Delhi District Court
State vs . Danish on 12 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. MEENA CHAUHAN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE -08 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 308/21
PS: Chandni Mahal
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
State v. Danish
CIS No. 12024/2021
Date of Institution of case : 02.11.2021
Date when Judgment reserved : 07.01.2023
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 12.01.2023
JUDGMENT
FIR No.308/21 PS: Chandni a. Serial No. of the case :
Mahal Date of the commission of b. : 02.10.2021 the offence ASI Latoor Singh, Belt No. c. Name of the Complainant :
236/C Danish S/o Mohd. Hanif, R/o Name of Accused person 2495 Gali Kashmiryan Sadak, d. and his parentage and :
Prem Narayan, Sita Ram Bazar, residence Delhi e. Offence complained of : U/s 25(1B)/54/59 Arms Act Plea of the Accused and his f. : Pleaded not guilty.
examination (if any)
g. Final Order : Acquittal
h. Date of Order : 12.01.2023
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.10.2021 at about 10.45 pm, near Badi Masjid, Fasil Road, Chatta Lal State Vs. Danish FIR No. 308/21 PS Chandni Mahal 1/20 Miyan, Daryagang, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Chandni Mahal, the accused Danish was found in possession of one buttondar knife in contravention of Notification No. F-
13/451/79-HOME (G) dated 29.10.1980. On these allegations, the present FIR No. 308/21 was registered at PS Chandni Mahal u/s 25 of The Arms Act, 1959. The buttondar knife was seized and taken into possession by the police.
2. After completion of an investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused on 02.11.2021. Copy of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused under section 207 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C) and thereafter charge under section 25 Arms Act was framed against him on 02.11.2021 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution examined three (03) witnesses to substantiate allegations against the accused.
4. PW-1 ASI Latoor Singh has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 02.10.2021, he was posted as an ASI at P.S. Chandani Mahal and he along with HC Naresh were on patrolling duty on Fasil Road. At about 10:45 pm, they saw one person who was going from the side of the Delhi gate towards Rakab Ganj on foot. After seeing them, he turned back and started to walk hastily. On suspicion, he asked him to stop but he did not stop and started to run away. He deposed that he apprehended the accused after some State Vs. Danish FIR No. 308/21 PS Chandni Mahal 2/20 distance and requested a passerby to join the investigation but they refused to join and left the spot on pretext of their valid reasons. Due to paucity of time, he could not serve any notice on a public person and he made a cursory search of the accused and he found one buttondar knife from his right pocket of kurta. Thereafter, he inquired the accused about his name and whereabout, he disclosed his name as Danish S/o Mohd. Haneef. Thereafter, he opened the buttondar knife and prepared the sketch memo on plain paper which is Ex.PW- 1/A bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he measured the knife and seized the case property in white pullanda sealed with the seal of 'LS' and prepared the seizure memo which is Ex.PW-1/B bearing his signature at point A. The seal after the use was handed over to the HC Naresh. Thereafter, he prepared the tehrir/rukka which is Ex.PW-1/C bearing his signature at point A, and handed it over to HC Naresh for the registration of FIR. HC Naresh went to PS for the registration of FIR and after the registration of FIR, he along with HC Virender came back to the spot. Thereafter, he handed over the Accused and the case property and documents to IO Virender Kumar. Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW-1/D bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he left the spot. PW-1 correctly identified the accused.
(At that stage, case property was produced by MHC(M) in a State Vs. Danish FIR No. 308/21 PS Chandni Mahal 3/20 sealed pullanda with seal LS. The seal was intact. The white cloth pullanda was opened with the permission of the court and it contained a button-actuated knife. The witness had a look of the knife and he has correctly identified the case property Ex.P-1).
During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-1 admitted that the passerby were passing at the incident spot. He had asked the public to join the investigation but they refused. He admitted that he did not give any notice to any public persons and that he did not note their names and addresses to whom he asked to join the investigation. He denied the suggestion that the case was planted upon the accused due to which no public person was joined as a witness and that all the investigation was conducted at the PS. He further denied the suggestion that no recovery had been done from the accused on the said day of incident and that the case property is falsely implicated upon the accused. Further, he denied the suggestion that CCTV cameras are installed near the incident spot and that he arrested the accused from his house and not the incident spot. He further denied that he was deposing falsely.
5. PW-2 HC Naresh Kumar has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 02.10.2021, he was posted as HC at P.S. Chandni Mahal. His duty hours were from 08:00 pm to State Vs. Danish FIR No. 308/21 PS Chandni Mahal 4/20 08:00 am. On that day, he along with SI Latoor Singh was on patrolling duty on Fasil Road. At about 10:45 pm, they saw one person who was going from the side of the Delhi gate towards Rakab Ganj on foot. After seeing them, he turned back and started to walk hastily. On suspicion, SI Latoor Singh asked him to stop but he did not stop and started running away. Thereafter, SI Latoor Singh apprehended the accused after some distance and SI Latoor Singh requested passersby to join the investigation but they refused to join and left the spot on pretext of their valid reasons. Due to paucity of time, SI Latoor Singh could not serve any notice on public persons. He deposed that SI Latoor Singh made a cursory search of the accused and found one buttondar knife from his right pocket of kurta. Thereafter, SI Latoor Singh inquired the accused about his name and whereabouts, to which he disclosed his name as Danish S/o Mohd. Haneef. Thereafter, SI Latoor Singh opened the buttondar knife and prepared the sketch memo on plain paper which is Ex.PW- 1/A bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, SI Latoor Singh measured the knife and seized the case property in white pullanda sealed with the seal of 'LS' and prepared the seizure memo which is Ex. PW-1/B bearing his signature at point B. IO measured the knife and found the total length of knife was 23 Cms, length of handle was 13 Cms and length of blade was 10 Cms. The width of the blade was 2.5 Cms. The State Vs. Danish FIR No. 308/21 PS Chandni Mahal 5/20 seal after the use was handed over to him. Thereafter, SI Latoor Singh prepared the tehrir/rukka which is Ex. PW-1/C and handed over the same to him for the registration of FIR. He went to PS for the registration of FIR and after the registration of FIR, he along with HC Virender came back at the spot. Thereafter, SI Latoor Singh handed over the custody of the accused and the case property along-with documents to IO Virender Kumar. Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW-1/D at the instance of SI Latoor Singh. Thereafter, IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo which is Ex.PW-2/A and carried out his personal search vide memo which is Ex.PW-2/B both bearing his signature at point A. IO recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide memo which is Ex.PW-2/C bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he along with HC Virender took the accused to LNJP Hospital for his medical examination and afterwards he was put behind the lock up. Thereafter, IO deposited the case property in the malkhana. IO recorded his statement. U/s 161 Cr.PC and he was discharged. PW-2 has correctly identified the accused.
(A sealed pullanda with the seal of PG is produced before the court through MHCM. The seal was intact and opened with the permission of the court, it contained a buttondar knife, on seeing the same, the witness correctly identified the same. Knife is Ex. P-1.) State Vs. Danish FIR No. 308/21 PS Chandni Mahal 6/20 During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-2 admitted that the passerby were passing at the incident spot. He had asked the public to join the investigation but they refused and he did not give any notice to any public person. He further admitted that he did not note their names and addresses to whom he asked to join the investigation and the incident place was a residential area. However, he denied the suggestion that the case was planted upon the accused due to which no public person was joined as a witness. He admitted that the MLC of the accused was collected from the hospital by them. He denied the suggestion that all the investigation was conducted at the PS, and that the knife shown to him and in the sketch memo Ex.PW-1/A are different. He admitted that the design on the handle of the knife was missing from some area of the handle and that no photographs of the knife were taken by the IO. He denied the suggestion that no recovery had been done from the accused on the said day of incident and that the case property was falsely implicated upon the accused. He further denied the suggestion that CCTV cameras are installed near the incident spot and that he arrested the accused from his house and not the incident spot. He further denied that he was deposing falsely.
6. PW-3 ASI Virender has deposed in his examination-
in-chief that on 02.10.2021 while he was posted as HC at PS State Vs. Danish FIR No. 308/21 PS Chandni Mahal 7/20 Chandni Mahal. On that day, Duty Officer handed over a copy of FIR and original tehrir to him and thereafter, he along with HC Naresh went to the spot. They met ASI Latoor Singh with the accused Danish. He made the inquiry from ASI Latoor Singh and he disclosed the whole incident and also handed over the custody of the accused to him. Thereafter, he prepared a site plan which is Ex. PW-1/D bearing his signature at point B. He recorded the statement of HC Naresh and made the inquiry from the accused on inquiry his name was revealed as Danish S/o Md. Haneef and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW-2/A bearing his signature at point B. Personal search of the accused was also conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW-2/B. He deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex.PW-2/C bearing his signature at point B. ASI Latoor Singh also handed over to him seizure memo of case property, sketch of case property i.e. Buttondar knife and also handed over a sealed pullanda containing the case property in the presence of HC Naresh. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of HC Naresh. Thereafter, a medical examination of the accused was conducted and he along with HC Naresh and the accused came back to the PS. Thereafter, case property was deposited by him in the malkhana police. On the next day, the accused was produced before the concerned court and sent to the JC. PW-3 correctly identified the accused. After State Vs. Danish FIR No. 308/21 PS Chandni Mahal 8/20 completion of investigation, a charge sheet was prepared and the same was filed before the Hon'ble Court with all relevant documents and material collected during investigation.
(A sealed pullanda with the seal of PG is produced before the court through MHCM. The seal was intact and opened with the permission of the court which contained a buttondar knife which was shown to the witness who identified it to be the same knife which was recovered from the accused present in the court today. Knife is Ex. P-1.) During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-3 admitted that the MLC is not on Judicial record and that the passerby were passing at the incident spot. He had asked the public to join the investigation but they refused. He admitted that he did not give any notice to any public person and that he did not note their names and addresses to whom he asked to join the investigation. He further admitted that the incident place was a residential area. He denied the suggestion that the case was planted upon the accused due to which no public person was joined as a witness. He admitted that the MLC of the accused was collected from the hospital by them. He denied the suggestion that all the investigation was conducted at the PS and that the knife shown to him and in the sketch memo Ex.PW-1/A are different. He admitted that the design on the State Vs. Danish FIR No. 308/21 PS Chandni Mahal 9/20 handle of the knife is missing from some area of the handle and that no photographs of the knife were taken by him. He admitted that suggestion that no recovery had been done from the accused on the said day of incident and that the case property is falsely implicated upon the accused. He further denied the suggestion that CCTV cameras are installed near the incident spot and that he arrested the accused from his house and not the incident spot. Further, he denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
7. Vide order dated 04.12.2021, the accused has made a statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C. and admitted the factum of FIR which is Ex.A-1, endorsement which is Ex.A-2 and certificate u/s 65 Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.A-3 and DAD Notification which is Ex.A-4 and further admitted previous conviction report vide his statement recorded on 06.06.2022, without admitting the content of the same by giving separate statements without oath.
8. The prosecution evidence was closed on 18.11.2022.
Statement of the accused u/s 313 read with section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded in which he stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. He further stated that no knife was recovered from his possession and recovery has been planted. He stated that he has not committed any offence. He also submitted that he did not want to lead defence evidence. Final arguments in the matter were heard State Vs. Danish FIR No. 308/21 PS Chandni Mahal 10/20 on 07.01.2023.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
9. Learned APP for the state submitted that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt for the alleged offence, and the accused be convicted for offence u/s 25 of Arms Act.
10. Per Contra, learned LAC for the accused submitted that there are severe discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. It is argued that despite admission by all prosecution witnesses that the place of alleged offence was a crowded place, no public/independent person was made witness. Also, the seizure memo is doubtful as antedated for bearing the FIR number in it. Lastly, it is submitted that the present case is planted upon the accused and there is no CCTV footage to prove the presence of the accused at the spot.
11. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for state and the Ld. LAC for the accused and carefully perused the documents on record. Before appreciating the evidence for deciding the present case, the applicable penal provision is reproduced in verbatim as follows:-
"25. Punishment for certain offences-
State Vs. Danish FIR No. 308/21 PS Chandni Mahal 11/20 (1B) Whoever-...(b) acquires, has in his possession or carries in any place specified by notification under section 4 any arms of such class or description as has been specified in that notification in contravention of that section; or...
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 25 [one year] but which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine."
12. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused. Further, it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such reasonable doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
13. Coming to the matter in hand, to sustain conviction u/s. 25 of Arms Act, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:
● The accused was found in the possession of the button actuated knife.
● The accused was carrying the same without any license/permit or in contravention of notification of Delhi Administration.
14. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution is required to prove the possession of a buttondar State Vs. Danish FIR No. 308/21 PS Chandni Mahal 12/20 knife with the accused at the very spot, from where the accused was apprehended. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused was apprehended at around 10:45 pm near Badi Masjid, Fasil Road, Chatta Lal Miyan, Daryaganj which is a busy public place. Further, all the prosecution witnesses in unisom admitted in their cross-examination that the incident spot was a crowded area. The recovery is alleged to have been affected from a public place at around 10:45 pm. Therefore, in all probability public persons must have been present around the place of recovery. It turns out that there was no lack of time and opportunity with the IO to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with the provisions of code of criminal procedure. Merely mentioning that public persons were requested to join the investigation is of no avail. The names of those persons are not mentioned. It is not mentioned as to what action was taken against those persons who refused to join the investigation.
15. Here, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Of Punjab V. Balbir Singh AIR 1994 SC 1872, held that :
"It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and also examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the fact State Vs. Danish FIR No. 308/21 PS Chandni Mahal 13/20 that these provisions have not been complied with and further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the non-compliance. It is well-settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent corroboration. This again depends on the question whether the official has deliberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with these provisions. [Emphasis supplied]"
16. At this stage, it is crucial here to refer to section 100 of Cr.P.C. which is reproduced here:
17. 100. Persons in charge of closed place to allow search.
(4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.
(5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it.
(8) Any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects to attend and witness a search under this section, when called upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him, shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 187 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ).
Section 100 (4) of the CrPC casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. Further, it is clearly stated that if any such person refuses or neglects to be part of the search without citing any reasonable cause, it is the duty State Vs. Danish FIR No. 308/21 PS Chandni Mahal 14/20 of an official to give him a notice in this regard.
18. In the present case, on perusal of the documentary records relied on by the prosecution, it is clear that neither the tehrir/rukka which is Ex.PW1/C, nor FIR which is Mark-A.1 mentioned any public witness or independent witness. The fact of not noting down the name or address of any witness in the diary, or giving notice to public persons who refused to be part of the investigation, casts doubt on the story of the prosecution that whether any serious efforts were made to join any public witness in the proceedings. All the prosecution witnesses examined in the present matter are police witnesses. The testimony of official witnesses doesn't find any corroboration from any independent source. In the opinion of this court, non-joining of independent/public witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case and creates serious doubts regarding the genuineness of investigation proceedings done at the spot.
19. In Roop Chand v. State of Haryana 1990(1) CLR 69, it was observed that such explanations that the public persons refused to join the proceedings are unreliable. Further, in Passi @ Prakash V. State of Haryana 2001(1) RCR 435, that whenever any recovery in connection with the place of the commission of the offence is made, public persons must be made witnesses. Also, in Pawan Kumar v/s Delhi Administration 1989 Cri. L.J. 127, it was observed that in State Vs. Danish FIR No. 308/21 PS Chandni Mahal 15/20 case failure to join independent witness benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
20. This Court is, however, conscious that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution but there are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version.
21. The other major infirmity found in the present case is that as per the prosecution version, the buttondar knife has been recovered from the possession of the accused. To substantiate this allegation, the prosecution produced tehrir which mentioned sketch memo(Ex.PW1/A) and seizure memo (Ex.PW1/B) of the buttondar knife being made at the time of recovery. Further, as per the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2, the case property was first seized, a sketch of one button operated knife was prepared and then rukka was sent for registration of FIR. However, the seizure memo and sketch bear the FIR number. At the time of the seizure, the FIR number was not available and therefore, the FIR number could not have been figured on the seizure memo or the sketch. The existence of the FIR number on the seizure memo suggests that the seizure memo was prepared after the State Vs. Danish FIR No. 308/21 PS Chandni Mahal 16/20 registration of the FIR. This erodes the credibility of the seizure memo and sketch memo as the possibility of tampering can't be ruled out.
22. In paragraph 4 of Mohd. Hashim v. State, 1999 VI AD (Delhi) 569, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed:
"... Surprisingly, the secret information (Ex. PW7/A) received by the Sub-Inspector Narender Kumar Tyagi (PW-7), the notice under Section 50 of the Act (Ex. PW5/A) alleged to have been served on the appellant, the seizure memo (Ex. PW1/A) and the report submitted under Section 57 of the Act (Ex. PW7/D) bear the number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B). The number of the FIR (Ex.PW4/B) given on the top of the aforesaid documents is in the same ink and in the same handwriting, which clearly indicates that these documents were prepared at the same time. The prosecution has not offered any explanation as to under what circumstance number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) had appeared on the top of the aforesaid documents, which were allegedly prepared on the spot. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the contraband or number of the said FIR was inserted in these documents after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about recovery of the contraband in the manner alleged by the prosecution."
23. Another dent in the prosecution case is related to the seal. It is crucial to note here that there are three major discrepancies in this regard:
I. No seal-handling memo was prepared.
II. Seal not handed over to independent witness after use.
III. Deposition of seal in Malkhana or any other place has not been proved.
24. PW-1 and PW-2 have deposed in their examination-in- chief that PW-1 has seized and sealed the case property at the State Vs. Danish FIR No. 308/21 PS Chandni Mahal 17/20 spot in white clothed pullanda with the seal of LS after that seal was handed over to PW-2. No handing over memo was prepared. The seal was handed over to the material prosecution witness, who is already interested in the case of the prosecution and not handed over to an independent witness nor deposited in malkhana. No explanation has come on record as to why the memo was not made or seal was not handed over to an independent witness or deposited in malkhana. The above said discrepancies speak of nothing but the possibility of tampering of case property.
25. This Court is conscious of precedent laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. State 1993 (1) RCR (Criminal) 622, that:
"The seals after use were kept by the police officials themselves. Therefore the possibility of tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tampered with. ..... Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused."
26. Qua the personal search of the accused before the alleged recovery, it was stated by the PW-1 and PW-2 that ASI Latoor Singh made a cursory search of the accused. Further, PW-1 has nowhere stated during his testimony that he asked the accused to search him before and then did the personal search of the accused. This fact was not mentioned in either tehrir or the statement of PW-1 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, which erodes the testimony of the PW-1.
State Vs. Danish FIR No. 308/21 PS Chandni Mahal 18/20 In the case of Orissa High Court reported as Rabindernath Prusty v/s State of Orissa, it was held that "One of the formalities that have to be observed in searching a person is that the searching Officer and other assisting him should give their search to the accused before searching the person of the accused." In the present case, no independent witness deposed about the search being done by the accused before his personal search whereby the buttondar knife was recovered from him. All these circumstances raise serious doubt regarding the fairness and credibility of investigation proceedings conducted by the police at the alleged date, time and place.
CONCLUSION:
27. The facts that no independent witness was cited or examined and the appearance of FIR number and case particulars on the seizure memo, no seal handing memo, has not been explained, all aforesaid inconsistencies when kept in juxtaposition to each other, cast a cloud of suspicion over the prosecution version. In view of the aforesaid, the possibility of false implication of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out.
28. On careful perusal and analysis of the entire evidence, I find that there is no corroborative, consistent and sufficient evidence to make up the edifice of the prosecution case which State Vs. Danish FIR No. 308/21 PS Chandni Mahal 19/20 has been produced by the prosecution. Given the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it has to be concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Accused is given the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the accused Danish S/o Mohd. Hanif is hereby acquitted for an offence punishable under Section 25 of The Arms Act, 1959. Case property be confiscated to the State. Same be destroyed. File be consigned to Record Room subject to compliance of section 437-A Cr.PC.
Announced in the open court today i.e., 12.01.2023 Digitally signed by MEENA MEENA CHAUHAN CHAUHAN Date: 2023.01.12 16:52:33 +0530 (MEENA CHAUHAN) Metropolitan Magistrate-08 Central District, Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi [This judgment contains 20 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.] State Vs. Danish FIR No. 308/21 PS Chandni Mahal 20/20