Delhi District Court
State vs Zikru Rehman Etc. on 8 March, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SHRI LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA : ACMM/
NORTH EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
State Vs ZIKRU REHMAN ETC.
FIR NO. 152/95
U/S: 419,420,468 /471,120B IPC
Crime Branch
P.S.: Shahdara
Date of Institution of case:12.05.1997
Date on which judgment is reserved: 08.03.2010.
Date on which judgment is delivered: 08.03.2010.
J U D G M E N T
a) Sl. no. of the case 51/C/08
b) Date of commission of offence Exact date not known, around
year 1993
c) Name of complainant Shri G.S. Aggarwal,Tehsildar,
Delhi.
d)Name of accused, his parentage and
addresses:
1. Zikru Rehman @ Kallan S/o
Sh.Abdul Rheman R/o:Village
Behta, Hazipur, Loni Distt.
Ghaziabad U.P.
2) Sirajuddin S/o Khan Bahadur
Firajuddin R/o: Kothi No. 71,
Boundary Road, Lal Kurti Meerut
U.P. near Lal Banglow Telephone
Exchange Cantt. U.P.
3. Hamida Begam wife of Sirajuddin
R/o: Kothi No. 71, Boundary Road, Lal Kurti
Meerut U.P. Near Lal Banglow Telephone
Exchange, Meerut Cantt. U.P.
4.Mumtaz Ahmed Chawla S/o Sh. Fazal
Ahmed Chawla R/o: 1039, Kishan Ganj,
Teliwara, Delhi
5) Zahir Ahmed S/o Nasibuddin Ro:Village
Nand Nagri Mandoli, Delhi
6) Lal Singh S/o Sh. Multan Singh R/o: H.
No. 839/1/11, Hira Park, Najafgarh Road, Delhi
1
(Proceedings abated vide order dtd. 1.8.09 after his death on 24.3.09)
7) Ershad Ali S/o Sh.QyumAli R/o : H. No. 738, Matiya Mahal , Jama Masjid Delhi (Proclaimed offender vide order dtd.
17.8.99)
8)Vijay KumarSingh S/o Sh. Rajender Singh Naib Tehsildar HQ Tehsil now posted as Labour Inspector , office of the Labour Commissioner,Rajpur Road, Delhi
9) Ram Rattan Verma S/o Sh. Ram Naraian , N.O.K. (HQ), Tehsil, Tis Hazari Court Delhi
10) Ram Kishan S/o Sh. Ganda Ram Patwari, Village Siqdharpur, Tehsil Tis Hazari Court, Delhi R/o: J3/54,Jai Prakash Nagar Ghonda, Delhi 53.
(Discharged vide order dtd. 17.01.03)
e) Offence complained of or proved U/S:419,420,468,471/120B
IPC
g) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
h) Final order : Acquitted
i) Date of such order : 08.03.2010
j) Brief reasons for the just decision of the case
1. In brief the prosecution case against the accused persons namely Zikru Rehamn @ Kallan, Sirajuddin, Hamida Begam, Mumtaz Ahmed Chawla, Zahir Ahmed @ Zahiruddin S/o Nazibuddin, Lal Singh , and Vijay Kumar Singh is that in or around year 1993 aforesaid accused persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy and had committed the offence of cheating by impersonation and forgery in the documents relating to land admeasuring 3 Bighas, 3 Biswas of Khasra No. 715/27 situated in Village Sikdarpur, Delhi. Accused Hamida Begam impersonated herself as 2 Farida Khatoon D/o Hamida Khatoon and D/o Maulvi Abdul Wahid and had executed a GPA dtd. 17.11.93 in favour of accused Mumtaz Ahmed Chawla and accused Zikru Rehamna and Zahir Ahmed had identified Hamida Khatoon as Farida Khatoon and had got mutated the land in favour of Mumtaz Ahmed Chawla . All the aforesaid accused persons had cheated the Govt. as well as the Kashtkars Ajay and Vijay by transferring the said land on the basis of forged Will, GPA and agreement to sell and had deprived the actual owner thereof from its ownership. Accused persons had also committed forgery of Will , GPA and agreement to sell in favour of Mumtaz Ahemd Chawla. Accused Hamida Begam used the above stated forged documents as genuine knowing the same as forged documents and had committed the offence. Accused persons were arrested for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B IPC and later on released on bail by the court orders being involved in a non bailable offences case.
2. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed in the court. Cognizance of offence was taken by the Ld. predecessor against all the accused persons. Accused persons were summoned to face trial. They had accordingly appeared to contest the case on its merits. Charge was framed against them on 3.6.00 to which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed 3 trial.
3. Before averting to the evidence of prosecution it shall be worthwhile to consider the brief facts leading to the registration of the present case which are as under:
One Hamida Khatoon D/o Maulvi Abdul Wahid and wife of Khan Bahadur Mohd. Suleman was stated to be the actual owner and landlord of the property in question who was stated to have executed a Will dtd.
01.10.1971 in favour of her daughter Farida Khatoon wife of Sirajuddin.
The said Hamida Khatoon had given the property in dispute on Kashtkari to one Bhagwan Sahai and after his death the Kashtkari rights devolved upon his son Kehar Singh and after death of said Kehar Singh the said rights had devolved upon his sons namely Ajay Kumar and Vijay Kumar. On 17.9.93, one Farida Khatoon who was stated to be accused Hamida Begam in the present case had applied for mutation of property in her name before the Competent Authority, on the basis of death certificate dtd. 18.02.83 produced by her pertaining to the death of her alleged mother Hamida Khatoon. After satisfying itself, the Competent authority passed the mutation order on 19.10.93. However feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Kashtkar Ajay Kumar preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which was allowed vide order dtd. 15.11.94. During investigation, it was revealed that the death certificate produced by accused Hamida 4 Khatoon was actually a forged and fabricated one and actually it was issued in respect of one Mirza Usman Beg. It was also revealed that there was no clue or trace of Hamida Khatoon as referred above regarding her residing in India before 1950 or at any subsequent period thereafter. The so called Farida was identified as Hamida Begam D/o Hazra Begam and wife of Sirajuddin. Investigation also revealed that said Hamida Begam wife of Sirajuddin had got married on 10.10.76 so there was no question of her being referred to his wife as Sirajuddin by said Hamida Khatoon in her Will dtd. 1.10.1971. Not only this but also, the property in question was stated to have acquired by the Govt, and being looked after by DDA. Complainant in this case was made as one G.S. Aggarwal working as Tehsildar who had made this complaint at the instance of Crime Branch. The role assigned to each of the accused persons was as under:
Zikru Rehman:
As per the allegations he had identified Hamida Begam as Farida Begam D/o Hamida Khatoon and had also signed as witness on receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/ as well as had witnessed the will dtd. 27.1.94 and agreement to sell dtd. 27.1.94 executed by said Farida Begam in favour of accused Mumtaz Ahmed Chawla.
2. Sirajuddin 5 It has been alleged against him that he was the husband of accused Hamida Begam@ Farida Begam who had identified her as such and had also forged the death certificate of Mirza Usman Beg and converted into the copy of death certificate of Hamida Khatoon.
3. Hamida Begam W/o Sirajuddin D/o Hazra Begam /Hazrat Begam (Prime Accused in this case).
She has been accused of representing herself as Farida Khatoon who got mutated the property in her favour and thereafter not only executed a GPA dtd. 17.11.93 in favour of accused Mumtaz Ahmed Chawla but had also sold same to the accused Mumtaz Ahmed Chawala for an alleged consideration of Rs. 2 Lacs.
Mumtaz Ahmed Chawla He has been accused of acting in collusion and in connivance with main accused Hamida Begam who got himself appointed as GPA of alleged Farida Khatoon on 17.11.93 and had also obtained the possession of property in dispute from the persons who were actually in possession thereof namely Ajay Kumar and Vijay Kumar LRs of Late Kehar Singh. Not only this but also, on 27.1.94 he had allegedly purchased a land in question from Farida Khatoon for a sale consideration of Rs. 2 lacs. It has been stated that he has been playing dubious all the way as in a complaint 6 dtd. 16.3.95 addressed to the LG of Delhi, he had claimed himself to be in possession of land since 1990, whereas in a notice dtd. 8.8.94 he had claimed himself to be in possession of land in question since 1991 and he was also shown as in possession of the land in the Revenue records on 8.11.93 . Whereas actually GPA in his favour was executed only on 17.11.93. Hence there was no need and occasion for him to have shown himself in possession of land on any other day prior to 17.11.93.
5. Zahir Ahmed @ Zahiruddin S/o Nasibuddin He has been accused of identifying Mumtaz Ahmed Chawla and Farida Khatoon.
6.Lal Singh He has been accused of making manipulations in the entries of Revenue records and had also being an instrument of an accused by getting the possession delivered to Mumtaz Ahmed Chawla.
4. Accused Ram Kishan had preferred revision against the order of charge and was discharged vide order dtd. 17.01.03 . Similarly accused Ram Rattan Verma had also preferred a revision which was dismissed vide order dtd. 21.04.01. Remaining accused persons namely Vijay Kumar Singh, Hamida, Sirajuddin, Mumtaz Ahmed Chawla and Lal Singh had also preferred revision against framing of charge which was dismissed on 1.3.01. 7
5. Despite citing a total number of 28 witnesses, in order to prove its case prosecution has been able to examine only 13 witnesses (PW7 has been repeated twice in respect of HC Sahab Singh as well as Bhagwan Singh S/o Khubi Singh, Advocate.)
6. PW1 ASI Jai Prakash was posted as HC at PS Shahdara on 10.04.95 and was working as duty officer on the said date. he has placed and proved on record carbon copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/A and during his cross examination he had also admitted that middle portion of the FIR was recorded by one Constable upon his directions as he did not know how to write English.
7. PW2 is G.S. Aggarwal who is the complainant in the present case. He has placed on record his complaint addressed to DCP Crime Branch as Ex.PW2/A. In his further examination in chief he had reiterated the story as set out by the prosecution in the charge sheet. Document dtd. 14.6.94 has been placed on record by the witness as Ex.PW2/B. During his cross examination by Ld. counsel for the accused V. K.Singh, he had admitted it to be correct that in the enquiry conducted by crime branch, the allegations were found against the public persons only. and Sh. V.K. Singh Naib Tehsildar had adopted the procedure as per law. He further deposed in his cross examination that office kanoongo used to assist the Niab Tehsildar in the office work and the file for every application for mutation was used to 8 be prepared by Kanoongo and then the same was presented before Niab Tehsildar for further action . He had also deposed that the statement of applicant and his witnesses were being recorded by the Kanoongo in the presence of Naib Tehsildar as per procedure and if the Naib Tehsildar came to the conclusion that the case was fit for mutation he used to pass the order accordingly. He further admitted it to be correct that V.K.Singh had conducted the mutation proceedings while discharging his official duty. He had further deposed that as per procedure the statements of two persons, identifying the applicant were also recorded during the mutation process. In routine also the mutation recorded by any of the Naib Tehsildar were being cancelled by the competent authority if the appeals were found tenable. He further admitted it to be correct that while going through the file of the mutation he had found that V.K. Singh Naib Tehsildar had adopted the correct procedure.
8. During his cross examination by Ld. counsel for the accused Lal Singh he had categorically stated that accused Lal Singh had no role to play in mutation.
9. During cross examination on behalf of accused Mumtaz Chawla witness has categorically stated that jamabandi was a complete proof for ownership of any land. Khasra and Girdwari was the proof of possession of the land. He had further deposed that this land was not 9 acquired by the DDA and he was tehsildar from March, 1993 to March, 1995. As per the record of the ownership the land in question was not the custodian land as well. He could not depose if the meaning of matruka was "custodian land". He had further deposed that he had not personally inspected the land in question at any point of time. He could not tell as to who was in possession of land in question as the same was not his function. He could not remember if he had seen the GPA executed in favour of Mumtaz Ahmed Chawla as mentioned in his complaint Ex.PW2/A. He had deposed further that the complaint was made on receipt of report from crime branch Delhi police and after obtaining approval from the DCP Delhi. He had further deposed that the contents of Ex.PW2/A were purely based on report filed by police and he had no personal knowledge about the same and stated that there was no role of GPA dtd. 17.11.93 in the mutation.
10. PW: 3 is ASI Anup Singh No. 1990 ND who had deposed that on 16.6.95 he was posted as HC at LBR Section Crime Branch Delhi. He had joined the investigation of the present case and he alongwith SI Hari Ram went to Meerut. He had deposed that firstly they went to Mahila PS Meerut and after taking the women police from there, they went to Banglow no. 71 where accused Sirajuddin was found present who had further deposed that his wife Hamida Khatoon had gone to Delhi. IO had interrogated the accused and arrested him later on and information regarding arrest of 10 accused Sirajuddin was given at Lal Kurti PS. He had further deposed that disclosure statement Ex.PW3/A of accused was recorded by the IO. He had further deposed that they went to Village Baheta Hazipur, PS Loni in search of accused Jagrur Rheman @ Kallan as disclosed by the accused in his disclosure statement. Accused Kallan was also found at his house and he was interrogated by him and had also recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW3/B. IO had also prepared seizure memo Ex.PW3/C.
11. During cross examination by the Ld. counsel for accused Sirajuddin and Hameeda witness had deposed that they had gone to Meerut in a pvt. vehicle and could not tell the no. and make of the vehicle at that moment. He had further deposed that they were four persons who had started from Delhi including himself, Ct. Saheb Singh and one more Ct. whose name he could not remember. He further stated that after reaching at Meerut they had made their arrival entry at Meerut. Witness could not tell the specific place where this Mahila PS was located. . He had further deposed that the accused was present at his bunglow with other family members. He further deposed that the information of arrest of accused was given at Lal Kurti PS . He could not tell the time of departure of police team for village Baheta Hazipur and similarly also could not depose the time of arrival. They had made their arrival entry at PS Loni but he did not remember the DD No. He could not tell the name of the SHO and also the house no. of the accused 11 Kallan.
12. PW4 ASI Savitri No. 3108/D, CAW Cell , Nanakpura, Delhi had deposed that IO had arrested accused Hamida Begam in her presence and had also recorded her disclosure statement Ex.PW4/A, personal search memo of accused Ex.PW4/B and thumb impression of accused were obtained by IO vide Ex.PW4/C to Ex.PW4/J.
13. PW5 is HC Ram Karan No. 196/SB, Special Cell who had deposed that on 10.04.95 SI Hari Ram had given him a tehrir which he had taken to PS Shahdara and had given it to Duty officer for recording of FIR. After registration of FIR he returned back to the office of Crime Branch and handed over copy of FIR and original tehrir to the IO.
14. PW6 is one of the sufferers/victims of the case namely Vijay Kumar S/o kehar Singh who had stated that land was wrongly mutated in the name of Farida Khatoon by Hamida Khatoon through fake documents as there was no legal heir of Hamida Khatoon. Accused Mumtaz Ahmed Chawla was also stated to have got a wrong mutation of land done in his favour through said Hamida Khatoon. He had also placed on record certain documents Ex.PW6/A . However, his testimony is inadmissible in evidence as same remained incomplete and unconcluded because it was deferred for want of certified copies of some documents and could not be completed thereafter at any subsequent occasion whatsoever. 12
15. PW7 is HC Sahab Singh No. 873, NW, PS Saraswati Vihar who had deposed that on 26.7.95 and 27.7.95 IO SI Hari Ram had taken the specimen signatures and handwriting of accused Ram Rattan,Mumtaz Ahmed Chawla, Sirajuddin and Noorm Ahmed bearing marks S 34 to S 74 collectively placed on record as Ex.PW7/A bearing his signatures at point A. The handwriting of accused Sirajuddin was taken on 17.6.95 bearing mark S1 to S24 Collectively placed on record as Ex.PW7/B. During his cross examination by Ld. counsel for the accused Mumtaz Ahmed Chawla he had stated that he did not know as to whether IO had taken any permission from the court before obtaining writing and signatures from the accused persons or not. He had also failed to identify either of the accused persons in the court.
16. PW8(wrongly numbered as PW7) is Shri Bhagwan Singh S/o Khubi Singh working as Advocate who had deposed that earlier he was working as typist and some parties had come to him for drafting some documents pertaining to some property. Thereafter he called Advocate Ramesh Vashist who had prepared the rough draft of documents namely GPA,Receipt, agreement and Will. Name of seller was stated to one Farida Khatoon but witness could not remember the name of the purchaser . He had also failed to identify either of the accused persons in the court. During his cross examination he had admitted it to be correct that they used to affix 13 photographs of the persons on the documents.
17. PW9 (wrongly numbered as PW8) is Shri Ramesh Vashisth who had stated that on 27.1.91 typist Bhagwan Singh came to him for attestation of some documents but he could not remember as to whether parties had also accompanied him or not. He has placed on record 7 pages collectivey exhibited as Ex.PW8/A bearing his signatures at point A to A9 and further stated that he did not remember as to whether parties themselves were present at the time of attestation of documents or not nor he could say as to whether the said seller or purchaser were present in the court on the date of his deposition or not. He had admitted it to be correct during his cross examination by the Ld. APP that they used to affix photographs of the parties on the documents prepared by them.
18. PW10 (wrongly numbered as PW9)is Advocate Guru Dev Singh who had not supported the case of prosecution and had denied his signatures of attestation of document Ex.PW9/A .
19. PW11(wrongly numbered as PW10) is one Shri S. K. Chadha who was working as Sr. Scientific Officer Grade 2 with CFSL, CBI, Lodhi Road and has placed on record his detailed report Ex.PW10/A. The matching two photographs of Q 23 and LTS 83 were marked with projected red light and same was stated to be present on documents as Ex.PW10/B and detailed descriptions of identical thumb impression is Ex.PW10/C. 14
20. PW12 (wrongly numbered as PW11) is HC Ved Prakash who had deposed that on 16.5.95 he had received a complaint from accused Mumtaz Ahmed Chawla and entered the same in diary at entry no. 917A. However, no such entry has been placed on record by this witness.
21. PW13 (wrongly numbered as PW12) is retired SI Ramesh Chand Sharma R/o: Village Sikri Kallan, Post Office and PS Modi Nagar, Distt. Ghaziabad, U.P who had deposed that on 30.6.96 he was posted at PS Shahdara as SI when SI Hari Ram from Crime Branch recorded his statement in which he had told that one Mumtaz Ahmed Chawla (correctly identified by the witness) had made a complaint on the basis of which FIR No. 151/95 was registered at PS Shahdara in which he had also filed the untrace report.
22. During his cross examination he had stated that although he had tried to visit the alleged property involved in case FIR No. 151/95 but no such property could have been identified despite its existence and it could not be ascertained as to who was the owner thereof . Further he had stated that he had not recorded the statement of accused Hanif Pehlwan in FIR No. 151/95 . Although he had gone to the office of MCD as well as Revenue Department but he could not get any clue about the actual owner of the said property. he could not remember as to whether he had recorded any statement of Revenue officer or not nor he could tell the name of the person 15 who was in actual physical possession of the said property. Although he had met some people there but none of them had disclosed anything to him about the title holder of property . Complainant was asked by him to supply the documents of title in his favour but no written instructions in this regard were issued by him nor any notice was issued by him to the complainant before consigning case as untraced. Statement of public witnesses/neighbours were not recorded as none of the said persons had come forward to become a witness.
23. Thereafter PE was closed .
24. Statement of all the accused persons was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C and entire incriminating evidence appearing on record against the accused persons was put to them . They had denied the same as incorrect and false and had stated that they were falsely implicated in this case.
25. After examining the aforesaid testimonies of the witnesses as well as documents placed and proved on record by them in support of their assertions, I have no hesitation in holding that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against either of the accused persons as there are many dents in the story of prosecution. Many questions which were of vital importance had been left unanswered by the prosecution and the investigating agency.
26. Offence under Section 420 IPC is an offence against person and not 16 against rem . Admittedly , the actual sufferer in the present case would have been Hamida Khatoon but no traces or clues about her were available with the investigating agency. The victim in the present case namely Ajay Kumar and Vijay Kumar might have a possessory right over the land in question for the sake of arguments though not admitting it to be legally and factually true, but even those persons had got no title in the property which was taken away from them by the alleged purgery/forgery done by the accused persons. Reply of Investigating agency is also not free from shadow of doubt as it itself appears to be looming in dark in as much as it itself has not come out with clean and clear picture of the facts. IO at some place had referred the prime accused and suspects namely Hamida Begam wife of Sirajuddin D/o Hazra Begam and at some places she has been described as daughter of Hazrat Begam. Not only this but also, investigation has not been done properly in respect of forged death certificate allegedly placed at the time of seeking mutation of property by the accused in her favour as at one place the name of the deceased whose certificate was allegedly forged by the accused persons is stated to be Mirza Usman Beg, whereas at other places, IO had referred the same person as Mirza Aman Beg. Not only this but also, as per the story of investigating agency accused Sirajuddin had procured the photocopy of Death Certificate of accused Mirza Usman/Aman Beg from his sons and thereafter forged the same to make it look like the 17 death certificate of Hamida Khatoon. However even the said sons of Late Mirza Usman Beg had not been produced before the court to prove this contention.
27. Although as per investigating agency the present accused Hamida Khatton had married Sirajuddin on 10.10.76 and therefore it was stated that it was not possible to have her being described as wife of Sirajuddin in the Will dtd. 1.10.1971 but again the prosecution has miserably failed to place on record any proof of such marriage as alleged by it. So far as documents executed allegedly by Farida Khatoon(accused Hamida Begam) in favour of accused Mumtaz Ahmed Chawla are concerned, there is no challenge to their authenticity and genuineness. However, the only claim of investigation agency is restricted to the fact that same was done by Hamida Khatoon in conspiracy with other accused persons impersonating herself as Farida Khatoon. So far as mutation in the name of Farida Khatoon is concerned, same is stated to have been procured by Hamida Begam on the basis of forged documents such as Will dtd. 1.10.71 as well as Death certificate of accused Hamida Khatoon but no evidence has been adduced on record to prove that the aforesaid Will and Death Certificate were made/ forged by the accused persons in any manner whatsoever.
28. In the absence of any cogent proof to that effect, court cannot be made to believe in the story of the investigating agency merely on the basis 18 of wrong and factual averments made by it without having any basis at all to that effect. Although land in question has been described in the chargesheet as having been acquired by the Govt and being looked after by the DDA but prosecution witnesses PW2 himself had stated that land was never so occupied or acquired by DDA or any other Govt. Agency as deposed during his cross examination recorded on 13.10.06 conducted on behalf of accused Mumtaz Ahmed Chawla. Not only this but also, even the alleged application for mutation does not bear the photographs of any of the accused persons so as to link accused Hamida Begam with the execution or preparation thereof so as to link her directly with the aforesaid forgery and offence of cheating by impersonation.
29. It also does not sound reasonable to a prudent mind as to on what basis the Crime Branch had asked Sh. G.S. Aggarwal, the then Tehsildar to file a complaint before it so as to enable it to register a case. Once the crime Branch was satisfied in its investigation that the offence, if any had been committed then nothing could have stopped it from registration of a case and to proceed further with the investigation of the case.
30. In view of the submissions made by PW2 during his cross examination that the contents of his complaint were based on the reports filed by the police about which he had no personal knowledge is a fact which itself is sufficient enough to cause a major and fatal dent in the entire 19 story of the prosecution.
31. In the light of the aforesaid observations, I have no hesitation in holding that the investigating agency has miserably failed to adduce such concrete evidence on record which would have linked the accused persons with commission of any of the offences beyond any reasonable doubts as were alleged against them.
32. It is a cardinal principle of law that prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and all the benefits and advantages arising from the lacunaes of the prosecution story must be given to the accused. Hence in my opinion, prosecution has failed to bring such material on record which would have gone to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt holding them guilty for the offence alleged to have been committed by them resulting into their conviction and sentence. Hence Accused persons namely Zikru Rehman, Sirajuddin, Hamida Begam, Mumtaz Ahmed Chawla, Zahir Ahmed @ Zahiruddin, Vijay Kumar and Ram Ratan Verma are hereby acquitted. Their bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled and discharged. P.O. proceedings against accused Ershad Ali are also hereby recalled and cancelled as even his guilt could not also be established on record beyond reasonable doubt. Concerned police authorities be also duly notified about this fact 20 accordingly. Therefore, he is also acquitted in this case.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT on 8th March, 2010 (LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA) ACMM/02, North East, KARKARDOOMA COURTS :
DELHI 21