Delhi District Court
Fir No. 902/06; State vs . Aman Jindal Etc. Page 1 Of 23 on 23 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER DUDEJA: ADDL SESSIONS
JUDGE03: NW : ROHINI : DELHI
Sessions Case No. 53/08
FIR No. 902/06
PS: Punjabi Bagh
U/s: 489A, 489B,489C,
489D/420/120B IPC
STATE
Versus
(1) AMAN JINDAL
s/o Sh. Murli Mohan,
r/o 233/17, Jhajjar Road,
Rohtak, Haryana
(2) SUNNY DIWAN
s/o Sh. Ram Nath
r/o 3/39, Ramesh Nagar,
PS Kirti Nagar, Delhi
(3) ARUN MITTAL
s/o Sh. Mukesh Mittal
r/o 659/35, Janta Colony,
Rohtak, Haryana
(4) SUSHIL KUMAR
s/o Sh. Rohtash Kumar
r/o vill. Sissar,
Distt. Hissar, Haryana
FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 1 of 23
Date of Institution: 13122006
Date of arguments: 26072011
Date of judgement: 23082011
J U D G M E N T
1. The Prosecution case is that on 14102006 at about 7:50 pm a secret informer came at Police Chowki Madipur and informed SI Khemender Pal Singh that two persons would come on motorcycle no. DL4S AF2881 at Khatir Restaurant, Paschim Vihar Extension to deliver forged notes and if raided, can be apprehended. SI K. P. Singh passed the information to SHO and lodged DD no. 44. SI K. P. Singh along with SI Bhanu Kanwaria, Ct. Satish and Ct. Lokender proceeded to Khatir Restaurant, Paschim Vihar Extension. 4--5 passersby were requested to join raiding party but they refused and went away expressing their inability. At about 8:30 pm, accused Aman Jindal and Sunny Diwan came on motorcycle no. DL4S AF 2881 and stopped at Khatir Restaurant. On the pointing out of informer, accused Sunny Diwan, who was sitting on the pillion seat of motorcycle, was overpowered by SI K. P. Singh with the help of Ct. Satish and FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 2 of 23 accused Aman Jindal, who was driving the motorcycle, was apprehended by SI Bhanu Kanwaria with the help of Ct. Lokender. Accused Aman Jindal was having a black colour bag and accused Sunny Diwan was having a big packet. On the search of bag of Aman Jindal, five gaddis of Rs. 100 notes were recovered. One gaddi contained all notes with Sl. no. 7HH 041317, the second gaddi contained notes with Sl. no. 7HH 041337, the third gaddi contained notes with Sl. no. 7HH 041371, the fourth gaddi contained notes with Sl. no. 7HH 041373 and the fifth gaddi contained notes with Sl. no. 7HH 041370. The photograph of Mahatma Gandhi was not visible in the watermark. Bharat and RBI were not visible in the golden mark. Two notes were taken out as sample from each gaddi. The recovered gaddis were kept in separate cloth pullandas and given Sl. no. 1 to 5. The sample notes were kept in a white envelopee which was given Sl. no. S5. On checking the packet recovered from accused Sunny Diwan, ten gaddis of Rs. 100 notes were recovered. All notes of the first gaddi were bearing Sl. no. 7HH 041337, the note of second gaddi were also bearing same number, the notes of third gaddi were bearing Sl. no. 7HH 041333, the fourth gaddi contained notes with Sl. no. 7HH 041371, the fifth gaddi contained notes with Sl. no. FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 3 of 23
th th th 7HH 041377, the 6 , 7 and 9 gaddis were having notes with Sl.
th th no. 7HH 041373 and 8 and 10 gaddis contained notes with Sl. no. 7HH 041317. Two notes were taken out from each of the gaddis. The gaddis were then kept in separate cloth pullandas and sealed and given Sl. no. 6 to 15. The sample notes were kept in white envelopee which was given Sl. no. S2. The pullandas of the packets were sealed with the seal of KPS and were seized vide separate memos. Motorcycle was also taken into possession. Form FSL was filled up. SI K. P. Singh prepared rukka Ex. PW10/B and sent the same at PS through Ct. Satish. After registration of FIR Ex. PW5/A, the investigation was entrusted to ASI Pritam Raj who came at the spot and prepared the site plan Ex. PW9/A. Accused Aman Jindal and Sunny Diwan were arrested vide separate arrest memos. On interrogation, accused Aman Jindal gave disclosure statement Ex. PW3/H and accused Sunny Diwan gave disclosure statement Ex. PW3/J. uPursuant to their disclosure, police team went at Sampla, Haryana at the house owned by Jitender Malik and joined one Ramesh Kumar in the raiding team. Ramesh Kumar took the police party at the First floor of the house where coaccused Arun Mittal and Sushil Kumar were present. They were identified by FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 4 of 23 Ramesh Kumar and accused Aman Jindal and Sunny Diwan. They were overpowered along with a box containing Rs. 100 notes, printed paper note along with tools. On checking the box lying near the computer, five gaddis of Rs. 100 notes, 160 papers each having 3 notes of Rs. 100 printed on them and 7 papers on which 3 notes of Rs. 100 were printed on one side of the paper were found. After taking out the sample from them, they were kept in an envelope and pullanda was prepared which was sealed with the seal of PRK. The samples were kept in a separate envelope which was given Sl. no. S3 and the pullandas containing notes were given Sl. no. 16 to 20. They were then seized vide memo Ex. PW1/A. Computer (monitor, CPU, UPS, scanner, printer) CD and Laser Jet paper pieces were also sealed with the seal of PRK and seized vide memo Ex. PW1/B. Accused Arun Mittal and Sushil Kumar were arrested. Case property was deposited in Malkhana and statements of witnesses were recorded. During investigation, notes were sent to Nasik Press. Pending the receipt of report from Nasik Currency Press, chargesheet was prepared u/s 489B/ 489C/ 420/ 120B IPC against accused Aman Jindal and Sunny Diwan and u/s 489A/ 489B/ 489C/ 480D/ 420/ 120B IPC was filed against accused FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 5 of 23 Arun Mittal and Sushil Kumar. After obtaining report from Nasik Currency Press, the same was filed in court.
2. After compliance of section 207 Cr. P. C, case was committed to Sessions court. Charge u/s 120B/ 489B IPC r/w 120B IPC was framed against accused Aman Jindal and Sunny Diwan and u/s 489C IPC r/w 120B IPC was framed against accused Arun Mittal and Sushil Kumar to which they pleaded not guilty.
3. In order to prove its case, Prosecution examined 10 witnesses. PW1 is Ramesh Kumar. He deposed that on 14102006 at about 11 am while he was sleeping at his house, some police officials in civil dress came and asked him to accompany them to the shop where he was working at Sampla. He stated that shop was belonging to Satender Malik and was situated at Committee Road, Sampla. Above the shop at First Floor, there were four rooms out of which 2 rooms were given on rent to Arun and Sushil ten days prior to the incident. He stated that rate of rent was Rs. 1500/ per month and accused Arun and FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 6 of 23 Sushil were to run computer centre in the said rooms for children education. He further deposed that he went to the said room with police and found one computer and other accessories such as UPS, monitor etc. According to him, the police came out with 2-- 3 boys and out of them 2 were Arun and Sushil. The rented room was in an open condition and there were 5--6 persons present in the room. He stated that police officials told them that accused were making fake currency notes in the room which were given on rent by him. Police then seized all the material and came to the Police Post Madipur with all the persons present in the room. He stated that many forms including FSL form was also filled up. He stated that he had signed the arrest memos of accused Arun Mittal and Sushil and also signed their personal search memos. PW1 was declared hostile and was crossexamined by Ld. APP. He denied that police party came along with Aman Jindal and Sunny Diwan. He stated that he had seen accused Aman Jindal and Sunny Diwan for the first time in the court. He denied that he had stated in his statement Ex. PW1/1 that accused Sushil and Arun were working on the computer and were indulging in the preparation of 100 rupee notes on the computer. He admitted that two persons were working on the computer but stated that they FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 7 of 23 were not Arun and Sushil. According to him, Arun and Sushil were standing in the room along with them. He denied that he himself also was part and parcel in preparing fake currency notes and that is why he had deposed falsely in favour of the accused.
PW2 is Satender Malik. He is the owner of shop Electronic Plaza in the market at Committee Road, Sampla. He stated that there are four residential rooms on the First Floor of the shop and that Ramesh Kumar was looking after the said rooms and had authority to give the rooms on rent. He stated that in the month of October 2006 Ramesh had telephonically informed him that he had kept 2--3 persons on rent and that the boys were given the premises on the reference of a person from Anaz Mandi. He deposed that rent of the premises was Rs. 2,000/ per month but no written agreement was executed. He deposed that on 15102006 he received a telephonic call from the wife of Ramesh that Ramesh had been taken by the officials of Delhi Police because the persons who were living in premises above the shop were doing illegal acts.
PW3 is SI Bhanu Kanwaria, PW4 is Ct. Satish Kumar, PW7 is HC Lokender and PW10 is SI Khemender Pal FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 8 of 23 Singh. They are the witnesses of raiding team. Their testimonies are more or less same as stated in para no. 1 of the judgement and are therefore not being reproduced again. They identified the case property.
PW5 is ASI Mandodri, Duty Officer. She proved the FIR as Ex. PW5/A. PW6 is Ct. Balaji Munde. He took 15 sealed pullandas and two envelopees bearing seal of PR from Malkhana of the PS to Nasik and deposited the same at Currency Press Nasik on 28122006. He stated that he collected the report in May 2007.
PW8 is HC Mahinder Singh, the then MHCM. He proved the relevant entries of Register no. 19.
PW9 is ASI Pritam Raj. He is the second IO of this case. During investigation, he prepared the site plan Ex. PW9/A on the pointing out of SI K. P. Singh. He had recorded disclosure statements of accused Aman Jindal and Sunny Diwan and arrested them in this case. He was also part of raiding team which apprehended accused Arun Mittal and Sushil Kumar from Sampla.
FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 9 of 23
4. Statements of all accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr. P. C. wherein they stated that they are innocent. They refused to lead any evidence in their defence.
5. Arguments have been heard from Ld. APP as also from Ld. Defence counsels. Ld. Defence counsels have argued that there is no public witness of recovery from accused Aman Jindal and Sunny Diwan and PW1 Ramesh Kumar, who is the witness of recovery at Sampla, has turned hostile and has not supported the Prosecution story. It is argued that in the absence of any support from public witness, the testimonies of police officials cannot be believed as they are interested witnesses. It is also argued that there are several contradictions in the testimonies of police witnesses which makes it unsafe to rely on them. It is also argued that currency notes allegedly recovered from accused Aman Jindal and Sunny Diwan from Khatir Restaurant were not sent to Nasik Press for opinion and therefore there is no evidence that they were counterfeit notes. Ld. counsels have further argued that computer and monitor were not sent to FSL for obtaining the opinion as to whether they were in working order and could be used for printing the recovered currency notes. It has also been FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 10 of 23 submitted that there is forgery/ manipulation in Register no. 19 to suit the Prosecution story. It is thus submitted that Prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond doubt.
6. Ld. APP however argued that testimonies of police witnesses cannot be disbelieved merely because public witness has turned hostile. It is argued that recovery had in fact been made in the presence of PW1 Ramesh Kumar but he was won over by accused and therefore did not support the case of Prosecution. Ld. APP has submitted that testimonies of police witnesses are trustworthy and reliable as the same are corroborated by the recovery made and therefore there is no reason for not placing reliance on them and hence the accused are liable to be convicted.
7. I have considered the submissions made by Ld. APP and Ld. Defence counsels and have carefully perused the records. The accused have been charged for the offence u/s 120B IPC, 489A/ 489B/ 489C IPC r/w section 120B IPC. Section 489A IPC provides punishment to a person who counterfeits or knowingly perform any part of the process of counterfeiting any FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 11 of 23 currency notes; Section 489B IPC provides punishment for using the forged or counterfeit currency notes; and Section 489C IPC provides punishment for possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes. As per Prosecution story narrated by the witnesses, information was that two persons would come on motorcycle to deliver forged notes and if raided, can be apprehended. Accused Aman Jindal and Sunny Diwan were apprehended when they reached Khatir Restaurant and from their possession counterfeit currency notes were recovered. Admittedly, Aman Jindal and Sunny Diwan were apprehended before they could deliver the notes to anyone. There is no investigation whatsoever about the persons to whom the notes were to be delivered. Similarly, there is no evidence that accused Aman Jindal and Sunny Diwan had performed any part of the process for counterfeiting the currency notes and therefore qua accused Aman Jindal and Sunny Diwan no offence u/s 489A and 489B for manufacturing and using the counterfeit notes is made out. With regard to recovery effected at Sampla, there is no evidence that accused Arun Mittal and Sushil Kumar had used the said counterfeit currency notes as genuine and therefore against them also no offence u/s 489B IPC is made out. SI K. P. Singh FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 12 of 23 (PW10) has deposed that accused Sushil Kumar and Arun Mittal were found working in the room. Accused Sushil was working on the computer while accused Arun was doing the paper cutting work. It has not been clarified as to what accused Sushil was working on the computer and what papers were being cut by accused Arun. The computer, scanner, printer, and CPU were seized from the spot from Sampla but admittedly, they were not sent to FSL so that the hard disk of the CPU may be checked to find out whether any notes were got printed by using the computer. Simply because currency notes were recovered from the room and the computer equipment was found from the room where the accused persons were allegedly working, there can be no presumption that they were printing the currency notes at the said computer and hence accused cannot be convicted for the offence u/s 489A IPC for counterfeiting currency notes.
8. Undoubtedly, it is not a case of chance apprehension. If the Prosecution story is to be believed, police had received advance information regarding the fact that two persons would come to Khatir Restaurant on a motorcycle for delivering counterfeit currency. This information was received at about 7:50 FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 13 of 23 pm and accused were apprehended at 8:30 pm. There is not much distance between Police Chowki and Khatir Restaurant from where accused Aman Jindal and Sunny Diwan were apprehended. SI K. P. Singh admits that there were passersby at the spot. He admits that one person was present at Khatir Restaurant and also admits that there are residential flats near the spot. But no public person was joined in investigation. The Investigating Officer has tried to give explanation by stating that he had requested 4--5 passersby to join investigation but they refused. It seems that no notice was given to them nor any action was taken against those persons on their refusal to join investigation. The explanation given by the Investigating Officer is stereotype and therefore not acceptable. The case would have been different if no public person was either present or available.
9. Coaccused Arun Mittal and Sushil Kumar were apprehended from Sampla and recovery was effected from them pursuant to the disclosure statements given by the accused Aman Jindal and Sunny Diwan. PW1 Ramesh Kumar was allegedly joined in the raiding party before taking search of the room at Sampla but he has turned hostile. Although he states that two FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 14 of 23 rooms were given by him on rent to accused Arun Mittal and Sushil Kumar but at the same time he states that police had come there with 2--3 boys including accused Arun and Sushil. He stated that when he reached in the tenanted premises with police, 4--5 persons were already present there and they were working on the computer. He stated that he had not given the premises on rent to those persons. Ramesh Kumar was crossexamined by Ld. APP wherein he denied that police party came with accused Aman Jindal and Sunny Diwan. He stated that he had seen accused Aman Jindal and Sunny Diwan for the first time in the court. He denied that accused Sushil and Arun were working on the computer and were preparing 100 rupee notes on the computer. He denied that accused Sushil and Arun were arrested by the police while they were found preparing fake 100 rupee notes. Thus, as per testimony of PW1 Ramesh Kumar, police accompanied by accused Sushil and Arun Mittal raided the premises at Sampla and at that time accused Aman Jindal and Sunny Diwan were not present. The crossexamination of PW1 by Ld. APP has not been fruitful to the Prosecution. Thus, the testimony of PW1 is of no help to the Prosecution. FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 15 of 23
10. Section 100 (4) Cr. P. C. provides that search shall be made in the presence of two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated. Assuming that police had joined PW1 Ramesh Kumar in the investigation but he has been won over by the accused, but the requirement of second witness, as provided u/s 100 (4) Cr. P. C., has not been complied and therefore search has not been conducted in a proper manner and the alleged recovery is vitiated. In the case of Jaivir Singh (in jail) Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) 1995 Crl. L. J. 1477, the Hon'ble High Court observed in para no. 25 as under: "...........The police surprisingly while carrying out house search and for effecting recovery of the robbed property did not comply with the provisions of law. As required by Section 100 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was incumbent upon the police to have joined at least two respectable persons of the locality before effecting the search in that house. The Investigating Officer stated in his evidence that he did not think it necessary to call any other person from the locality as at the time of the search of the house of Ram Chander, PW3 was there who was residing in the locality and he was accompanied also by the complainant of the case. The Investigating Officer forgets that law requires joining of two witnesses of the locality and not one witness. He ought to have made some efforts to join someone from the locality as witness before entering the said house for FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 16 of 23 carrying out the search. The Investigating Officer had not cared to keep in view the requirement of law in that connection. For all these reasons, we have to come to the conclusion unfortunately that these recoveries are doubtful and cannot be stated to have been effected at the instance of the appellant."
11. In the present case also, the Investigating Officer had not cared to join any other public witness of the locality before conducting the search. Moreover, IO has stated that he had obtained permission for going outside Delhi from the concerned ACP but on being asked, he could not tell the name of the said ACP. He has not placed on record the sanction order issued by the ACP. He stated that he had made DD entry in the Rojnamcha of Police Post Madipur but could not tell the DD number. He admitted that he had not placed DD entry on record. No arrival or departure entry has been produced on record to show that police officials had gone to Sampla for recovery of counterfeit currency notes. Moreover, Investigating Officer has admitted that local police at Sampla was not informed prior to the raid. According to Investigating Officer, after raid, the local police was informed in writing by way of application on which acknowledgement was obtained. But again, no such acknowledgement has been placed FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 17 of 23 on record which can show that police team from Delhi had visited Sampla on the day of alleged recovery. Thus, the alleged recovery from Sampla is highly doubtful.
12. The search before an independent witness imparts much more authenticity and creditworthiness to the search and seizure proceedings. Such safeguard is intended to avoid criticism of arbitrary and high handed action against police officers. It also lends credibility to the procedure relating to the search and seizure. In the case of Chander Pal and Etc. Vs. The State 1999 Crl. L. J. 135, the Court held that nonjoining of public witnesses though available would smack of malafide and make the Prosecution version doubtful.
13. Now, coming to the testimonies of police witnesses, it is found that they are full of contradictions. PW3 SI Bhanu Kanwaria deposed that when they reached at Sampla and house was pointed out by accused Aman Jindal and Sunny Diwan, at that time one person by the name Ramesh reached there of his own. SI K. P. Singh simply states that one public person by the FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 18 of 23 name Ramesh was joined in the investigation. In cross examination, he stated that Ramesh met them on road in front of house at about 5:50 am at Sampla as if he was waiting for the police to come. ASI Pritam Raj (PW9) also does not clarify as to how and where Ramesh met them. This is in contradiction to the testimony of PW1 Ramesh who states that police officials came at his house at 11 am on 14102006 while he was sleeping. It may be noted here that Prosecution version is that recovery was effected from Sampla on 15102006 and not on 14102006. There is also contradiction with regard to number of rooms on the first floor from where the recovery was effected at Sampla. PW3 deposed that there were four rooms on the first floor while PW4 deposed that there were two rooms. On the other hand, PW7 HC Lokender states in crossexamination that there were three rooms on the first floor. HC Lokender stated in crossexamination that he was having danda in his hand while the other police officials were having arms and ammunition but SI Bhanu Kanwaria stated that he was not having any weapon with him. HC Lokender stated in crossexamination that IO had prepared 4 pullandas at Khatir Restaurant but SI K. P. Singh stated that he had handed over 6 parcels to ASI Pritam Raj. As per seizure memo Ex. PW3/A and FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 19 of 23 PW3/B, two notes were taken out from each gaddi as sample but in his examination in chief SI K. P. Singh stated that he had taken out only one note from each gaddi as sample. PW4 Ct. Satish Kumar deposed that IO had taken out 30 notes as sample from the recovered currency notes and had prepared 15 envelopes by putting two notes each but as per the seizure memo Ex. PW3/A all the samples notes taken out from the currency notes recovered from accused Aman Jindal were kept in a single pullanda which was given Sl. no. S1 and as per Ex. PW3/B all the sample notes taken out from the currency notes recovered from accused Sunny Diwan were also kept in a single envelope which was given Sl. no. S2. Thus, the sample notes were kept only in two envelopes and not in 15 envelopes as stated by Ct. Satish Kumar. SI K. P. Singh states in crossexamination that they left Sampla at about 10 am but Ct. Satish Kumar states that they returned back from Sampla at Police Post Madipur at about 9 am. According to PW4, they were in uniform while other witnesses stated that they were in plain dress. ASI Pritam Raj stated that they had gone to Sampla in Toyota Qualis of his friend Sunil but Sunil has neither been cited nor examined as witness in the present case. Thus, the testimonies of police witnesses bristles with serious FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 20 of 23 inconsistencies and contradictions and therefore it shall be unsafe to convict the accused on the basis of uncorroborated testimonies of police witnesses.
14. If the information was that two persons would come at Khatir Restaurant to deliver counterfeit currency notes. The police team should have investigated as to the persons to whom the delivery was to be made. It has come in the evidence of SI K. P. Singh that accused Aman Jindal and Sunny Diwan had stopped their motorcycle at Khatir Restaurant meaning thereby that there was no effort on the part of accused to flee away and therefore there was no hurry with the police to apprehend the accused persons. Despite this, the accused persons were overpowered then and there. Even thereafter, no investigation has been made to ascertain as to whom the counterfeit currency notes were to be delivered. It puts doubt in the mind of Court as to whether in fact accused were apprehended on the basis of any such information.
15. SI Bhanu Kanwaria deposed in crossexamination that one room on the first floor was lying open while other rooms were closed. Ct. Satish Kumar also stated that main gate of the house FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 21 of 23 where the raid was conducted was lying open. It is rather strange that though accused persons were making counterfeit currency notes yet they did not take even the ordinary precaution of bolting the door from inside and therefore the story appears highly improbably. SI K. P. Singh admits in his crossexamination that police team had not offered their search to the accused persons before taking their search and therefore under these circumstances the possibility of planting the recovery on accused cannot be ruled out.
16. It is evident from the aforesaid discussion that testimonies of police witnesses do not inspire confidence. In the case of Aslam Parvez Etc. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2003 (2) RCR (Crl) 874, in a case under TADA where considerable quantity of arms, ammunition, explosives and bombs were recovered, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that testimonies of official witnesses do not inspire confidence. It was found that public witnesses did not support the Prosecution case. The conviction was therefore set aside. In the present case also, the only public witness produced by the Prosecution has not supported the Prosecution FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 22 of 23 case and the testimonies of the police officials do not inspire any confidence and therefore, in my opinion, Prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond doubt. All the accused are therefore acquitted. Their bail bonds are cancelled; sureties are discharged. Documents of sureties, if any, be released after cancellation of endorsement. File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAVINDER DUDEJA) ASJ/NW03/ROHINI/DELHI ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 23082011 FIR No. 902/06; State Vs. Aman Jindal Etc. Page 23 of 23