Delhi District Court
State vs Kamlesh Bhardwaj on 14 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARIDAMAN SINGH CHEEMA,
MM-03, SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS
CR CASES 76733/2016
STATE VS. KAMLESH BHARDWAJ
FIR NO. 391/2004
PS Welcome
CC. No. : 76733/2016
Date of commission of offence : July, 2004
Date of institution of the case : 04.11.2008
Name of the complainant : Naresh Chand
Name of accused and address : Kamlesh Bhardwaj W/o Lt. Sh. Mahipal
Bhardwaj, aged about 52 years R/o Flat no. T-
1, Plot No. 946, Sector-3, Vasundhra,
Ghaziabad, UP
Offence complained of or proved : 420/34 IPC
State Representation : Ms. Shalu Sinha, Ld. APP for the state.
Accused Representation : Sh. K. K. Tyagi and Nishant Kumar Tyagi
Plea of Accused : Not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 14.10.2023
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION: -
1.Briefly, facts of the prosecution case are that in the month of July, 2004 at 20/18-A, Hariom, Gali No. 2, Babarpur, within the jurisdiction of PS Welcome accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj alongwith co-accused Azad Aslam (since declared PO) in furtherance of their common intention cheated complainant namely Sh. Naresh STATE VS. Kamlesh Bhardwaj FIR NO. 391 /2004 PS Welcome Page no. 1 Of 13 Digitally signed by ARIDAMAN ARIDAMAN SINGH SINGH CHEEMA CHEEMA Date:
2023.10.14 04:52:19 +0530 Chand by dishonestly inducing him to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- on the pretext of employment of complainant on 11.07.2004 paid Rs. 2,00,000/- to both accused.
2. On this complaint after initial inquiry police registered the FIR on 391/2004 PS Welcome u/S 420/34 IPC. Accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj was arrested on 05.08.2005 but co-accused Azad Aslam was not traced so he was proceeded U/s 82 Cr.P.C and on 04.11.2008 chargesheet was filed against accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj for commission of offence u/S 420/34 IPC.
3. After the completion of necessary formalities, charge sheet was been filed in this court. Cognizance of the offence was taken and accused was summoned. Copy of all necessary documents were supplied in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, CrPC). Charge for commission of offence under Section 420/34 India penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter IPC) was framed against the accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case prosecution examined 5 witnesses. 4a. PW-1 HC Harkhyal, he deposed that on 26.10.2004, he was posted at PS Welcome as Duty Officer from 4:00 PM to 12:00 Midnight. On that day, at about 05:05PM, ASI Rajbir Singh produced the Rukka in PS itself and he received the same and on the basis of which he recorded FIR No. 391/04. The copy of FIR is Ex.PW1/A. He also made endorsement on rukka vide Ex.PW1/B. He was not cross examined despite opportunity given.
4b. PW-2 Naresh Chand, deposed that accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj told him that accused would arrange a job and took Rs. 2 lakhs for the same. Accused failed to arrange the job. He asked to return his money back. He reached many times to her but accused did not return. On 25.08.2004, she handed over him a cheque of Rs.
STATE VS. Kamlesh Bhardwaj
FIR NO. 391 /2004 Digitally
PS Welcome signed by
ARIDAMAN
Page no. 2 Of 13
ARIDAMAN SINGH
SINGH CHEEMA
CHEEMA Date:
2023.10.14
04:52:27
+0530
2,00,000/- of Standard Chartered Bank, 17, Estate, parliament Street, Delhi bearing no. 953292. He deposited the same in Punjab and Sind Bank, Meerut but the same was bounced. Thereafter, he made written complaint to PS welcome (Ex.PW2/A). He handed over the cheque to police and same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. He correctly identified the accused who was present in the court that day.
He was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State as he was not disclosing all facts and when he was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State he has admitted that one Bhopal Singh had introduced him to Azad @ Pappu Bhai and Kamlesh Bhardwaj He has further admitted that he had amount of Rs. 2 lacs to accused Kamlesh and Azad at H. no. 20/18A, Gali No.2, Hariom Mohalla, Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi. He has further stated that he had arranged Rs. 50,000/- from one Shiv Chanda Yadav and from Sanjay. Amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was arranged from his father. He was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused.
4c. PW-3 Naresh Kumar, he deposed that he applied for post of teacher in UP Government and accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj and accused Azad Aslam (Since PO) used to go to Ami Nagar Sarai to leave her daughter who was appearing in UP Board Examination. One teacher namely Bhopal Master who was working with Ami Nagar Sarai School where the daughter of accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj was appearing in the board examination. Bhopal Master who was well known to him informed him that accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj can provide a government job in UP teacher for him if he pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to the accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj. He further stated that accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj promised him that he will arrange a government job for him if he pay money and if in any case, she will not provide him a job, she will refund his money. On 11.07.2004, he had given Rs. 2 lacs at the house of accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj at Gali No. 20/18, hari Om Gali, Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi. He had given STATE VS. Kamlesh Bhardwaj FIR NO. 391 /2004 PS Welcome Digitally signed by ARIDAMAN ARIDAMAN SINGH Page no. 3 Of 13 SINGH CHEEMA CHEEMA Date:
2023.10.14 04:52:36 +0530 cash Rs. 2 lacs to accused Kamlesh Bharadwaj in the presence of Kishan Pal and Rajbir. He had managed Rs. 1 lac from Kishan Chand and Rs. 1 lac from his brother and father. After passing of one month, he did not get a government job as promised by accused Kamlesh, thereafter, he demanded his money back. On 25.08.2004, accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj a cheque of Rs. 2 lacs of standard and chartered bank at her abovesaid house. He submitted the cheque given by accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj in his bank acount at Punjab National Bank at Ami Nagar Sarai. The said cheque bounced and on 25.09.2004, he received the cheque from his bank and he went to the house of accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj misbehaved with them and abused him and told that she will not return his money and he can do whatever he want. Witness correctly identified the cheque, photocopy of the same is Ex.X1(OSR). He was cross examined on behalf of the accused. In his cross-examination he has admitted that he had visited the house of the accused 5-6 times from 11.07.2004 till the registration of the case. He cannot tell the neighbours of the accused. He has admitted that no mortgage deed was executed between him and Kishan Chand regarding the mortgage of his land for taking Rs. 1,00,000/-. He has admitted that Rs. 1,00,000 was taken from his brother Surrender, who was working in airforce at the relevant time. He admitted that he is known to Satpal Sharma who is teacher in his village.
4d. PW-4. Kawar Veer Singh, he deposed that in the year 2002, he met accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj and Ajad Aslam in Ami Sarai. Accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj came to Ami Sarai for the examination of her daughter. Where accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj and Aslam assured him that they will arrange a job of government teacher in UP and told him to arrange that Rs. 2,00,000/- and met at the house of accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj i.e. H.No. 726, Gali No. 18 A, Vijay park, Maujpur, Delhi. Accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj assured me that she knew officials and persons in education department to seizure government teacher job. Thereafter, he reached at the house of accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj, where he met Kamlesh Bhardwaj and Ajad Aslam and STATE VS. Kamlesh Bhardwaj FIR NO. 391 /2004 PS Welcome Digitally signed by ARIDAMAN ARIDAMAN SINGH Page no. 4 Of 13 SINGH CHEEMA CHEEMA Date:
2023.10.14 04:52:43 +0530 he handed over Rs. 1,00,000/- to accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj and told them that remaining Rs. 1,00,000/- will be paid when he get the job. Thereafter, he alongwith accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj and Azad Aslam went to Allahabad where accused persons introduce him one person Samar Bahadur where accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj, Azad Aslam and Samar Bahadur assured him that they he will get a job very soon but he did not get the job and when he demanded his money back from accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj at his abovesaid house, she started threaten him that she will falsely implicate him in a rape case thereafter, he made complaint in PS Welcome. He correctly identified the accused who was present in the court that day. He was cross- examined on behalf of the accused. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he went alone to met Kamlesh Bhardwaj and Azad Aslam. He knows Naresh Chand S/o Bhikari Lal who is the resident of his village. He has also admitted that he had heard the name of Satpal Sharma R/o Singhawali, District Bhagpat, UP but never met him. He has stated that he handed over Rs. 1,00,000/- to accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj as he was working in Coca-cola Company. At that time, he was receiving salary of Rs. 8,000/- and commission plus target incentive. He has further admitted that he went alone to meet Kamlesh Bhardwaj at her house i.e. H. No. 726, Gali No. 18A, Vijay Park, Maujpur, Delhi. He has further stated that he alongwith accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj and Azad Aslam went to Allahabad and there they met one person namely Samar Bahadur. Samar Bahadur assured PW-4 that he will get a job very soon. He has further admitted that he had made complaint regarding the same in PS Welcome but he does not have the copy of the same. He has further stated that police never recorded his statement.
4e. PW-5 Shyampal, he deposed that in the year 2004, he met Aajad Aslam @ Pappu and Kamlesh Bhardwaj through one Sanjeet and Dinesh who were resident of his village and they told him that they arrange job in government departments and they reside in Vijay Park, Shahdara and they told him that Aajad Aslam and Kamlesh STATE VS. Kamlesh Bhardwaj FIR NO. 391 /2004 Digitally PS Welcome signed by ARIDAMAN Page no. 5 Of 13 ARIDAMAN SINGH SINGH CHEEMA CHEEMA Date:
2023.10.14 04:52:49 +0530 Bhardwaj managed job for them in CISF. He alongwith Sanjeet and Dinesh went to the house of accused i.e. H. No. 728, Vijay Park, Maujpur, Shahdara, where accused persons promised him to get recruit in CISF and told him that they have setting in CISF and accused persons demanded Rs. 1,30,000/- for securing job in CISF. Thereafter, he have them Rs. 50,000/- as advance but accused persons did not provide job as they promised, when he did not get the job, he demanded his money back. They returned Rs. 25,000/- back in two installments and did not give his remaining Rs. 25,000/-, whenever he demanded his remaining money, the accused threaten him to kill and falsely implicate in cases. His statement was recorded by IO. He correctly identified the accused who was present in the court that day. He was cross-examined on behalf of accused upon the application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he had met accused Azad Aslam @ Pappu Bhardwaj many times at the residence of accused Kamlesh. He does not know the neighbours of accused Kamlesh. He has further stated that he had filled the form for CISF at Bijnor and he had not kept any copy of the form filled by him, so the same was not handed over to the IO. He has further stated that only Sanjeet and Dinesh were present at the time of handing of Rs. 50,000/- to accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj. He was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in which there is no mentioning of payment of Rs. 50,000/- in the presence of Sanjeet and Dinesh as per the Counsel for the accused. He does not remember the date when Rs. 25,000/- were returned by accused Kamlesh. He admitted that he knows Naresh Kumar S/o Raghubir Singh and Satpal Sharma. He has denied the suggestion that he had never paid Rs. 50,000/-.
4f. PW-6 W/ASI Sheela, she deposed that on 05.08.2005, she was posted at PS Welcome as ASI. On that day, she alongwith SI Arun Kumar went to the KKD Court where accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW-6/A and she personally searched accused vide personal search memo Ex.PW6/B. Thereafter, Police Custody of accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj was obtained and medical examination STATE VS. Kamlesh Bhardwaj FIR NO. 391 /2004 PS Welcome Digitally signed by ARIDAMAN Page no. 6 Of 13 ARIDAMAN SINGH SINGH CHEEMA CHEEMA Date:
2023.10.14 04:52:55 +0530 of accused done. Thereafter they came back at PS Welcome. She correctly identified the accused who was present in the court that day. She was cross-examined on behalf of the accused in which she has stated that she does not remember to whom the information regarding the arrest of Kamlesh Bhardwaj was given. She has denied the suggestion that IO took her signature on blank paper and no seizure was made in her presence.
4g. PW-7, ASI Deshraj Singh, he deposed that he was posted as constable on 28.07.2005 at PS Welcome. On that day, he had received a sealed envelope with the seal of "AKC" on the instructions of SI Arun Kumar Chaudhary and deposited the same at FSL Shimla vide RC No. 137/21/05 on 29.07.2005. The receiving of the same was deposited with MHC(M). In his cross-examination, he has stated that the said envelope was not sealed in his presence and he was not aware about the contents of the envelope.
4h. PW-8 retired ASI Rajbir Singh, he deposed that on 26.10.2004, he was posted as an ASI in PS Welcome. He had made an endorsement on receipt of complaint made by Sh. Naresh Chand which is Ex. PW8/A. He had seized cheque no. 953292 from the complainant vide seizure memo already Ex. PW2/B. He had received account opening form from Standard Chartered Bank, Parliament Street, Delhi vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/A bearing his signatures at point A and the account opening form is Ex.P2(Colly). He has also received specimen signatures from S1 - S191 of accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj ExPW8/C (Colly) (containing 9 pages) bearing his signatures at point A. He also seized cheque bearing no 953291 from complainant Naresh Kumar in FIR NO. 377/2005. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the complaint was received on 08.10.2004 whereas the FIR was registered on 26.10.2004. During the period from 08.10.2004 to 26.10.2004, he conducted the initial inquiry. The complainant handed over the cheque to him on 26.10.2004. There was a delay in STATE VS. Kamlesh Bhardwaj FIR NO. 391 /2004 PS Welcome Digitally signed Page no. 7 Of 13 by ARIDAMAN ARIDAMAN SINGH SINGH CHEEMA CHEEMA Date:
2023.10.14 04:53:02 +0530 filing of the FIR because the complainant had not given documents alognwith complaint.
4i. PW-9 Inspector Arun Kumar Chaudhary, he deposed that on 13.03.2005, the investigation regarding the present matter was handed over to him. The accused surrendered in court on 05.08.2005 and was formally arrested vide arrest memo already Ex.PW6/A. Personal search was conducted by ASI Sheela. He received the specimen signatures of Kamlesh Bhardwaj in the handwriting of Anju Sharma from S-A1 to S-A96 (Ex.PW9/A bearing his signatures at point A to E). He then sent the specimen signatures to CFSL, Shimla. In his cross-examination he has stated that he does not remember whether he issued any notice to Anju Sharma D/o Kamlesh Bhardwaj. He admitted that the complaint dated 19.10.2004 filed by accused in the DCP office was not in his knowledge.
4j. PW-10 ASI Ram Gopal, has deposed IO handed over him Pullanda and documents with forwarding letter RC No. 53/21 to Shimla. He deposited the pullanda with FSL Office in Shimla and received the receipt and came back and handed over the receipt of the abovesaid pullanda in Malkhana of PS welcome on 21.05.2008. He was not cross-examined despite opportunity given.
4k. PW-11 Dr. B.A. Vaid, retired G.E.Q.D., has deposed that he was received the documents of this case in his laboratory from DCP North-East District, Delhi vide letter No. 1498 and 2195/R-SHO, Welcome, Delhi dated 28.07.2005 which is Mark- A and on 10.11.2005 which is Mark B respectively. The same were received by letter no. 8527/SO-DCP/North-East District dated 09.05.2005 of Dy. Commissioner of Police, Delhi which is marked as Mark C. He has stated that the question document cheque bearing no. 953292 already Ex.P1 and the relevant portion enclosed in Red is Q-1. He has admitted that specimen signatures S-1- S-191 are purported to one Ms. STATE VS. Kamlesh Bhardwaj FIR NO. 391 /2004 PS Welcome Digitally signed by ARIDAMAN Page no. 8 Of 13 ARIDAMAN SINGH CHEEMA SINGH Date:
CHEEMA 2023.10.14
04:53:09
+0530
Kamlesh Bhardwaj. He has further stated that A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 are signature purported to one Ms. Kamlesh Bhardwaj Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW11/C, Ex.PW11/D, and Ex.PW11/E, respectively. He has stated that signatures S-197 to S- 292 are specimen writings are purported to one Ms. Anju Bhardwaj. His recorded opinion no. CX-204/2005 dated 16.08.2005 is Ex.PW11/F bearing his signatures at point A. His opinion is based on the reason mentioned on the documents Ex.PW11/G. The complete report is Ex.PW11/H. The documents with complete report was sent to DCP North East District vide letter no. CX204/2005/692 dated 18.08.2005 bearing signature of Sh. N.C. Sood which is Ex.PW11/I. He was not cross-examined despite opportunity given.
4l. PW-12, retired SI Jagbir Singh, has deposed that on 11.03.2006, he was handed over the investigation regarding the present case and after the inspection of file he found that PO proceedings qua accused Aslam Azad was going on. On 09.06.2006, he was declared PO. On 25.04.2008, he had sent the letter to DCP and sent the documents to Shimla through Ct. Ram Gopal as per directions of DCP. He recorded the statement of witness and filed the challan after completing the investigation. In his cross-examination he has admitted that he recorded the statement of Ct. Ram Gopal and he does not remember whether he recorded the statement of other witnesses also.
4m. PW13, HC Vijay Singh, has deposed that he alognwith SI Aruna and W/ASI Sheela reached Karkardooma Court, where accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj was formally arrested and PC remand of the accused was taken. He was not cross-examined despite opportunity given.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence all the incriminating material were put to accused and her statement was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. She stated that the PWs STATE VS. Kamlesh Bhardwaj FIR NO. 391 /2004 PS Welcome Digitally signed by ARIDAMAN SINGH Page no. 9 Of 13 ARIDAMAN CHEEMA SINGH Date:
CHEEMA 2023.10.14
04:53:16
+0530
deposed against her at the instance of Sh. Satpal Sharma whose son was married with her daughter against her wishes and the present case was got registered against her to teach her a lesson. She has further stated in her defence that she is innocent. Witnesses had deposed falsely against her. She had done nothing wrong.
6. After completion of prosecution evidence all the incriminating material were put to accused and her statement was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused claimed innocence and stated that complainant has filed false case against her. She further stated that he had done nothing wrong. Accused chose not to lead DE.
7. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld Defence Counsel. Ld. APP for the state has stated that prosecution witnesses have completely supported the case and the cheque in question no. 953292 dated 25.08.2004 is already on record. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused has stated that accused has been falsely framed as the daughter of accused married to one Satpal Sharma. He has further argued that Bhopal Singh who has introduced accused to the complainant had never been interrogated. The bank record qua the cheque had already been destroyed. There are many contradictions and lacunas in the case of the prosecution.
8. In order to prove offence u/s 420 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove following against the accused persons:
a) That the accused person had exercised deceit over PW-2 Naresh Chand by falsely promising him to get him the employment.
b) That the accused persons by the above false representation had fraudulently and dishonestly induced PW-2 to deliver Rs. 2 lacs to the accused persons.
c) That due to the above fraudulent and dishonest intention of the accused, PW-2 delivered Rs. 2Lacs to accused persons which he otherwise would not have given to the accused except for the above inducement.
STATE VS. Kamlesh Bhardwaj FIR NO. 391 /2004 PS Welcome Digitally signed by ARIDAMAN Page no. 10 Of 13 ARIDAMAN SINGH SINGH CHEEMA CHEEMA Date:
2023.10.14 04:53:22 +0530
9. There is three witnesses of the allegation i.e., PW2, PW-3 and PW-4. As per the version of PW-2 he was introduced with Kamlesh Bhardwaj by one person namely Bhopal Singh but he has not been made a witness by the police in this case. He has further admitted that he has taken Rs. 50,000/- from Shiv Chanda Yadav and from Sanjay and from one person namely Sanjay, both of them have not been cited as witnesses in the list of witnesses and have never been interrogated by the police.
10. PW-4 has stated that he was introduced to the accused persons through one person namely Bhopal Singh but Bhopal Singh has not been made a witness in the present case. PW-4 has further stated that he has arranged Rs.1lac through mortgage from Kishan Chand whereas no mortgage deed has been placed on record and neither Kishan Chand had been made witness in the present case. PW-4 has further stated that partial amount was borrowed from his brother and father but none of them have been cited as witness in the present case. PW-4 has further admitted that son of Satpal Sharma is married to daughter of accused.
11. PW-5 has stated that there was no witness when he was handing over the amount to the accused persons. He has not mentioned about any person who has introduced the PW-5 to the accused persons. He has further stated that he alongwith accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj and Azad Aslam met with one person Samar Bahadur in Allahabad and no person namely Samar Bahadur has been interrogated or made witness. He has placed no evidence on record regarding his salary of Rs. 8000/- from Coca-Cola Company. He has not placed on record any evidence regarding the arrangement of Rs.1lac from his home.
12. PW-5 has stated that he went to the house of accused alongwith 2 persons namely Sanjeet and Dinesh but both of them have not been interrogated or made STATE VS. Kamlesh Bhardwaj FIR NO. 391 /2004 PS Welcome Digitally signed by ARIDAMAN ARIDAMAN SINGH Page no. 11 Of 13 SINGH CHEEMA CHEEMA Date:
2023.10.14 04:53:27 +0530 witness in this case. He has further stated that Rs. 25,000/- was returned in two installments but no proof of the same is placed on record. He has not placed on record any copy of form filled by him regarding the job.
13. So as to see as to whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt or not, one cannot loose sight of the relevant legal proposition as applicable on to the facts of this case. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof for the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial lies on the prosecution which never shifts on to the accused. Also it is a settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt (s) appearing in the prosecution story and such material reasonable doubt (s) entitles the accused to acquittal.
14. From the abovesaid discussion, it is clear that neither the prosecution has been able to prove that PW-2 was having Rs. 2 lacs in his possession so as the same can be given to the accused nor the prosecution has proved the delivery of Rs. 2 lacs to the accused in the manner asserted by PW-2. Prosecution has not been able to prove the delivery of money to the accused persons by PW-2, it can be said that prosecution has failed in its most important task of proving of the delivery of money to the accused, as otherwise was required by the prosecution to sustain the charges u/s 420 IPC.
15. The aforementioned contradictions, omissions and lacunas in the case of prosecution clearly shows that the prosecution has been unable to prove its case STATE VS. Kamlesh Bhardwaj FIR NO. 391 /2004 PS Welcome Digitally signed Page no. 12 Of 13 by ARIDAMAN ARIDAMAN SINGH SINGH CHEEMA CHEEMA Date:
2023.10.14 04:53:35 +0530 against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, whereby the accused is accorded the benefit of doubt, whereby the accused Kamlesh Bhardwaj is acquitted of all the charges made against her in this case.
Copy of digitally signed Judgment be placed on the case file.
Digitally signed
ARIDAMAN by ARIDAMAN
SINGH SINGH CHEEMA
Decided on 14.10.2023 CHEEMA Date: 2023.10.14
04:53:43 +0530
Announced in open court.
(Aridaman Singh Cheema)
MM-03/KKD/SHD/Delhi /14.10.2023
This judgment contains 13 pages and all pages bears my digital signatures.
Digitally signed ARIDAMAN by ARIDAMAN SINGH SINGH CHEEMA CHEEMA Date: 2023.10.14 04:53:56 +0530 (Aridaman Singh Cheema) MM-03/KKD/SHD/Delhi /14.10.2023 STATE VS. Kamlesh Bhardwaj FIR NO. 391 /2004 PS Welcome Page no. 13 Of 13