Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjay Alick on 24 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVLI TALWAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 06, CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 443/2020
PS-Civil Lines
U/s - 12 of Delhi Public Gambling Act
State Vs. Sanjay Alick
JUDGMENT
(a) Criminal Case No. 3580/2021
(b) CNR No. DLCT02-007061/2021
(c) Date of 21.10.2020 commission of offence
(d) Name of the HC Ankur No. 2994/N, PS Civil Lines, Delhi complainant
(e) Name of the Sanjay Alick s/o Sh. Alick Tinu r/o House No. UN accused person(s), 31/22, Old Chandrawal, Civil Lines, Delhi. his parentage and residence
(f) Offence(s) Section 12 of Delhi Public Gambling Act complained of or proved
(g) Plea of the Pleaded not guilty accused
(h) Final Order Acquitted
(i) Date of institution 23.03.2021 of case
(j) Date when 24.12.2021 judgment was reserved
(k) Date of judgment 24.12.2021 Brief reasons for the decision of the case: -
1. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 21.10.2020 at about 3:10 PM opposite Parsvnath Building, near Shauchalaya, Majnu ka SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2021.12.24 16:18:35 +0530 FIR No. 443/2020 PS Civil Lines State vs. Sanjay Alick Page No. 1 of 18 Tilla, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Civil Lines, the accused namely Sanjay Alick was found gambling by slips on which different numbers were mentioned and Rs. 480/- were recovered from the spot.
2. On finding a prima facie case to proceed against the accused, cognizance of the offence was taken on 23.03.2021 and the accused was duly summoned. The provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were duly complied with and notice of accusation for offence u/s 12 Delhi Public Gambling Act was served upon the accused on 31.03.2021 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined three witnesses: PW1 Ct. Rajesh (complainant), PW2 Ct. Satyawan and PW3 HC Ankur Tomar (Investigating Officer).
4. The record transpires that during the course of trial, the accused admitted the present FIR Ex. A1 and the examination of formal witness qua the same was accordingly dispensed with.
5. The prosecution evidence was closed on 29.11.2021 and the accused was examined u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. wherein all incriminating evidence was put to him. He submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the case property was planted upon him. He opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
6. Prior to delving into the merits of the present case, it is relevant to briefly discuss the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.Digitally signed
SHIVLI by SHIVLI
TALWAR
TALWAR Date: 2021.12.24
16:18:44 +0530
FIR No. 443/2020 PS Civil Lines State vs. Sanjay Alick Page No. 2 of 18
7. PW1 Ct. Rajesh is the complainant. He deposed that on 21.10.2020, he along with Ct. Satyawan were on patrolling duty. At about 3.10 PM, they reached in front of Parsvanath building near Shauchalaya Majnu ka Tilla where they saw a person who had a small diary in his hand surrounded by 2-3 boys. He started to run away after seeing them. The witness and Ct. Satyawan overpowered the accused. Upon cursory search of the accused, accused was found having one small diary, pen in one hand and Rs. 480/- in another hand (1 note of Rs.
200/-, 2 notes of Rs. 100/-, 1 note of Rs. 20/- and 6 notes of Rs. 10/-). The witness informed in the police station about the incident. IO HC Ankur Tomar came at the spot and the witness handed over the accused and recovered articles to the IO. IO recorded his statement Ex. PW1/1. He went to the police station along with original Tehrir to get the FIR registered. He handed over the original Tehrir to the duty officer who registered the present FIR Ex. A1. Thereafter, he came back to the spot along with original Tehrir and computerised copy of FIR. IO prepared the site plan and seized the case property i.e., one small diary, a pen and Rs. 480/- in total in white pullanda and sealed it with the seal of 'AT'. IO handed over the seal to the witness. Thereafter, the witness deposited the seized case property in Malkhana, PS Civil Lines. Accused was arrested by the IO vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/2 and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/3. The accused was interrogated by the IO and his disclosure statement Ex. PW1/4 was recorded in the presence of the witness. The witness correctly identified the accused as well as case property Ex.
Digitally signed by SHIVLIP1 during his testimony before the Court. TALWAR SHIVLI Date:
TALWAR 2021.12.24 16:18:51 +0530 FIR No. 443/2020 PS Civil Lines State vs. Sanjay Alick Page No. 3 of 18 During his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused, the witness deposed that his duty hours on 21.10.2020 were 10 AM to 10 PM. He reached the spot of incident at 3.10 PM. When he reached the spot, he saw 3-4 people standing there. They ran away when he went to catch them. He then followed them and caught the accused. He could not catch the remaining accused persons. At 3.30 PM., he called the police station. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence was about 1 km. Thereafter, IO HC Ankur Tomar came to the spot. The witness wrote tehrir and thereafter prepared site plan at the spot. Thereafter, at 3.45 PM, he returned to PS Civil Lines for registration of FIR. At 04.00 PM, he returned to the spot, prepared the arrest memo and personal search memo. Thereafter, he received the bail bond by the mother of the accused and released the accused on police bail. The witness denied the suggestion that he did not recover one small diary, pen and Rs. 480/- from the possession of accused.
8. PW2 Ct. Satyawan deposed on similar lines as PW1 Ct. Rajesh. The witness correctly identified the accused during his testimony before the Court.
During his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused, the witness deposed that the incident is of 21.10.2020. He further deposed that he was on duty with Ct. Rajesh on that day and his duty hours were 10 AM to 10 PM. He reached the spot after 3 PM. The accused was at a distance of 10 feet from them. He further deposed that the accused was surrounded by 3-4 persons and that no other person was apprehended except the accused. He deposed that Ct. Rajesh went the SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2021.12.24 16:18:59 +0530 FIR No. 443/2020 PS Civil Lines State vs. Sanjay Alick Page No. 4 of 18 police station whereas he remained present at the spot. He further deposed that one diary, pen and Rs. 480/- were recovered from the accused during his search. He further deposed that there were residential houses behind the place of incident. He further deposed that he did not remember as to how Ct. Rajesh went to the police station and after how much time he came back to the spot. He further deposed that his statement was recorded at the spot. He further deposed that he was not personally searched by the IO when he came to the spot. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected from the accused and it was planted by him.
9. PW3 HC Ankur Tomar is the Investigating Officer. He also deposed on similar lines as PW1 Ct. Rajesh and PW2 Ct. Satyawan. He deposed that he reached the spot at around 03.00-04.00 PM where accused was apprehended by PW1 Ct. Rajesh and PW2 Ct. Satyawan. He proved the rukka Ex. PW3/1 and seizure memo Ex. PW3/2. He deposed that the accused was released on police bail as the offence is bailable in nature. The witness correctly identified the accused during his testimony before the court.
During his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused, the witness deposed that he received call at around 03.00-04.00 PM and he reached the spot at around 04.00 PM. He prepared rukka on the spot. He further deposed that suspicious numbers were mentioned in the diary which was recovered from the possession of accused. He further deposed that no public person was ready to be a witness regarding the recovery from the accused. He denied the suggestion that nothing Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2021.12.24 16:19:06 +0530 FIR No. 443/2020 PS Civil Lines State vs. Sanjay Alick Page No. 5 of 18 suspicious was found from the possession of accused.
10. This is the entire evidence on case record.
11. I have given a considered thought to the rival submissions made by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. LAC for accused keeping in view the material available on the judicial file.
12. Ld. APP for the State has contended that the presence of accused at the spot of incident is established beyond reasonable doubts as all the prosecution witnesses have correctly identified him before the Court. It is further contended that prosecution has established the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the offence in question.
13. Per contra, Ld. LAC for accused has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and the case property has been planted upon him. It has been further argued that no independent public witness was asked to join the investigation despite availability and the only witnesses examined by the prosecution are the police officials whose testimonies are not reliable without corroboration by public witnesses. It has further been argued by Ld. LAC for accused that none of the police officers had made departure/ arrival entry of their patrolling duty in the daily diary. Thus, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and the accused is entitled to acquittal.
14. Before proceeding further on merits of this case, let us first discuss the relevant provision of law for which notice of accusation was served SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2021.12.24 16:19:13 +0530 FIR No. 443/2020 PS Civil Lines State vs. Sanjay Alick Page No. 6 of 18 upon the accused.
Section 12 of the Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955 provides as under:
"12. Gaming and setting birds and animals to fight in public streets. - A police officer may apprehend without warrant any person found gaming in any public street, place or thoroughfare situated within the Union Territory of Delhi, or any person setting any birds or animals to fight in any public street, place or thoroughfare situated within the said State, or any person there present aiding and abetting such public fighting of birds and animals, such person when apprehended shall be brought without delay before a Magistrate and shall be liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months and shall also be liable to a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, and such police officer may seize all instruments of gaming found in such public street, place or thoroughfare or on the person of those whom he shall so arrest, and the Magistrate may on conviction of the offender order such instruments to be forthwith destroyed".
15. In the aforementioned backdrop, the Court shall now proceed to deliberate upon the evidence appearing on record so as to evaluate if the prosecution has proved its case on the requisite yardsticks or not.
16. Before proceeding with the appreciation of evidence, the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is to be borne in mind, that prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. In order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2021.12.24 16:19:21 +0530 FIR No. 443/2020 PS Civil Lines State vs. Sanjay Alick Page No. 7 of 18 supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have and accused is entitled to benefit of reasonable doubts in the prosecution story and any such doubts in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
17. It has been argued by Ld. LAC for accused that no public witness was joined by the IO during investigation of the present case and at the time of alleged recovery of the case property, despite their availability.
Perusal of record reflects that PW2 Ct. Satyawan, during his cross- examination by Ld. LAC for accused deposed that there were residential houses behind the place of incident. PW3/ IO HC Ankur Tomar also, during his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused, deposed that no public person was ready to be a witness regarding the recovery from the accused.
Ld. LAC for accused submits that the prosecution has only examined police officials whose testimonies are not reliable without corroboration by public witnesses. Ld. LAC has further argued that recovery of case property has been planted upon the accused.
No doubt, it is settled law that the testimony of police witnesses can be relied upon if it inspires confidence of the court but in this case, no plausible explanation has been put forth by the prosecution for failure to join public witnesses during the investigation and specifically at the time of alleged search and seizure of case property in compliance of Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2021.12.24 16:19:28 +0530 FIR No. 443/2020 PS Civil Lines State vs. Sanjay Alick Page No. 8 of 18 section 100(4) Cr.P.C., despite their availability. The same brings the seizure under a cloud of doubt.
Reference is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana 1999 (1) CLR 69 wherein it was observed that, "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 admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in 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 person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the public had refused to to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2021.12.24 16:19:35 +0530 FIR No. 443/2020 PS Civil Lines State vs. Sanjay Alick Page No. 9 of 18 make the prosecution case highly doubtful''.
Reference is also made to the judgment in the case titled as Anoop Joshi V/s State, 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC) wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that, "It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that 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 evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop-keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeeeprs 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".
Admittedly, there were residential houses behind the place of occurrence and independent public persons were present at the spot. This Court is of the considered opinion that in order to lend credibility to the prosecution case and to ensure transparency and fairness during search and seizure, some independent person should have been associated by the IO during investigation. However, no sincere efforts were made by the IO to persuade any public witness to join the investigation and no written notice was served upon any of the public Digitally signed SHIVLI by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2021.12.24 16:19:42 +0530 FIR No. 443/2020 PS Civil Lines State vs. Sanjay Alick Page No. 10 of 18 persons. It has also not been mentioned as to what action was taken against those persons who refused to join the investigation.
18. It has been further argued by Ld. LAC for accused that case property has been tampered with as no seal handing over memo was prepared by the IO. PW1/complainant Ct. Rajesh, during his examination-in- chief, deposed that pursuant to seizure of case property by the IO from the accused, IO put the case property in a white pullanda and sealed it with the seal of 'AT' and seal after use was handed over to PW1/ Ct. Rajesh. Thereafter, Ct. Rajesh deposited the seized case property in Malkhana, PS Civil Lines.
Admittedly, the seal after use was not handed over to any independent person. It was handed over by the IO to PW1 / complainant Ct. Rajesh only. This Court is of the considered opinion that PW1 himself being the complainant is a material witness who would always be interested in the success of the case of the prosecution and thus chances of tampering of case property cannot be ruled out.
Reference is made to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Safiullah vs State (Delhi Administration) 49 (1993) DLT 193 wherein it was held that:
"It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the seal after use was handed over to the independent witness Public Witness .5. Even the 1.0. Public Witness .7 does not utter a word regarding the handing over of the seal after use. Therefore, the conclusion which can be arrived at is that the seal remained with the Investigating Officer or Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2021.12.24 16:19:49 +0530 FIR No. 443/2020 PS Civil Lines State vs. Sanjay Alick Page No. 11 of 18 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."
Reference is also made to the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ramji Singh v. State of Haryana, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 452, wherein it was held that, "The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property."
Thus, in the present case, the possibility of tampering of case property cannot be ruled out as it was lying in the same malkhana where the police officials having possession of the seal were posted.
19. It has been further argued by Ld. LAC for accused that no DD entry pertaining to arrival and departure of the police officials for patrolling duties has been proved on record.
From the perusal of record, it emerges that no DD entry pertaining to departure for patrolling duty has been proved on record by any of the police officials.
At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that Chapter 22 rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules 1934, provides as under:
22.49 Matters to be entered in Register no.II: The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered: Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR Date:
TALWAR 2021.12.24
16:19:55
+0530
FIR No. 443/2020 PS Civil Lines State vs. Sanjay Alick Page No. 12 of 18
"(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with the statement of nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by latter personally by signature or seal. Note: The term Police Station will include or places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where register no. II is maintained."
In the present case, the said provision has not been complied with by the investigating agency. As per the prosecution version, at the relevant time, police personnel were on area patrolling duty but the DD entry vide which they had left the police station for patrolling has not been brought on record. Even the number of the said DD entry made in Register No. II has not been brought on judicial record. In the considered opinion of the Court, prosecution was under an obligation to prove on record, the above said DD entry vide which above said police officials had left the police station for patrolling duty so as to prove the possibility of availability of police personnel at the place of apprehension of accused. However, the same has not been done.
Reference is made to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29 Delhi High Court wherein it has been observed that, "If the investigation agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act, the courts will have to approach their action Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2021.12.24 16:20:03 +0530 FIR No. 443/2020 PS Civil Lines State vs. Sanjay Alick Page No. 13 of 18 with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution."
Thus, the failure to bring on record the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
20. It has been further contended by Ld. LAC for accused that all documents of the present case were prepared in the police station and not at the spot of alleged incident. It has been further argued that the accused was not arrested from the spot and he was infact called to the police station and thereafter arrested.
21. It is further pertinent to note that seizure memo Ex. PW3/2 bears the number and particulars of the present FIR. As per the rukka Ex. PW3/1 and testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the seizure memo of the case property was prepared prior to the registration of FIR. If that be the case, the prosecution has not offered any explanation whatsoever as to how the number and other particulars of the present FIR are mentioned on the seizure memo of the case property.
Reference is made to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Giri Raj vs State 83 (2000) DLT 201 wherein it was held that, "The number of the FIR (Ex. PW-2/A) given on the top of the Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2021.12.24 16:20:11 +0530 FIR No. 443/2020 PS Civil Lines State vs. Sanjay Alick Page No. 14 of 18 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 whatsoever as to under what circumstances number of the FIR (Ex. PW-2/A) had appeared on the top of the said documents, which were allegedly prepared on the spot before its registration. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex. PW-2/A) 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. That being so, the benefit arising out of such a situation must necessarily go to the appellant."
22. It is alleged by the prosecution that one small diary and pen were recovered from the possession of accused in which some numbers/ digits were mentioned. It has been argued by Ld. APP for the State that the accused used to write down certain numbers/digits in the diary and on the basis of those numbers, the gambling used to be done. If that be the case, the diary containing some numbers/ digits, allegedly recovered from the possession of accused must have been sent by the IO to FSL for comparison with his admitted handwriting. In a criminal trial, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and nothing is to be assumed. It cannot be assumed that the diary contained the handwriting of accused. This alleged fact was required to be proved by the prosecution specificallyDigitally by leading SHIVLI signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2021.12.24 16:20:19 +0530 FIR No. 443/2020 PS Civil Lines State vs. Sanjay Alick Page No. 15 of 18 positive evidence which could have been an opinion of the handwriting expert in the facts of the present case. Nothing of this sort was done by the IO for the reasons best known to him. The same further creates a gaping hole in the case of prosecution. Moreover, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that none of the prosecution witnesses deposed anything about any numbers/ digits written inside the diary recovered from the possession of accused. PW3/ IO HC Ankur Tumar, during his examination-in-chief, merely deposed that the diary recovered from the possession of accused was of blue colour and 'love kush' was written on the cover of the said diary.
23. It is further pertinent to note that if the accused was found gambling at a public place, then there must have been persons who were investing money with the accused. However, the prosecution has not been able to call any of those persons as prosecution witnesses. The same is a material void in the case of the prosecution.
24. Ld. LAC for accused has further argued that as per the rukka and testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the accused was standing with 2- 3 boys at the time of incident. However, there is no mention whatsoever by the IO regarding the steps taken to apprehend those persons.
25. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to bring any evidence on record as to the modus operandi adopted by the accused for alleged satta. It has not been proved by the prosecution as to how the recovered diary and pen would have been used for gambling. From the mere recovery Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2021.12.24 16:20:27 +0530 FIR No. 443/2020 PS Civil Lines State vs. Sanjay Alick Page No. 16 of 18 of diary, nothing can be deduced as to factum of alleged gambling. The prosecution ought to have brought on record positive evidences as to how the numbers mentioned in the diary could be used for gambling. It is not proved on record as to how the winner would be declared, who would declare the winner and when would the winner be declared. It is also not proved on record whether the winner would be declared by the accused, or by some third person or through any computer software by random numbers. This Court is of the considered opinion that recovery of a small diary and pen is not sufficient for proving the charge of gambling against the accused.
26. It also cannot be lost sight of that there is nothing on record to prove that the recovery witness offered his own search before conducting the search of accused due to which the possibility of the case property having been planted upon the accused cannot be ruled out. Reference has been made by Ld. LAC for accused to the testimony of PW2 Ct. Satyawan, who during his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused deposed that he was not personally searched by the IO when he came to the spot.
27. Thus, there are major lacunaes in the case of the prosecution. The aforementioned lacunaes and contradictions surfacing from the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses makes it extremely doubtful that on the fateful day, the accused was found gambling at the alleged time and place. Furthermore, the recovery of case property from the possession of accused has also not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts since no independent public Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2021.12.24 16:20:34 +0530 FIR No. 443/2020 PS Civil Lines State vs. Sanjay Alick Page No. 17 of 18 witnesses have been joined during the investigation and at the time of alleged recovery of case property, thereby diluting the case of the prosecution.
28. Thus, in light of the discussion made above, this Court is of the firm view that prosecution has failed to establish the charge levelled against the accused beyond shadow of doubt. Thus, the accused cannot be held liable for the offence with which he has been charged. Accordingly, accused namely Sanjay Alick is acquitted in the present case for the offence punishable u/s 12 Delhi Public Gambling Act.
29. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused at the time of commencement of trial stand 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 as per rules 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 the record room after due compliance. Digitally signed SHIVLI by SHIVLI TALWAR ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TALWAR Date: 2021.12.24 16:20:41 +0530 on: 24.12.2021 (SHIVLI TALWAR) MM-06(C)/THC/Delhi/24.12.2021 FIR No. 443/2020 PS Civil Lines State vs. Sanjay Alick Page No. 18 of 18