Delhi District Court
State vs Devender Yadav on 22 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF Ms POOJA AGGARWAL:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04: NORTH-WEST DISTRICT :
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI.
FIR No. 614/2001
PS Shalimar Bagh
State Vs Devender Yadav
Date of Institution:13.05.2002
Date of Judgment: 22.01.2019
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 534768/2016
(b) Date of commission of offence : 07.09.2001
(c) Name of the complainant : Naresh Kumar
(d) Name of Accused, his : Devender Yadav,
parentage & residence S/o Sh. Devsaran Yadav,
Presently R/o H. No. 206, Haiderpur,
Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : Under Section 279/337/338 IPC
& 181/185 M. V. Act
(f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final order : Acquittal
Brief Statement of Reasons for the Decision
1. The accused Devender Yadav has been sent to face trial for the commission of offences under Section 279/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 181/185 Motor Vehicle Act (MV Act) upon the allegations that on 07.09.2001, at about 10.35 pm, at Jhuggi Nehru Camp, Service Road, outer ring road, Haider Pur, Delhi, he was driving vehicle bearing number DL-1LA-6561, under the influence of liquor and without a valid license, on a public way in a rash and negligent FIR No.614/2001 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/337/338 IPC & 3/181, 185 MV Act State Vs Devender Yadav Page No. 1 of 18 manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while so driving, he caused simple injuries to one Bokki and grievous injuries to the complainant Naresh.
2. Subsequent to the completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court and cognizance of the offences was taken. The accused Devender Yadav was admitted to bail and copy of the charge- sheet along with the documents were supplied to him in compliance of the provisions of the Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. After consideration of submissions on the point of notice, notice was served upon the accused Devender Yadav for the commission of offences under Section 279/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code and 181/185 Motor Vehicle Act by the Ld Predecessor to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses.
5. PW1 Naresh Kumar being the complainant herein testified that on 07.09.2001, ie Friday, he had gone to Jhuggi Haider Pur to pay money to one Thakur and at about 10.30 pm, when he was taking cigarette from a shop (khokha) near Jhuggi which was on the right side towards the road, one closed body three wheeler bearing no. DL-1LA-6561 came in a fast speed and hit him from behind due to which he fell down and saw the driver. He further testified that he fell unconscious and FIR No.614/2001 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/337/338 IPC & 3/181, 185 MV Act State Vs Devender Yadav Page No. 2 of 18 later he was taken to Maheshwari hospital by one Rajender who also resided in the jhuggi. PW1 further testified that in the morning, police came at the hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A on which he also identified his signatures.
6. PW1 further testified as to having got injuries on his back, as to having fractured his legs and as to having sustained head injuries. He further testified that he was taken to Santom Hospital from Maheshwari Hospital for treatment. He correctly identified the accused in the Court and was duly cross-examined on behalf of the accused.
7. PW2 Ct. Manohar Lal testified that on 08.09.2001, on receiving DD No. 14A regarding accident, he went to the Maheshwari Hospital with IO/HC Jai Prakash where the IO collected the MLC of injured Naresh and recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. He further testified that the injured had revealed that the accident had taken place on 07.09.2001 which call was pending with SI Amleshwar Rai and the MLC, statement of injured and copy of DD was handed over to SI Amleshwar Singh who recorded the statement of PW2. PW2 was duly cross- examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused.
8. PW3 Rajender being an eye-witness testified that on 07.09.2001, Naresh had come to pay money to one Thakur Ram who lived in front of house of PW3 but Thakur Ram was not present and upon asking of Naresh, PW3 informed him that Thakur Ram had gone to his Jija after FIR No.614/2001 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/337/338 IPC & 3/181, 185 MV Act State Vs Devender Yadav Page No. 3 of 18 which Naresh waited at his house for Thakur Ram and when Thakur Ram did not return, PW3 Rajender and Naresh went to Basavan Pan Bhandar to take cigarette and Naresh was standing near the chowk. He further testified that one three wheeler bearing no. 6561 being driven by the accused came from the side of Jhuggi in a very fast speed and hit Naresh. He further testified that it had already hit someone before this accident. He further testified that public persons apprehended the driver and that the police had interrogated him on the next day at haiderpur. He further testified that after 8-10 days, the police took him to the bus stand where he identified the accused and police arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW3/A. He further testified that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused as Naresh was standing at the chowk at the bus stop. PW3 was duly cross-examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused at length.
9. PW4 Dr. S. P. Maheshwari from Maheshwari Hospital proved the MLC Ex. PW4/A dated 07.09.2001 of patient/injured Naresh testifying that the patient was brought to the hospital by the relative of the injured. He also proved the endorsement of the nature of injury as grievous on the said MLC Ex PW4/A. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused wherein he testified that he could not produce the X-ray plate on the basis of which he had given the said opinion as to the nature of the injuries.
10.PW5 Retd. HC Suraj Bhan being the duty officer testified that he FIR No.614/2001 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/337/338 IPC & 3/181, 185 MV Act State Vs Devender Yadav Page No. 4 of 18 recorded the present FIR Ex PW5/A on 08.09.2001 on the basis of rukka produced by IO/SI Amleshwar Rai and he also made endorsement on the same. He was not cross-examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused despite opportunity.
11.PW6 Ct. Sanjay Bali Rao testified that on 07.09.2001, SI Sultan Singh received DD no. 76 upon which he and IO reached Haiderpur red light and found one vehicle bearing number DL 1LA 6561 at the spot and they came to know as to the injured having been taken to the hospital at Jahangirpuri. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld APP for the State as he was resiling from his earlier statement wherein he admitted that the delivery van was standing at the service road and that they had come to know that the driver had struck against a man and woman who had been taken to BJRM Hospital by CATS Van and that the driver of the offending vehicle had also been taken to the hospital by PCR as he was also injured. He further testified that he was left at the spot by the IO who went to the hospital and upon return, the IO tried to gather information about the injured lady but could not get any information about the lady due to night and as no eye-witness was found. He further admitted that the offending vehicle was seized vide Ex PW6/A which was deposited in the malkhana and DD no 76B was kept pending. He further testified that on 08.09.2001, the DO had given him original rukka and copy of FIR to be handed over to the IO which he did. He further testified that the IO was ASI Amleshwar Singh and not SI Sultan and that he was not able to recollect due to lapse of time. He was FIR No.614/2001 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/337/338 IPC & 3/181, 185 MV Act State Vs Devender Yadav Page No. 5 of 18 duly cross-examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused at length.
12.PW7 SI Jai Prakash testified that on 08.09.2001, on receiving DD No. 14A Ex. PW7/X regarding accident, he went with PW2 Ct. Manohar Lal to Maheshwari Hospital where he collected the MLC of injured Naresh on which the doctor had opined him to be fit for statement, he recorded the statement of injured, endorsed it at and returned to the PS. He further testified that one DD No. 76B was marked to SI Amleshwar Rai and DD was kept for further investigation whereafter he handed over the MLC and statement of Naresh to SI Amleshwar Rai who conducted further investigation and recorded his statement. He was not cross-examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused despite opportunity.
13.PW8 ASI Surender Kumar (HC Surender as he than was) testified as to having received information on the intervening night of 07/ 08.09.2001, at about 11.15 pm, regarding accident at Nehru Camp Haiderpur, Delhi upon which he alongwith one constable and driver went to the spot in their PCR Van where one three wheeler DL 1LA 6561 was standing at T Point Service Road, Nehru Camp. He further testified that after inquiry they came to know that the accident was caused by three wheeler and one person had sustained injury who had been taken to private hospital by public persons. He further testified that the driver had also been injured and was lying unconscious in the said vehicle, and he was under the influence of liquor/drunk. He further testified that the driver was taken to BJRM Hospital where he disclosed FIR No.614/2001 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/337/338 IPC & 3/181, 185 MV Act State Vs Devender Yadav Page No. 6 of 18 his name as Devender and police officials also reached the Hospital. He was also not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity.
14.PW9 Ct. Bijender Singh testified as to having joined the investigation with the IO/ASI Amleshwar Singh on 18.09.2001, when they went with PW Rajender to the Haiderpur Chowk, where at the instance of secret informer and PW/Rajender, the accused was arrested and personally searched vide memo Ex. PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B & PW9/B, the accused brought his TSR ie DL 1LA 6561 and the RC of offending vehicle was seized vide memo Ex. PW9/B and he further testified that the accused could not produce his DL despite it being demanded. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused.
15.PW10 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary, CMO BJRM Hospital testified as to having been deputed to prove the signatures of Dr. Suresh on the MLC no. 1680/01 & 11386/01. He testified that on 08.09.2001, one female Bocky aged about 30 years and one unknown were brought to the hospital who were both examined by Dr Suresh who opined the injuries as simple in MLC Ex. PW10/A and PW10/B respectively bearing the signatures of Dr Suresh at point A. He was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity.
16.PW11 Dr. Deepak Chugh, BJRM Hospital testified as to having been deputed to depose on behalf of Dr Francis whom he had seen write and sign. He identified the name of Dr. Francis on the Ex. PW10/A and FIR No.614/2001 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/337/338 IPC & 3/181, 185 MV Act State Vs Devender Yadav Page No. 7 of 18 PW10/B at point B respectively. He was also not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity.
17.PW12 ASI Sunita (HC Sunita as he then was) being the DD Writer testified as to having recorded DD No.14A Ex.PW7/X on 08.09.2001 at about 2.00 pm regarding the accident and admission of injured Naresh in Maheswhari Hospital upon receipt of information from Maheshwari Hospital. She further testified as to the roznamcha containing the particulars of the said DD entry having been destroyed vide order of ACP Mark X. She was also not cross-examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity.
18.PW13 Inspector Amleshwar Rai being the investigating officer testified that on 07.09.2001, on receiving DD No. 76B Ex. PW13/A, regarding accident, he and Ct. Sanjay Bale Ram reached Badli Chowk, Jhuggi Nehru Camp, Service road, Outer ring road, Haiderpur, Delhi, where they found a vehicle, i.e., three wheeler/delivery van bearing no. DL-1LA-6561 in accident condition and they came to know that the injured had been taken to BJRM hospital by PCR Van and CAT Ambulance and that driver of the offending vehicle had also been taken to BJRM Hospital by the PCR officials.
19.PW13 further testified that he left the constable at the spot and went to BJRM Hospital where he collected the MLC of one unknown injured and MLC of injured deaf and dumb girl namely Boki who had left the FIR No.614/2001 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/337/338 IPC & 3/181, 185 MV Act State Vs Devender Yadav Page No. 8 of 18 hospital after treatment and could not be found by IO and that after inquiry he came to know the name of the unknown injured as Devender Yadav. PW13 further testified that he then returned to the spot and came to know about the admission of another injured to some other hospital by unknown persons whereafter, he took the offending vehicle to PS and kept DD No. 76B pending.
20.PW13 Inspector Amleshwar Rai further testified that on 08.09.2001, HC Jai Prakash received a call from Maheshwari Hospital vide DD No. 14A dated 08.09.2001, upon which HC Jai Prakash went to Maheshwari Hospital with Ct. Manohar Lal and recorded the statement of injured Naresh, collected his MLC and returned to the PS. PW13 further testified as to HC Jai Prakash having handed over the DD NO. 14A, statement of injured as well as MLC to PW13 vide DD entry Mark Y. PW13 further testified that on the basis of the statement of the injured Naresh and his MLC, he prepared the Rukka Ex. PW13/A and got the FIR registered through Duty Officer. He further testified that thereafter he went to the spot and met with the eye witness Rajender, and Ct Sanjay Bale also reached there with the copy of the FIR and rukka, PW13 prepared site plan Ex. PW13/B at the instance of Rajender and recorded the statement of eye witness. He further testified as to having seized the offending vehicle vide Ex. PW13/C whereafter he went to Maheshwari Hospital and recorded supplementary statement of injured Naresh, returned to the PS and got the offending vehicle mechanically inspected through ASI Tech Devender Kumar.
FIR No.614/2001PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/337/338 IPC & 3/181, 185 MV Act State Vs Devender Yadav Page No. 9 of 18
21.PW13 Inspector Amleshwar Rai further testified that on 18.09.2001, he arrested and personally searched the accused vide memo Ex. PW3/A and PW3/B and the RC of offending vehicle was seized vide memo Ex. PW9/B after which the accused was released on bail. He correctly identified the accused in the Court and he was duly cross-examined on behalf of the accused.
22.PW 14 Retd ASI/Tech Devender being the mechanical inspector proved his mechanical inspection report of the vehicle number DL 1LA 6561 Ex PW14/A. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of accused.
23.Thereafter the Prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused was recorded under Section 281 read with 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to him but he maintained his innocence claiming he had been falsely implicated and had not caused any accident with his vehicle and that he had been falsely implicated. The accused however chose not to lead defence evidence.
24.Final arguments advanced by Sh Govind Kant Sharma, Ld Legal Aid Counsel for the accused and by Sh Vikas, Ld. APP for State have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record.
25.It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State FIR No.614/2001 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/337/338 IPC & 3/181, 185 MV Act State Vs Devender Yadav Page No. 10 of 18 to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Since the accused has been charged with having committed offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it was for the State to prove that the accused was driving the vehicle bearing number DL 1LA 6561 on a public way in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.
26.Further, to prove the offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it was for the prosecution to prove that the accused caused grievous hurt to Naresh and that the same was caused by a rash and negligent act so as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others while for provong the commission of offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it was for the prosecution to prove that the accused caused hurt to Boki which was caused by a rash and negligent act so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others.
27.To prove the offences under Section 3/181 MV Act and Section 185 MV Act, it was also for the prosecution to prove that on 07.09.2001, the accused was driving the vehicle number DL 1LA 6561 without any valid driving licence and under the influence of liqour.
Appreciation of evidence
28. To prove its case, it was imperative for the prosecution to prove that the accident took place due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused while he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of FIR No.614/2001 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/337/338 IPC & 3/181, 185 MV Act State Vs Devender Yadav Page No. 11 of 18 the accident. It has to be borne in mind that a rash act is primarily an overhasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution (Reference made to the judgment of Mohd. Aynuddin alias Miyam v. State of A.P. (2000) 7 SCC 72).
29. In the present case, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of injured PW1 Naresh to prove that the accident occurred due to rashness and negligence on the part of the accused as he has testified that on 07.09.2001, ie Friday, at about 10.30 pm, when he was taking cigarette from a shop (khokha) near Jhuggi which was on the right side towards the road, one closed body three wheeler bearing no. DL-1LA-6561 came in a fast speed and hit him from behind due to which he fell down and he saw the driver. PW1 also relied upon his statement Ex PW1/A and also identified the accused as the driver of the three wheeler in the Court.
30. It has been argued by the Ld APP for the State that the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused has been proved as the injured Naresh was hit from behind by the three wheeler which resulted in FIR No.614/2001 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/337/338 IPC & 3/181, 185 MV Act State Vs Devender Yadav Page No. 12 of 18 injury to Naresh. However, perusal of the statement Ex PW1/A reveals that the same is conspicuously silent as to the injured Naresh having been hit from behind by the vehicle in question. Even the testimony of other eye-witness PW3 Rajender is also silent as to the vehicle in question having hit the injured Naresh from behind.
31. Hence, it is for the first time in the Court that PW1/Injured Naresh testified as to having been hit from behind by the vehicle in question but the said testimony does not inspire the confidence of the Court as PW1/Naresh has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not see the driver when he was driving the vehicle/three wheeler but had seen the driver when he hit PW1. Now, if it is accepted that the accident took place when the injured Naresh was hit from behind, then it is not possible for the injured Naresh to have seen the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident since he was purportedly hit from behind and there could not have been any occasion for him to have seen the driver at the time of the accident unless he had eyes on the back of his head which is not possible nor any other evidence or explanation has been brought forth by the prosecution regarding the same. Further it is also not the case of the prosecution that the injured had seen the driver of the three wheeler after he had hit the injured/PW1 Naresh and hence the testimony of Naresh as to him having seen the accused when he was hit by the vehicle in question purportedly from behind does not inspire confidence.
32. Further perusal of the site plan ExPW13/B reveals that the arrows FIR No.614/2001 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/337/338 IPC & 3/181, 185 MV Act State Vs Devender Yadav Page No. 13 of 18 denote the direction of three wheeler whereas the point A denotes the place where the accident took place and three wheeler was found. As per the testimony of the PW1 Naresh, he was buying bidi from a khokha when the accident took place and even in his cross-examination he has reiterated that there were other shops also near the khokha. However, for reasons best known to the prosecution, no such khokha from which the injured was purportedly buying the cigarette nor even other shops near it have been reflected on the site plan Ex PW13/B nor any reason has been brought forth for such omission. No owner of such khokha or other shops have been cited or examined as witnesses to corroborate the oral self serving testimony of the injured/PW1 Naresh which renders the case of the prosecution doubtful.
33. Further, it cannot be gainsaid that the presence of rashness or negligence has to be culled out from the surrounding circumstances leading to the accident but no such circumstances have been testified to by PW1 Naresh and PW3 Rajender have merely testified that the accused was driving the vehicle in high speed but they have not specified as to what was the exact speed of the offending three wheeler at the time of the accident. It is also pertinent to note that even if it is assumed that the three wheeler was being driven in 'high speed', that in itself does not lead to the inference that there was presence of either any "negligence" or "rashness" even more so when none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what was meant by "high speed" as 'high speed' is FIR No.614/2001 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/337/338 IPC & 3/181, 185 MV Act State Vs Devender Yadav Page No. 14 of 18 a relative term and it was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. It cannot be lost sight of that in a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in this case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur". (Reference made to State of Karnataka v Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493). Hence merely from the vague oral testimony of PW1 Naresh and PW3 Rajender as to the vehicle in question being driven in high speed, the factum of the presence of negligence or negligence on the part of the accused remains unproved.
34. It cannot be lost sight of that the Court cannot resort to conjectures, assumptions and probabilities to ascribe rashness or negligence to the accused and as the testimony of PW1 Naresh and PW3 Rajinder does not inspire confidence of the Court, it is unsafe to rely solely on the uncorroborated testimony of PW1 Naresh and PW3 Rajender to convict the accused.
35. It is also pertinent to note here that since the other injured Boki was never examined in this case, there is no evidence on record to prove that the injuries sustained by her as reflected in MLC Ex PW10/A was FIR No.614/2001 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/337/338 IPC & 3/181, 185 MV Act State Vs Devender Yadav Page No. 15 of 18 the result of any rashness or negligence on the part of the accused.
36. Further, even in respect of the injuries sustained by PW1 Naresh, the testimony of PW4 Dr Maheshwari is relevant as he has proved the MLC Ex PW4/A reflecting the injury as grievous. However, no X-ray plates of injured Naresh are on record and even in his cross- examination, PW4 has testified that he could not produce the X-ray plates on the basis of which he gave his opinion. Thus, in the absence of the X-ray plates having been produced, the factum of grievous injury having been caused to the injured Naresh has also remained unproved.
37. Further, PW8 ASI Surender has testified that when he reached the spot, the driver of the three wheeler was lying unconscious in the vehicle itself and was drunk and had also sustained injury so he was taken to BJRM Hospital. Even in the MLC Ex PW10/B of the accused, it is recorded that the patient was under the influence of alcohol. However, there is not even an alcometer slip to prove that Blood Alcohol level of the accused at the time of the accident in the absence of which it cannot be inferred that the same was over the legally permissible limit and in the absence thereof, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Section 185 MV Act.
38. It is also pertinent to note here that as per the consistent testimony of PW 3 Rajender, PW6 Ct Sanjay Bali Rao, PW8 ASI Surender and PW13 ASI Amleshwar, the three wheeler DL1LA 6561 was standing at the spot on 07.09.2001. PW13 ASI Amleshwar has also testified as to FIR No.614/2001 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/337/338 IPC & 3/181, 185 MV Act State Vs Devender Yadav Page No. 16 of 18 him having seized the same vide Ex PW13/C which is dated 08.09.2001 and this testimony has also been corroborated by PW6 Ct Sanjay. Hence it can be inferred that the three wheeler had already been seized on 08.09.2001. However, as per testimony of PW9 Ct Bijender when the accused was apprehended on 18.09.2001 on the identification of PW3 Rajender and pointing out by secret informer, the accused also brought his TSR DL1LA 6561 to them. There is no explanation as to how a vehicle which had already been seized on 08.09.2001 was found in possession of the accused which casts a doubt as to the authenticity of the documents presented in this case as the possibility of them having been tampered cannot be ruled out and the possibility of PW3 Rajinder being a planted witness cannot be ruled out.
39. Further, it is noted that PW9 Ct Bijender Singh has testified that on 18.09.2001, when the accused was asked to produce his licence, he did not do so. However, the said testimony of PW9 has not been corroborated by the IO/PW13 whose testimony is conspicuously silent as to him having sought the driving licence of the accused at any point of time. The same when read in conjunction with the fact that no notice was served upon the owner of the vehicle in question under Section 133 MV Act to ascertain whether the accused was infact driving the vehicle on the date of the accident, it would be unsafe to convict the accused for the offence under Section 3/181 MV Act and the accused is given the benefit of the doubt for the same.
FIR No.614/2001PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/337/338 IPC & 3/181, 185 MV Act State Vs Devender Yadav Page No. 17 of 18 Decision
40. In view of the aforesaid discussion, with the prosecution failing to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts, the accused Devender Yadav S/o Sh. Dev Sharan Yadav is given the benefit of the doubt and is hereby acquitted for the commission of offence under Section 279/338/337 IPC and 3/181 and 185 MV Act, in FIR no. 614/2001 PS Shalimar Bagh.
41.He is directed to furnish bail bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.
10,000/- under section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when notice is served upon him.
42. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA
on 22.01.2019 AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL
Date: 2019.01.22
13:22:06 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 18 pages and each page bears my signature.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2019.01.22
13:22:11 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No.614/2001 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 279/337/338 IPC & 3/181, 185 MV Act State Vs Devender Yadav Page No. 18 of 18