Delhi District Court
State vs Subham on 12 December, 2024
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAURABH GOYAL,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS01, DWARKA COURTS,
DELHI
State Vs. : Subham
FIR No : 253/2022
U/s : 33 Delhi Excise Act & 483/411 IPC
P.S. : PALAM VILLAGE
1. Criminal Case No. : 53/2024
2. Date of commission of offence : 04.06.2022
3. Date of institution of the case : 03.01.2024
4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name of accused & parentage : Subham S/o Sh.
S/o Sh. Sunil
6. Offence complained or proved : Section 33 Delhi Excise
Act & 483 & 411 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 12.12.2024
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 12.12.2024
Present : Ld. Substitute APP for state.
Accused in person with Ld. Counsel.
Digitally signed by
SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2024.12.12
14:47:31 +0530
FIR No. 253/2022 St. Vs. Subham
2
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Subham is facing trial for offence U/S 33 of Delhi Excise Act and offence u/s 483/411 IPC with the allegations that on 04.06.2022 at about 09:00 PM at near MCD School, Palam Village, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Palam Village, the accused Subham was found driving one car bearing No. HR 26AP 7856 carrying of Oasis Nips 50 X180 ML containing 50 quarter bottles of illicit liquor having cash Santra for sale in Haryana only, without any permit or license from Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Further, on the aforesaid date, time and place he counterfeited a property mark i.e. Number plate of Santro Car from DL 7CE 7382 to HR 26AP 7856 which was used by him in the aforesaid incident and the said car was found stolen in case FIR NO. 76/22 dt. 21.02.2022 u/s 379 IPC PS City Bahadur Garh, Jhajhar, Haryana, which he either received or retained knowingly or having reason to believe that the same are stolen property and thereby he committed an offence punishable u/s 483 & 411 IPC. The criminal law was set into motion by registration of FIR against the accused persons and investigation into the case began. After completion of the investigation, the present chargesheet was filed for conducting trial of the accused persons for the alleged offence.
2. After taking cognizance of the offence, the copies of chargesheet was supplied to the accused persons in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. The arguments on charges were heard and charge for offence U/S 33 Delhi Excise Act and 483/411 IPC was framed against accused Subham on 21.03.2024. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led.
FIR No. 253/2022 St. Vs. Subham Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2024.12.12 14:47:38 +0530 3
3. In order to prove allegations against accused persons, prosecution has examined six prosecution witnesses.
4. The proceedings U/S 294 Cr.P.C. were conducted wherein accused persons admitted the factum of registration of FIR no. 253/2022 alongwith certificate u/s 65 B of IEA as Ex. A1 (colly), GD NO. 0147 as Ex A2, RC NO./163/21/22 as Ex A3 and Excise report as Ex A4, pursuant to the admission made by accused of these documents, witnesses at Sr. No. 2, 3 & 5 were dropped from the list of witnesses.
5. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their testimony has remained unrebutted. It has been further argued that on the combined reading of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses, offence U/S 33 of Delhi Excise Act and 483/411 IPC has been proved beyond doubt.
6. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused persons and that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the police officials and even recovery of illicit liquor has not been proved from the possession of accused persons as no public witnesses were joined by the police officials during investigation and recovery proceedings. It is further argued that due to the lacunae and incoherency in the story of the prosecution, the accused persons be given the benefit of doubt and are therefore, entitled to be acquitted.
7. Prior to delving into the contentions raised by the prosecution and defence, let us discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses in brief.
FIR No. 253/2022 St. Vs. Subham Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2024.12.12 14:47:43 +0530 4
8. PW4 Ct. Krishan is the complainant in the present case. He deposed that on 04.06.2022, he was posted as Constable at PS Palam Village. On that day, he along with Ct. Rakesh were on beat patrolling duty at beat NO. 6, and at around 8:50 PM when they reached near MCD School, Palam Village, one Secret Informer met them and informed that one person in Santro Car is carrying illicit liquor and if raided he can be apprehended red handed. Thereafter, they along with secret informer came towards MCD School Palam Village and at pointing out by the secret informer, they stopped one Santro Car bearing NO. HR 26AP 7856 and on checking the said car, it was found containing cartons of illicit liquor. One carton was kept on the codriver seat and 9 cartons were kept inside the Dicky of the said car. Meanwhile Ct. Manjeet from Excise Department, Vikas Bhawan also reached at the spot and told that he was also having said information about the said car. All the cartons of illicit liquor were labeled as Cash Santra, for sale in Haryana only. Upon inquiry name of driver of the said vehicle was revealed as Subham S/o Sh. Sunil and they shared the said information with DO Concerned and HC Ashok reached at the spot and they handed over the custody of said driver along with recovered car and illicit liquor to him. HC Ashok/IO recorded his statement already Ex.PW3/A. On checking the said car it was found containing total 10 cartons. Each carton containing 50 plastic Quarter bottles of Cash Santra Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only 180 ML Each. One quarter bottle from each carton was taken out as sample and mouth of sample quarter bottles were tied with white clothe and same were sealed with the seal of SS and were given Sr. No. P1 to P10 and remaining quarter bottles were kept in the respective cartons and two cartons were kept in one kattas thus, total cartons were kept in total 5 kattas and mouth FIR No. 253/2022 St. Vs. Subham Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2024.12.12 14:47:47 +0530 5 of kattas were tied with white cloths and same were sealed with the seal of SS and were given Sr.S1 to S5. The case property was seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW2/A. The seal after use was handed over to him. IO seized the said car vide memo already Ex. PW2/B. IO prepared tehrir / rukka and handed over the same to him, He went to the PS and got the present case FIR registered and returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to IO. Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan already Ex.PW2/C. IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo already Ex.PW2/D and conducted his personal search already Ex.PW2/E and recorded his disclosure statement already Ex.PW2/F. During investigation IO recorded his statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C. The accused and case property correctly identified by witness. The case property is already destroyed and destruction order is already (Colly). Ex.PX1.
9. PW2 Ct Rakesh has deposed on the same line of PW 4 thus, his testimony is not being reproduced to avoid repetition.
10. PW3 HC Ashok is the IO in the present case who deposed that on 04.06.2022 he was posted as HC at PS Palam Vilage. On that day on receipt of DD no.147A he went near MCD School Palam Village Delhi where Ct. Rakesh and Ct. Krishan met him and handed over to him custody of one person alongwith one Santro Car bearing NO. HR 26AP 7856. He recorded statement of Ct. Krishan, now Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter on checking the said car, it was found containing cartons of illicit liquor. One carton was kept on the codriver seat and 9 cartons were kept inside the Dicky of the said car. Meanwhile Ct. Manjeet from Excise Department, Vikas Bhawan also reached at the spot and told them that he was also having said information about the said car. All the FIR No. 253/2022 St. Vs. Subham Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2024.12.12 14:47:53 +0530 6 cartons of illicit liquor were labeled as Cash Santra, for sale in Haryana only. Upon inquiry name of driver of the said vehicle was revealed as Subham S/o Sh. Sunil. On checking the said car it was found containing total 10 cartons. Each carton containing 50 plastic Quarter bottles of Cash Santra Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only 180 ML. Each. One quarter bottle from each carton was taken out as sample and mouth of sample quarter bottles were tied with white cloth and same were sealed with the seal of SS and were given Sr. No. P1 to P10 and remaining quarter bottles were kept in the respective cartons and two cartons were kept in one kattas thus, total cartons were kept in total 5 kattas and mouth of kattas were tied with white cloths and same were sealed with the seal of SS and were given Sr.S1 to S5. The case property was seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW2/A. The seal after use was handed over to Ct. Krishan. He prepared Form M29, Ex.PW3/B. He seized the said car vide memo already Ex.PW2/B. He prepared tehrir/rukka, now Ex.PW3/C and handed over the same to Ct. Krishan who got the present case FIR registered and returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to him. Thereafter, prepared the site plan already Ex.PW2/C. He arrested the accused vide arrest memo already Ex. PW2/D and conducted his personal search vide already Ex. PW2/E and recorded his disclosure statement already Ex. PW2/F. During investigation he also recorded statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C of the witness. The accused is correctly identified by witness in the court. The case property is already destroyed and the destruction order is already Ex.PX1 (Colly).
11. PW1 Sh. Ishtiyaq S/o Sh. Bhuru R/o Village Ghangeru, Distt. Shamli FIR No. 253/2022 St. Vs. Subham Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2024.12.12 14:48:01 +0530 7 Utter Pradesh, PS Kanala who deposed that he had purchased one Santro Car No. DL 7CE 7382 from one Sh. Mursaleen on 29.05.2020. On 20.02.2022, the aforesaid car was stolen from Bahadurgarh, Harayana and he lodged an FIR NO. 76/2022 regarding the same. He do not know anything about the present case.
12. PW5 Sh. Abhesh Kumar Meena Junior Assistant, Deputy Commissioner Distt. Transport Office, Mayur Vihar PhI, New Delhi deposed that he has been authorized to depose before the court vide authority letter Ex PW5/A. He has brought the details of registered vehicle bearing NO. DL 7CE 7382 vide certified copy Ex. PW5/B bearing seal of our office.
13. PW6 Sh. Anil Kumar, Criminal Ahlmad to the court of Ms. Sonia Sheokand, Ld. SDJM, Bahadurgarh, Haryana deposed that he has brought the Original case file pertaining to FIR NO. 76/22, PS City Bahadurgarh, Haryana. The said case FIR is pending before the court of Ms. Sonia Sheokand, Ld. SDJM, Bahadurgarh, Haryana. The copy of FIR NO. 76/2022 is now Ex. PW6/A (OSR).
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:
14. Statement of the both accused Subham under Section 281/313 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately on 20.11.2024 in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to him. The accused person controverted and denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Accused person further opted to not lead evidence in his defence.
FIR No. 253/2022 St. Vs. Subham Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2024.12.12 14:48:08 +0530 8
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
15. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the parties. In the present case, the Accused Subham has been indicted for the offence U/S 33 of Delhi Excise Act and 483/411 IPC. In order to prove the liability of accused Subham under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, the prosecution must establish the fulfillment of all the essential ingredients of the offence. The contents of Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act are reproduced as follows:
"33. Penalty for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture, possession, sale, etc.
1. Whoever, in contravention of provision of this Act or of any rule or order made or notification issued or of any licence, permit or pass, granted under this Act--
a. manufactures, imports, exports, transports or removes any intoxicant;
b. constructs or works any manufactory or warehouse; c. bottles any liquor for purposes of sale;
d. uses, keeps or has in his possession any material, still, utensil, implement or apparatus, whatsoever, for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy or tari; e. possesses any material or film either with or without the Government logo or logo of any State or wrapper or any other thing in which liquor can be packed or any apparatus or implement or machine for the purpose of packing any liquor; f. sells any intoxicant, collects, possesses or buys any intoxicant beyond the prescribed quantity, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees."
i). Doubtful seziure memo and form M29.
FIR No. 253/2022 St. Vs. Subham Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2024.12.12 14:48:15 +0530 9
16. A careful reading of the testimony of PW2 and 4 reflects that even before the Rukka was prepared, the case property i.e. illicit liquor was seized vide Seizure memo Ex. PW2/A and vehicle was seized vide memo Ex PW2/B and then, Rukka was prepared and thereafter, upon registration of FIR, PW3 HC Ashok Kumar Arya prepared the spot map and conducted further investigation. The narration of such a chronology of events leads to the irresistible conclusion that the seizure memo of the liquor was prepared, prior to registration of the FIR. Accordingly, it follows that the number of the FIR could not have been mentioned on the seizure memo as the same was prepared prior to registration of FIR however, quite surprisingly, perusal of the seizure memo reflects the mentioning of the full particulars of the FIR thereupon, which fact has remained unexplained on behalf of the prosecution and no explanation from the prosecution is forthcoming as to how the FIR number surfaced on the document which was prepared prior to the registration of the FIR. This fact casts a fatal doubt upon the case of prosecution.
17. At this stage, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Lalit v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri. L.J. 127, wherein it was observed in paragraph 5 as follows:
"...Learned counsel for the state concedes that immediately after the arrest of the accused, his personsal search was effected and the memo Ex.PW11/D was prepared. Thereafter, the sketch plan of the knife was prepared in the presence of the witnesses. After that, the ruqa Ex.PW11/F was sent to the Police Station for the registration of the case on the basis of which the FIR, PW 11/G was recorded. The F.I.R. is numbered as 36, a copy of which was sent to the I.O. after its registration. It comes to that the number of F.I.R. 36 came to the knowledge of the I.O. after a copy of it was delivered to him at the spot by a constable. In the normal circumstances, the F.I.R.
FIR No. 253/2022 St. Vs. Subham Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2024.12.12 14:48:21 +0530 10
No. should not find mention in the recovery memo or the sketch plan which had come into existence before the registration of the case. However, from the perusal of the recovery memo, I find that the FIR is mentioned whereas the sketch plan does not show the number of the FIR. It is not explained as to how and under what circumstances the recovery memo came to bear the F.I.R. No. which had already come into existence before the registration of the case. These are few of the circumstances which create a doubt, in my mind, about the genuineness of the weapon of offence alleged to have been recovered from the accused..."
18. The aforesaid ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi squarely applies to the facts in the present case as well, which leads to only one of the either inference, that is, either the FIR was registered prior to the alleged recovery of the illicit liquor, or that the said document was prepared later in point of time. In either of the scenarios, a dent is created in the version of the prosecution, the benefit of which must accrue to the accused.
19. Since in the present case, all the witnesses are police personnel and the necessary safeguards in the investigation have not been followed by the IO, I am of the view that the possibility of false implication of the accused persons under the provisions of Excise Act cannot be ruled out at the instance of the police.
ii). The nonjoining of any independent / public witness.
20. It is evident from the record that no public witness to the recovery of the liquor has been either cited in the list of prosecution witnesses or has been examined by the prosecution. Apparently, PW3 HC Ashok Kumar had even asked public persons to join the investigation, however, they refused to join the investigation. As apparent from record, no notice was served to such public FIR No. 253/2022 St. Vs. Subham Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2024.12.12 14:48:28 +0530 11 persons upon their refusal to join investigation in the case. Thus, it is not the case of prosecution that public witnesses were not available at the spot. However, from a perusal of the record, no serious effort for joining public witnesses appears to have been made by the investigating officer. These facts are squarely covered by the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as, Anoop Joshi v State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), wherein it was observed as under:
"...18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC..."
21. Further, in a case law reported as Roop Chand v. The State of Haryana, 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:
"...The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses from the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner..."Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2024.12.12 14:48:33 +0530 FIR No. 253/2022 St. Vs. Subham 12
22. It is well settled principle of the law that the investigating agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also as stated by PWs, admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they did not join the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a persons from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a persons under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the IO must have proceeded against them under the relevant provision of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for nonjoining the witnesses from the public is an afterthought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful.
23. In fact, in this regard, Section 100 of the Cr.P.C also accords assistance to the aforesaid finding, by providing that whenever any search is made, two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality are required to be made witnesses to such search, and the search is to be made in their presence. Under Section 100(8) Cr.P.C, refusal to be a witness can render such non willing public witness liable for criminal prosecution. Despite the availability of such a provision, no sincere attempts were made by the police to join witnesses FIR No. 253/2022 St. Vs. Subham Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2024.12.12 14:48:39 +0530 13 in the present case. Therefore, noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of law, even though public witnesses were easily available in the vicinity, makes the prosecution version highly doubtful.
24. This Court is conscious of the legal position that nonjoining of independent witnesses cannot be the sole ground to discard or doubt the prosecution case, as has been held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However, evidence in every case is to be sifted through in light of the varied facts and circumstances of each individual case. As discussed above and hereinafter, the testimony of the police witnesses in the present case is not worthy of credit. In such a situation, evidence of an independent witness would have rendered the muchneeded corroborative value, to the otherwise uncompelling case of the prosecution.
iii). Possibility of misuse of seal of the investigating officer.
25. As per the prosecution story, after preparing seizure of the case property and the samples of illicit liquor with seal of 'SS', the aforesaid seal was remained with the police officials. This fact cannot be ignored that PW2 & PW4 Ct. Rakesh and Ct. Krishan were a recovery witness and had apprehended the accused and was subsequently, a part of the investigation in the present case. Thus, the seal was not handed over to any independent witness. There is nothing on record to suggest that PW3 HC Ashok Kumar Arya had made efforts to handover the seal to any independent witness. Further, no taking over memo is on record to show the genuineness of fact of actual taking over of seal by police officials. In such a factual backdrop, since the seal remained with the police officials of the same police station and therefore, the possibility of tampering FIR No. 253/2022 St. Vs. Subham Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2024.12.12 14:48:52 +0530 14 with the case property cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the seal was not within the reach of the IO and thus, there was no scope of tampering of case property.
26. In this regard, judgment in case titled as Ramji Singh v State of Haryana 2007 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 452, may be adverted to, wherein it was observed in paragraph 7 that:
"...The very purpose of giving seal to an independent persons is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the case property is not dispatched to the forensic science laboratory, the seal should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in the absence of such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband and the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out. In the present case, the seal of Investigating OfficerHoshiar Singh bearing impression HS was available with Maha Singh, a junior police official and that of Deputy Superintendent of Police remained with Deputy Superintendent of Police himself. Therefore, the possibility of tampering with seals as well as seized contraband and samples cannot be ruled out..."
27. Similarly, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Safiullah v. State, (1993) 49 DLT 193, had observed:
"9. ... The seal after use were kept by the police officials themselves therefore the possibility of tempering 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 tempered with. The prosecution could have proved from the CFSL form itself and from the road certificate as to what articles were taken from the Malkahana. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused..."
28. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the seal after use was handed over to any of the independent witness. In view of discussion made above, the FIR No. 253/2022 St. Vs. Subham Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2024.12.12 14:48:57 +0530 15 conclusion which can be arrived at is that the seal remained with the Investigating Officer or with the other member of the raiding party therefore the possibility of interference or tempering of the seal and the contents of the parcel cannot be ruled out. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, the possibility of misuse of seal and tampering of case property cannot be ruled out.
29. In view of the discussion made above, it is clear that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations levelled against the accused Subham, more specifically, the recovery of the alleged illicit liquor is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused person and holds the accused person Subham not guilty of commission of the offence in question. Accused Subham is thus, acquitted of the offence U/S 33 of Delhi Excise Act.
30. Since, the recovery of liquor from the accused person is doubtful and the prosecution is unable to satisfactorily account for the possession of the intoxicant upon the accused persons, the story of the prosecution that the vehicle in question was used for carrying the intoxicant is also doubtful and therefore, the evidence regarding seizure of Santro Car bearing No. DL7CE7382 having false property mark of HR 26 AP 7856 can not be relied upon. At the same time the Santro car in question was stolen in FIR NO,. 76/22, PS City Bahadur Garh, Jhajjar Haryana, prosecuting the accused u/s 483/411 IPC would amount to double jeopardy and is prohibited in terms of section 300 of the CrPC. Accordingly, the accused Subham stands acquitted for the offence u/s 483/411 IPC as well. Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2024.12.12 14:49:02 +0530 FIR No. 253/2022 St. Vs. Subham 16
31. The bail bonds, if any furnished persons at the time of commencement of trail stands cancelled. Surety, if any stands discharged. Documents, if any shall be returned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any stands cancelled. Case property if any, shall be disposed of after expiration of period to assail this judgment and in case of appeal, as per the directions of Ld. Appellate Court. Case file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2024.12.12
14:49:07 +0530
Announced in the open court on (Saurabh Goyal)
this day i.e. 12th December, 2024 JMFC01 South West District, Dwarka,
New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 16 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally signed bySAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2024.12.12 14:49:11 +0530 (Saurabh Goyal) JMFC01 South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi FIR No. 253/2022 St. Vs. Subham