Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd. Mahtab on 23 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. MEENA CHAUHAN,
MM-08: CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
FIR No. 178/2020
PS Kamla Market
U/s. 25 of Arms Act, 1959
State vs. Mohd. Mahtab
CIS No. 4802/20
Date of Institution of the case: 28.08.2020
Date of Judgement reserved: 16.07.2022
Date on which Judgement pronounced: 23.07.2022
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No.: 178/20
b Date of the commission of : 08.08.2020
the offence
c Name of the Complainant : Ct. Satyadev, Belt No. 2425/C, PS Kamla
Market, Delhi
d Name of Accused person : Mohd. Mahtab S/o Mohd. Abbas
and his parentage and R/o H. No. 307, Metro Vihar Holombi
residence Khurd, Delhi & Jhuggi No.394, LNJP
Colony, Delhi.
e Offence complained of : U/s 25(1B)/54/59 Arms Act
f Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g Final Order : Acquittal
JUDGEMENT
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION 1/16
1. The case of the prosecution is that the accused on 08.08.2020 at about 09:20 pm at Hamdard Chowk Picket, Asaf Ali Road, Kamla Market, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Kamla Market was found in possession of one buttondar knife measuring length of the knife 23 cm and having blade length 11 cm and width of 2.5 cm in contravention of Notification No. F-13/451/79-HOME (G) dated 29.10.1980. On these allegations, the present FIR No. 178/2020 was registered at PS Kamla Market u/s 25 of The Arms Act, 1959. The buttondar knife was seized and taken into possession by the police.
2. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused. Copy of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused under section 207 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C)and thereafter charge under section 25 Arms Act was framed against him on 30.01.2021 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution examined four witnesses to establish its version.
PW-1 Ct. Satyadev has been examined-in-chief wherein he deposed that on 08.08.2020, he was on picket duty at Hamdard Chowk alongwith HC Mahabeer. At 09:20 pm, accused Md. Mehtab came towards the picket but as he saw them on duty he turned around and started running away due to which they got suspicious of him and he took hold of him on the spot. He further deposed that he made an inspection of the accused in person and found one buttondar knife from the right side of his jeans which was hooked in his belt. After that he intimated the whole incident to the Duty Officer in compliance to which he sent the IO HC Kumar Sanjay on the spot. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement and statement of HC Mahabeer and IO prepared the sketch of knife on his instance Ex. PW-1/A. At his instance, the site plan was also prepared on the spot as Ex.PW-1/B. He further deposed that the total length of the knife was 23 cm and 2/16 the length of butt was 12 cm and length of blade was 2.5 cm having a button on the handle of knife. Thereafter, IO put the knife in the white pullanda and sealed it with the seal 'KS'. Thereafter, IO prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW- 2/A, recorded his statement and prepared a tehrir and rukka and the same was handed over to Ct. Dharmendra for the registration of FIR. IO inserted the particulars of FIR on sketch memo and seizure memo. IO conducted the personal search of the accused and arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-2/C. Thereafter, IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW-2/D. He along-with Ct. Dharmender went to the Lady Harding Hospital for a medical examination. After medical examination, the accused was lodged in lockup and the case property was deposited in Malkhana. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement in u/s 161 Cr.PC.
(At that stage, case property was produced by MHC(M) in a white pullanda having the particulars of the case on it and sealed with seal VG. The seal was intact. The white cloth pullanda was opened and it contains a button-actuated knife. The witness had a look of the knife and he has correctly identified the case property Ex.P-1).
During cross-examination by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-1 admitted the suggestion that IO had recorded the same statement which had been made to IO and the same doesn't mention about the preparation of documents. He further admitted that no correction/overwriting/improvement in any document is made by IO in his presence. Further, he admitted the suggestion that the incident spot was a crowded place and no publice persons joined the investigation. However, at this stage he voluntarily submitted that IO has requested public persons to join the investigation. He admitted that no notice had been served on any public witnesses. He denied the suggestion that no property was recovered from the 3/16 accused or that the accused has been falsely implicated. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
4. PW-2 Ct. Dharmender had testified that on 08.08.2020, he was on emergency duty. On that day, on DD No. 81A he along with HC Sanjay Kumar at the incident spot at Hamdar Chowk, Picket. Where they met the Ct. Satyadev who handed over the accused namely Md. Mehtab and a buttondar knife to HC Sanjay and informed about the incident. Thereafter, HC Sanjay prepared the sketch memo Ex.PW-1/A. The total length of the knife was 23 cm and the length of butt was 12 cm and the length of blade was 2.5 cm having a button on the handle of the knife. Thereafter, IO put the knife in the white pullanda and sealed it with the seal KS. Thereafter, IO prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW- 2/A bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of the Ct. Satyadev prepared the Tehrir and Rukka and the same was handed over to him for the registration of FIR. After the registration of FIR, he came back to the incident spot and handed over the same to the IO. Thereafter, IO inserted the particulars of FIR on sketch memo and seizure memo. Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan at the instance of Ct. Satyadev which is Ex.PW-1/B. Thereafter, IO conducted the personal search of accused and arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-2/C. Thereafter, IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW-2/D. Thereafter, after the medical examination of the accused in LNJP Hospital, the accused was lodged in lockup and the case property was deposited in malkhana. Thereafter, IO recorded my statement in u/s 161 Cr.PC. He has correctly identified the accused. PW-2 has also correctly identified the case property which is Ex.P-1.
During cross-examination by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-2 admitted the suggestion that no correction was made by IO after preparation of the 4/16 documents related to this case in his presence. Further, he admitted the suggestion that the incident spot was a crowded place and no publice persons joined the investigation. However, at this stage he voluntarily submitted that IO has requested public persons to join the investigation. He admitted that no notice had been served on any public witnesses. He denied the suggestion that no property was recovered from the accused or that the accused has been falsely implicated. He denied that all documents were prepared while sitting at the PS. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
5. PW-3 HC Mahabir has been examined-in-chief wherein he deposed that on 08.08.2020, he was on picket duty at Hamdard Chowk alongwith Ct. Satyadev. At 09:20 pm accused Md. Mehtab came towards the picket from the side of Ajmeri Gate, Delhi but after seeing us on duty he turned back and started to walk hasetly due to which they got suspicion on him and took hold of him on the spot. Thereafter, Ct. Satyadev made a cursory search of the accused and found one buttondar knife from the right side of his jeans which was hooked in his belt. After that Ct. Satyadev informed the whole incident to the Duty Officer in compliance to which he sent the IO HC Kumar Sanjay on the spot. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of Ct. Satyadev and Thereafter, HC Sanjay prepared the sketch memo which was Ex.PW-1/A. The total length of the knife was 23 cm and the length of butt was 12 cm and length of blade was 2.5 cm having a button on the handle of the knife. Thereafter, IO put the knife in the white pullanda and sealed it with the seal KS. Thereafter, IO prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW-2/A. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of the Ct. Satyadev prepared the tehrir and rukka and the same was handed over to Ct. Dharmendra for the registration of FIR. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement in 5/16 u/s 161 Cr.PC. PW-3 has correctly identified the accused. He has also correctly identified the case property Ex.P-1.
During cross-examination by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-3 admitted the suggestion that IO had recorded the same statement which had been made to IO and the same doesn't mention about the preparation of documents. He further admitted that no correction/overwriting/improvement in any document is made by IO in his presence. Further, he admitted the suggestion that the incident spot was a crowded place and no publice persons joined the investigation. However, at this stage he voluntarily submitted that IO has requested public persons to join the investigation. He admitted that no notice had been served on any public witnesses. He denied the suggestion that no property was recovered from the accused or that the accused has been falsely implicated. He denied that all the documents were prepared while sitting at PS. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
6. PW-4 HC Kumar Sanjay has deposed that on 08.08.2020, on receiving DD No. 81A, he alongwith Ct. Dharmendra at the incident spot at Hamdar Chowk, Picket. Where they met the Ct. Satyadev and HC Mahavir who handed over the accused namely Md. Mehtab along with a buttondar knife informed him about the incident. He requested 4-5 persons to join the investigation but all of them refused and left the spot on the pretext of urgent work. He could not serve any notice to public persons due to paucity of time. Thereafter, he prepared a sketch memo Ex.PW-1/A. The total length of the knife was 23 cm and the length of butt was 12 cm and length of blade was 2.5 cm having a button on the handle of the knife. Thereafter, he put the knife in the white pullanda and sealed it with the seal KS. Thereafter, he prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW-2/A and recorded the statement of the Ct. Satyadev. He prepared the tehrir Ex.PW1/C and rukka 6/16 Ex.PW4/A and the same was handed over to Ct. Dharmendra for the registration of FIR. After the registration of FIR, Ct Dharmendra came back to the incident spot and handed over the same to him. Thereafter, he had inserted the particulars of FIR on sketch memo and seizure memo. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan at the instance of Ct. Satyadev Ex.PW-1/B. Thereafter, he conducted the personal search of the accused and arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-2/C .Thereafter, he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW-2/D. He further deposed that after the medical examination of the accused in LNJP Hospital, the accused was lodged in lockup and the case property was deposited in malkhana. PW-4 has correctly identified the case property Ex.P-1.
During cross-examination by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-4 admitted the suggestion that he had not made any correction after preparation of the document related to this case. Further, he admitted the suggestion that the incident spot was a crowded place and no publice persons joined the investigation. However, at this stage he voluntarily submitted that he has requested public persons to join the investigation. He admitted that no notice had been served on any public witnesses. He denied the suggestion that no property was recovered from the accused or that the accused has been falsely implicated. He denied that all the documents were prepared while sitting at the PS. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
7. Vide order dated 30.01.2021, the accused has made statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
and admitted the factum of registration of FIR which is Ex.A-1, endorsement Ex.A-2, certificate u/s 65B Ex.A-3, DAD notification Ex.A-4 without admitting the content of the same by giving separate statement without oath.
7/168. The prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 07.04.2022 and the statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 read with section 281 of Cr.P.C., wherein he pleaded innocence and stated to be falsely implicated. The accused opted not to lead any evidence in his defence. Final arguments of the case were heard on 16.07.2022.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
9. Learned APP for the state submitted that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt for the alleged offence, and the accused be convicted for offence u/s 25 of Arms Act.
10. Per Contra, learned LAC for the accused submitted that there are severe discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. It is argued that despite admission by all prosecution witnesses that the place of alleged offence was a crowded place, no public/independent person was made witness. Further, it is submitted that the case of prosecution is based on testimonies of all police witnesses. Also, the seizure memo is doubtful as antedated for bearing the FIR number in it. Lastly, it is submitted that the present case is planted upon the accused and there is no CCTV footage to prove the presence of the accused at the spot.
11. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for state and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and carefully perused the documents on record. Before appreciating the evidence for deciding the present case, the applicable penal provision is reproduced in verbatim as follows:-
"25. Punishment for certain offences-
(1B) Whoever-...(b) acquires, has in his possession or carries in any place specified by notification under section 4 any arms of such class or description as has been specified in that notification in contravention of that section; or...
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 25 8/16 [one year] but which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine."
12. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused. Further, it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such reasonable doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
13. Coming to the matter in hand, to sustain conviction u/s. 25 of Arms Act, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:
a. The accused was found in the possession of the button actuated knife. b. The accused was carrying the same without any licence/permit or in contravention of notification of Delhi Administration.
14. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution is required to prove the possession of a buttondar knife with the accused at the very spot, from where the accused was apprehended. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused was apprehended at around 09:20 pm near, Hamdard Chowk Picket, Asaf Ali Road, Kamla Market, which is a busy public place. Further, all the prosecution witnesses unanimously admitted in their cross-examination that the incident spot was a crowded area. The recovery is alleged to have been affected from a public place at around 9:00 P.M. Therefore, in all probability public persons must have been present around the place of recovery. It turns out that there was no lack of time and opportunity with the IO to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with the provisions of code of criminal procedure. Merely mentioning that public persons were requested to join the investigation is of no avail. The names of those persons are not mentioned. It is not mentioned as to what action was taken against those 9/16 persons who refused to join the investigation.
15. Here, it is pertinent to refer to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Of Punjab V. Balbir Singh AIR 1994 SC 1872, held that :
"It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and also examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the fact that these provisions have not been complied with and further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the non-compliance. It is well-settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent corroboration. This again depends on the question whether the official has deliberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with these provisions. [Emphasis supplied]"
16. At this stage, it is crucial here to refer to section 100 of Cr.P.C. which is reproduced here:
100. Persons in charge of closed place to allow search.
(4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.
(5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it.
(8) Any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects to attend and 10/16 witness a search under this section, when called upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him, shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 187 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ).
Section 100 (4) of the CrPC casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. Further, it is clearly stated that if any such person refuses or neglects to be part of the search without citing any reasonable cause, it is the duty of an official to give him a notice in this regard.
17. In the present case, on perusal of the documentary records relied on by the prosecution, it is clear that neither the tehrir which is Ex.PW1/C or rukka which is PW4/A, nor FIR which is Ex.A1 mentioned any public witness or independent witness. The fact of not noting down the name or address of any witness in the diary, or giving notice to public persons who refused to be part of the investigation, casts doubt on the story of the prosecution that whether any serious efforts were made to join any public witness in the proceedings. All the four prosecution witnesses examined in the present matter are police witnesses. The testimony of official witnesses doesn't find any corroboration from any independent source. In the opinion of this court, non-joining of independent/public witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case and creates serious doubts regarding the genuineness of investigation proceedings done at the spot.
18. In Roop Chand v. State of Haryana 1990(1) CLR 69, it was observed that such explanations that the public persons refused to join the proceedings are unreliable. Further, in Passi @ Prakash V. State of Haryana 2001(1) RCR 435, that whenever any recovery in connection with the place of the commission of the offence is made, public persons must be made witnesses. Also, in Pawan Kumar v/s Delhi Administration 1989 Cri. L.J. 127, it was observed that in case failure to join independent witness benefit of doubt must be given to the 11/16 accused.
19. This Court is, however, conscious that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution but there are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version.
20. The other major infirminty found in the present case is that as per the prosecution version, the buttondar knife has been recovered from the possession of the accused. To substantiate this allegation, the prosecution produced tehrir which mentioned sketch memo(Ex.PW1/A) and Seizure memo (Ex.PW2/A) of the buttondar knife being made at the time of recovery. Further, as per the depositions of PW-1 and PW-3, the case property was first seized, a sketch of one button operated knife was prepared and then rukka was sent for registration of FIR. However, the seizure memo and sketch bear the FIR number. At the time of the seizure, the FIR number was not available and therefore, the FIR number could not have been figured on the seizure memo or the sketch. The existence of the FIR number on the seizure memo suggests that the seizure memo was prepared after the registration of the FIR. All the prosecution witnesses in single tone admitted in their cross-examination admitted that no overwriting/improvement/correction is being done in any of the documents. However, in their examinations-in-chiefs, all of them in a stark contrast also deposed that the sketch and seizure memo was prepared before the registration of FIR, but IO has inserted an FIR number in the sketch memo and seizure memo after the registration of FIR. This erodes the credibility of the seizure memo and sketch memo as the possibility of tampering can't be ruled out.
12/1621. In paragraph 4 of Mohd. Hashim v. State, 1999 VI AD (Delhi) 569, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed:
"... Surprisingly, the secret information (Ex. PW7/A) received by the Sub- Inspector Narender Kumar Tyagi (PW-7), the notice under Section 50 of the Act (Ex. PW5/A) alleged to have been served on the appellant, the seizure memo (Ex. PW1/A) and the report submitted under Section 57 of the Act (Ex. PW7/D) bear the number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B). The number of the FIR (Ex.PW4/B) given on the top of the aforesaid documents is in the same ink and in the same handwriting, which clearly indicates that these documents were prepared at the same time. The prosecution has not offered any explanation as to under what circumstance number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) had appeared on the top of the aforesaid documents, which were allegedly prepared on the spot. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the contraband or number of the said FIR was inserted in these documents after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about recovery of the contraband in the manner alleged by the prosecution."
22. Another dent in the prosecution case is related to the seal. It is crucial to note here that there are three major discrepancies in this regard:
● a) Change of seal from "KS" to "VG".
● b) No seal-handling memo was prepared.
● c) Seal not handed over to independent witness after use.
23. All prosecution witnesses have deposed in their examination in chief that PW-4/IO has seized and sealed the case property at the spot in clothed pullanda with the seal of KS after that seal was handed over to PW-2. No handing over memo was prepared. The seal was handed over to the material prosecution witness, who is already interested in the case of the prosecution and not handed over to an independent witness nor deposited in malkhana. No explanation has come on record as to why the memo was not made or seal was not handed over to an independent witness or deposited in malkhana. During the cross- examination of PW-1, when case property was shown to the witness in the court, a white pullanda in which a buttondar knife was allegedly seized and 13/16 sealed was found sealed with seal of VG and not KS as deposed by all witnesses. The fact that the seal of the case property got changed before it was proved in the court, speaks of nothing but the possibility of tampering of case property.
24. This Court is conscious of precedent laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. State 1993 (1) RCR (Criminal) 622, that:
"The seals after use were kept by the police officials themselves. Therefore the possibility of tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tampered with. ..... Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused."
25. These are other material contradictions in the case of the prosecution. PW-1 in his statements under section 161 Cr.P.C and in his examination-in-chief before the court stated that the site plan was prepared by the IO at his instance and thereafter PW-2 was sent to Police station along with rukka and tehrir to register an FIR. However, PW-2 and PW-4 in his testimony before the court deposed that the site plan had been prepared after the registration of FIR. Perusal of a site plan which is Ex.PW-1/B shows that it bears an FIR number of the case. This contradiction raises doubt regarding the time when site plan was prepared and mentioning of FIR number on the site plan if it had been prepared before registration of FIR also raises question regarding credibility of this document. Further, all the prosecution witnesses admitted in their evidence that medical examination of the accused was done after the arrest and before the accused was locked up in the Police station but there is no plausible explanation as to why it is not tagged with the final charge sheet and brought on record.
26. Concerning the personal search of the accused before the alleged recovery, it was stated by the PW-1 that he made a cursory search of the accused. On the 14/16 other hand, PW-3 stated in his statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that he conducted cursory search of the accused, however in his deposition before the court he again stated that PW-1 made cursory search of the accused.. These are the only two witnesses present at the spot at the time of recovery and giving contrary versions as to who made the personal search of the accused. Further, neither PW-1 nor PW-3 stated during his cross-examination that he asked the accused to search him before and then did the personal search of the accused. This fact was not mentioned in either tehrir or the statement of PW-1 and PW-3 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, which erodes the testimony of the PW-1 and PW-3 in this regard. In the case of Orissa High Court reported as Rabindernath Prusty v/s State of Orissa, it was held that "One of the formalities that have to be observed in searching a person is that the searching Officer and other assisting him should give their search to the accused before searching the person of the accused." In the present case, no independent witness deposed about the search being done by the accused before his personal search whereby the buttondar knife was recovered from him. All these circumstances raise serious doubt regarding the fairness and credibility of investigation proceedings conducted by the police at the alleged date, time and place.
CONCLUSION
27. The facts that no independent witness was cited or examined and the appearance of FIR number and case particulars on the seizure memo, no seal handing memo, has not been explained, all aforesaid inconsistencies when kept in juxtaposition to each other, cast a cloud of suspicion over the prosecution version. In view of the aforesaid, the possibility of false implication of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out.
28. It is trite in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is under an obligation 15/16 to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be allowed to the accused.
29. On careful perusal and analysis of the entire evidence, I find that there is no corroborative, consistent and sufficient evidence to make up the edifice of the prosecution case which has been produced by the prosecution. Given the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it has to be concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Accused is given the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the accused Mohd. Mahtab s/o Mohd. Abbas is hereby acquitted for an offence punishable under Section 25 of The Arms Act, 1959.
File be consigned to Record Room subject to compliance of section 437-A Cr.PC.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
by MEENA
MEENA
today i.e. 23rd day of July 2022 CHAUHAN
CHAUHAN
Date: 2022.07.23
17:03:20 +0530
(MEENA CHAUHAN)
Metropolitan Magistrate-08
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
[This judgement contains 16 signed pages]
[This judgement has been directly typed to dictation.]
16/16