC P.S. Saket 03.02.2016 ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict Zia Ul Islam produced from JC with Ld. Counsel Sh. S.K. Sharma who has filed fresh V/N on behalf of accused.
Vide judgment announced on 01.02.2016, accused was convicted U/s 380 IPC.
The learned counsel for accused has submitted for the convict that the convict is the sole bread earner of his family and he is extremely poor and there is no other source of income. It is further submitted that he has old and ailing parents to look after. Furthermore wife of accused is pregnant. It is further prayed that accused/convict be given benefit of section 360 Cr.P.C. and either released on probation or after due admonition.
Per contra, learned APP has very vehemently argued that the act of FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 20/18 2 the accused is unpardonable. It was submitted that the accused deserves no leniency.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made at bar I am of the considered opinion that taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case and most importantly the fact that he is convict in one more case of theft/snatching bearing FIR no. 177/15 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar which proves that the accused is a habitual offender, has a criminal bent of mind, it shall meet the ends of justice if convict Zia Ul Islam is sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/ for offence u/s 380 IPC. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo further SI of 2 months. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. is given to the accused and the period already spent by him in custody be deducted from the sentence so awarded today (24.09.2015 to 29.10.2015 and 01.02.2016 to till date).
I am not inclined to give him benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. as there is a rise in theft/snatching cases and awarding of strict sentence is necessary so that it has a deterrent affect upon the anti social elements of the society who merely to make easy money commit such heinous offences. Moreover the accused is a previous convict as discussed above.
I order accordingly.
Fine not paid.
FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 21/18
3
A copy of this order be given to the convict free of cost. Let conviction warrants be prepared and the accused be remanded to custody to undergo the sentence so awarded today.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open (Gaurav Rao) Court on 03.02.2016 ACMM (South)/Saket Courts/New Delhi. FIR No. 1195/15 State Vs. ZizulIslam 22/18