Delhi District Court
State vs Bharat @ Mirchi on 16 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS (CENTRAL); DELHI
SC No.79/09
FIR NO.85/09
PS Nabi Karim
U/s 21/61/85 NDPS Act
In the matter of:
State
Versus
Bharat @ Mirchi,
S/o Sh. Dalip Singh,
R/o H.No.8030, Multani Dhandi,
Gali no.9, Paharganj, Delhi. .......Accused
Date of Institution: 07.12.2009
Date of Judgment: 16.03.2012
J U D G M E N T
Bharat @ Mirchi, accused was challaned by police of PS Nabi Karim for having kept in possession 37 grams of "smack", on 13.10.09 at about 1.30 a.m., near Talwar Jewelers, Arakasha Road, Nabi Karim, Delhi and accordingly, he has been facing trial for an offence U/s 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Case of the prosecution is that on 13.10.09, SI Manoj Kumar of PS Nabi Karim received a secret information about expected arrival of the accused, (whose name figured in the Bad Characters' list of the area), near Chinnot FIR No. 85/2009 1 Bhawan, Street No.10, Multani Dhanda, Delhi, to supply smack. This information was recorded vide DD no.4A and also conveyed to the SHO. The SHO directed the SubInspector to conduct raid. Thereupon raiding party was constituted. It consisted of SI Manoj Kumar, Ct. Narender, SI Rajnikant and Abdul Gaffar. The party left the office of PS Nabi Karim at about 1.00 a.m. and reached the disclosed place i.e. near Chinnot Bhawan, Street No.10, Multani Dhanda, Delhi. The secret informer was accompanying them. The Sub Inspector tried to join persons from the passersby but none came forward.
It is case of the prosecution that at about 1.30 a.m., secret informer pointed out towards the accused on seeing him coming from the side of Talwar Jewelers, Arakasha Road, Nabi Karim, Delhi. On seeing the police party, the accused started running backward but he was apprehended.
Inspector H.S. Chauhan SHO also reached the spot when informed by SI Manoj Kumar. Notice U/s 50 of the Act was served upon him. Accused opted not to avail of being subjected to personal search in presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Thereupon, search of pocket of shirt of the accused led to recovery of 37 grams of smack contained in plastic polythene bag. Sample of 10 grams was separated from the lot, turned into a parcel and sealed. The residue was also turned into a parcel and sealed with the seal of SubInspector as well as of that the SHO. FSL form was filled in. Impression of the seals were also put on the FSL form.
Further, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused took out a surgical blade from his mouth and self inflicted injuries on his neck and head. FIR No. 85/2009 2 He was removed to LHMC hospital and got medically examined & treated there. On the basis of rukka prepared by SI Manoj Kumar, case was got registered. On reaching police station, the case property was deposited with MHC(M). After registration of the case SI Ram Narain reached the spot and took over the investigation. Sealed sample was got sent to FSL where its contents were got analyzed.
On completion of investigation, challan was put in Court. Copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the accused free of costs as required U/s 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, case came to be committed to the Hon'ble Court of Session, as provided U/s 209 Cr.P.C.
Charge
3. Prima facie case having been made out charge for offence U/s 21 of the Act was framed against the accused on 25.02.2010.
Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, prosecution was called upon to lead evidence.
Prosecution evidence
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined following 10 witnesses: PW1 HC Dev Singh, To prove recording of FIR Ex PW1/A concerned Duty Officer PW2 HC Gajender To prove communication of information under Section 52 &57 of Singh from the Office the Act.
of ACP
PW3 SI Rajni Kant To prove recovery and arrest
PW4 Ct. Narender To prove recovery and arrest
Singh
FIR No. 85/2009 3
PW5 Ct. Deepak Who collected sealed parcels and Road certificate and deposited
the same at FSL on 26.10.2009.
PW6 Inspector H. S. To prove investigation part of prosecution story Chauhan concerned SHO PW7 ASI Abdul Gaffar To prove arrest and recovery and also dealing with case property PW8 SI Ram Narain Who subsequently took over investigation PW9 SI Manoj Kumar To prove arrest and recovery PW10 Dr. Rajesh To prove MLC Ex PW10/A prepared on medical examination of Rathore the accused on 13.12.2009 at 3.15 am Statement of accused
5. When examined under Section 313 CrPC, accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and pleaded false implication.
Defence plea put forth by the accused reads as under : "In October,2009, when it was Monday, I was picked up by the police from Pucca Talab, Ghaziabad and then brought to PS Nabi Karim. I may mention that my brother in law Deepak @ Babu was also brought with me from the said place. Said Deepak was also falsely implicated in a similar case under NDPS Act.
No such notice was served upon me. My signatures were obtained by the police after giving me beatings.
My signatures were obtained by the police after giving me beatings.
I self suffered injuries. Actually, I suffered injuries when I was pushed by the police in the area of Ghaziabad while I was being picked up from there."
In defence the accused has examined Smt. Madhu, her sister. FIR No. 85/2009 4 Arguments heard. File perused.
Discussion Compliance with provisions of Section 42 (2)
6. "Section 42(2) of the Act which provides that where an officers takes down any information in writing, he shall send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior within 72 hours."
Ex PW9/A is the first document pertaining to this case. It is DD No.4A recorded on 13.10.2009 at 12.40 am at PS Nabi Karim. It was recorded by SI Manoj Kumar regarding receipt of secret information at the police station at the time regarding expected arrival of Bharat Mirchi, bad element of the area, to sell smack to smack addicts in street no. 10, Multani Dhanda.
PW9 SI Manoj Kumar has proved this document by narrating the information recorded therein. He has further proved to have communicated the information to the SHO telephonically and that the SHO directed him to constitute a raiding party whereupon he took alongwith SI Rajni Kant, Ct. Narender Kumar and HC Abdul Gaffar to the disclosed placed i.e. Chinnot Bhawan, Ara Kasha Road, Delhi after having left the office at about 1 am. Ex PW9/A contains names of all these officers who accompanied SI Manoj Kumar by way of members of the raiding party.
Factum of communication of information by SI Manoj Kumar to the SHO finds corroboration from the statement of Sh. H. S. Chauhan, concerned SHO. He further stated to have instructed SI Manoj Kumar to conduct raid. It is in the statement of the SHO that SI Manoj Kumar produced before him DD No. 4A FIR No. 85/2009 5 which contained secret information received by him. So this is a case of due compliance of Section 42(2) of the Act.
Arrest of the accused
7. According to PW9 SI Manoj Kumar at about 1.30 am they saw the accused coming from the side of Talwar Jewellers and he was apprehended at the pointing out of the secret informer, the moment the accused started running backwards on seeing them. According to the SI, he informed the SHO about this fact as well and SHO reached the spot at about 1.45 am. Prosecution version in this regard also finds support from the statements of PW3, PW4 and PW7. Statement of SI finds corroboration even from the statement of PW6 Inspector H. S. Chauhan, the concerned SHO when he stated to have rushed to the spot near Talwar Jeweller. Multani Dhanda, Pahar Ganj Delhi on receipt of information at about 1.45 am from the SI regarding apprehension of the accused.
Compliance with provisions of Section 50 of the Act.
8. It is case of the prosecution that before the accused was subjected to search, notice under Section 50 of the Act was served upon him. According to PW9 SI Manoj Kumar, he informed the accused that since he was to be subjected to search, on the basis of secret information against him, he could be taken to Gazetted officer or Magistrate in connection with his search. He also informed that Gazetted officer or Magistrate could also be called to the spot in this connection. He was specifically informed about this legal right, but the accused opted to be subjected to search in presence of the police officers. This fact also finds mention in the statement PW3, PW4 and PW7. Even PW6 FIR No. 85/2009 6 Inspector H. S. Chauhan who was present at that time has supported the prosecution case in this regard.
Reference has been made by Learned defence counsel to the statement of PW3 SI Rajnikant and PW4 Narinder, wherein they admitted about arrival of the SHO at the spot, even before personal search of the accused was conducted. The contention is that there is no explanation as to why the SHO did not attest the notices U/s 50 of the Act and witnessed the alleged recovery of the contraband from the accused. Nonexplanation in this regard, according to learned defence counsel creates doubt in the version of prosecution evidence. PW6 SHO H.S. Chauhan has stated that reply to the accused was recorded on the original notice U/s 50 of the Act. PW7 stated in its cross examination that accused did not give any reply to the notice U/s 50 of the Act.
While referring to the prosecution evidence, learned defence counsel has submitted that PW3 SI Rajnikant stated in its cross examination that the reply of the accused to the notice U/s 50 of the Act was recorded on copy of the notice, but on the other hand PW7 ASI Abdul Gaffar stated that reply of the accused to the notice U/s 50 of the Act was recorded in the original notice.
The contention is that this goes to show that actually no notice was served upon the accused and the entire proceeding was conducted by the police while sitting at the police station.
Notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act is Ex PW3/A. Reply of the accused to this notice also finds appended to it on the same page. PW3, PW4 & PW7 have proved their attestation on the notice and on the reply. Presence of all of FIR No. 85/2009 7 them on the given date, time and place stands duly established. In the given circumstances, even if notice does not bear attestation of the SHO. Same does not adversely affect the prosecution case.
Inspector H. S. Chauhan, the concerned SHO has deposed the manner in which he reached the spot and as to how accused was apprised of his legal right under Section 50 of the Act.
He also deposed about search of accused persons and recovery of smack from its possession. In his cross examination, the Inspector admitted to have signed any of the documents but denied that the documents were not bearing his signatures because he was not present at the spot. He categorically stated in his cross examination that refusal of the accused to exercise legal right under Section 50 of the Act was recorded on the notice.
Case of the prosecution is that the case property was sealed with the seal bearing impression MKS i.e. of SI Manoj Kumar and also with the seal bearing impression HS i.e. of Inspector H. S. ChauhanSHO. Had the Inspector not visited the spot, the parcels could not be sealed with the seal of Inspector at the spot. In this situation, nonattestation of notice under Section 50 of the Act by the SHO, does not adversely affect the case of prosecution.
Recovery
9. It is case of the prosecution that on search of upper pocket of the accused, smack in the form of brown powder contained in a polythene bag was recovered. It was weighed on electronic scale and found to be 37 grams. According to PW9 SI Manoj Kumar. PW3 SI Rajnikant, PW4 Ct. Narender and PW7 ASI FIR No. 85/2009 8 Abdul Gaffar, 10 grams of sample was separated from the lot and, turned into parcel and sealed with the seal bearing impression MKS. The residue contained in polythene bag was also sealed with this seal. As further stated by the witnesses, FSL form was also completed. These articles were the seized vide recovery memo which was attested by the witnesses at the spot.
It may be mentioned here that prior to the preparation of the recovery memo, the aforesaid two parcels were also sealed by the SHO with his seal bearing impression HS, the SHO affixed his seal on the FSL form and signed the parcels, FSL form and carbon copy of recovery memo.
A perusal of recovery memo Ex PW3/C would reveals that it bear signatures of SI Rajnikant, HC Abdul Gaffar and Ct. Narender. All these witnesses while stepping into the witness box have proved their attestation on the recovery memo and supported the case of prosecution as to the proceedings conducted at the spot up to seizure of parcels vide this recovery memo. It is in their statement that the SHO had also affixed his seal, on sealed parcles and also on the FSL form.
The concerned SHOINspector H. S. Chauhan while appearing as PW6 deposed about recovery of plastic bag from the pocket of the shirt of the accused and that it was weighed and found to be 37 grams; that sample of 10 grams was separated, turned into a parcel and sealed with seal bearing impression MKS; that the remaining smack weighing 27 grams also turned into parcel and sealed with the aforesaid seal. SHO specified that the sample parcel was given Sl. No. 2 whereas parcel containing residue was given parcel no. 1. He also deposed FIR No. 85/2009 9 about affixation of seal bearing impression of MKS by SI Manoj Kumar on the FSL form. The witness has supported the prosecution version by stating that both the parcels were also sealed by him with his seal bearing impression HS. He also affixed his impression of his seal on FSL form. That is how, the parcels were seized vide recovery memo.
Learned defence counsel has pointed out that this witness however could not tell as to how many documents were in all signed by the SHO. On the other hand PW3 SI Rajnikant and PW6 Inspector H.S. Chauhan have stated that no document was attested by the latter. Therefore, the contention is that this contradiction creates doubt regarding arrival of the SHO at the spot.
It is true that the recovery memo Ex PW3/C does not bear attestation of the SHO but this fact does not adversely affect the case of prosecution when it stands established on record that SHO reached the spot, witnessed the recovery, put his seals as well on the parcels. Had the SHO not reached the spot, it was not difficult for the prosecution to come forward with the version that the case property was sent to the police station where it was sealed and signed by the SHO. However, the prosecution witnesses have categorically stated about recovery of contraband from the accused and sealing of the case property by and in the presence of the SHO.
Nonjoining of independent witnesses
10. Reference has been made to the statement of PW3 SI Rajnikant, PW4 Ct. Narinder Singh, wherein they stated that persons from the public were asked to join but none of them came forward. Contention raised by learned defence FIR No. 85/2009 10 counsel is that this shows presence of public on the given date, time and place but when the Investigating Officer did not note down their names and particulars, it can safely be said that no serious effort was made by the Investigating Officer to join any independent witness from the public.
It is true that this is a case where no witness from public was associated before or at the time of recovery. However, nonjoining of the independent witnesses also does not come to the aid of the accused when it stands proved from cogent testimony of PWs that the contraband was recovered even in presence of the SHO. There is nothing on record to suggest that SHO was inimical against the accused so as to falsely depose against him.
Handing over of seals
11. As noticed above, it is case of the prosecution that after the use, the seal used by the SHO was handed over to PW7 HC Abdul Gaffar. According to PW9, SI Manoj Kumar, both the seals were handed over to HC Abdul Gaffar. Even according to PW6 Inspector HS. Chauhan, after sealing the parcels, he handed over the seal to HC Abdul Gaffar.
Learned defence counsel has pointed out that PW3 SI Rajnikant displayed ignorance as to whom the seal was handed over after its use, and contended that from ignorance of this significant aspect, it can be said that actually the seal was not handed over by SI Ram Narain or the SHO. Reference has also been made by PW4 Ct. Narender Singh who stated that seal was not handed over to anyone during the period he remained at the spot. Learned defence counsel has referred to the statement of PW6 Inspector H.S. Chauhan, wherein he stated about FIR No. 85/2009 11 handing over of the seal after use at the spot to ASI Abdul Gaffar and to have collected the same from him two days thereafter, but ASI Abdul Gaffar stated that he had returned the seal to the SHO on the same day. Therefore, it has been contended that the prosecution has failed to rule out possibility of tampering of the case property.
It is true that according to PW7 ASI Abdul Gaffar, he had returned the seal on the same day but according to PW6 Inspector H. S. Chauhan, seal was received by him after about two days, but this contradiction does not create any doubt in the version of the prosecution regarding entrustment of seal. Case property came to be deposited with the MHC(M) on the same day. Had the case property not been deposed with the MHC(M) on the same day, then the contradiction could be said to be material as in that situation possibility of tampering with the case property could not be ruled out. A perusal of relevant entry on Ex PW7/A in register no. 19 would reveal that Inspector H. S. Chauhan deposited the case property i.e. the sealed parcels bearing his seal and that of SI Manoj Kumar with the MHC(M) on 13.10.2009. Factum of handing over of the seal also finds mention in the rukka Ex PW9/B which was despatched from the spot by SI Manoj Kumar at 4.10 am.
For the aforesaid reasons, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution when PW4 Ct. Narender Singh stated that in his presence seal was not given to anyone.
FIR No. 85/2009 12
Accused selfinflicted injuries at the spot
12. It is case of prosecution that while proceeding were going on at the spot, accused took out a blade from his mouth and inflicted injuries on his head and neck. Accordingly, he was sent to Lady Harding Medical College and Hospital for medical examination of the accused. PW3, PW4, PW7 and PW9 have deposed about forwarding of accused to Lady Harding medical College and Hospital from the spot in the company of PW3 and PW4.
MLC Ex PW10/A has been duly proved by Dr. Rajesh Rathore who medically examined the accused on 13.10.2009 at 3.15 am. As per MLC, there was incised wound over the right side of neck and another incised wound over the left side of the forehead. Both the injuries were caused with sharp weapon. Their duration was fresh. Doctor so opined in MLC Ex PW10/A. As per history recorded by doctor, in the relevant column, it was a case of selfinfliction of injuries by the patient. In his cross examination, doctor replied that he had inquired from the patient as to how he had suffered injuries and only then he mentioned in MLC that it was selfsuffered injuries.
PW3 SI Ranjikant has supported the case of prosecution by deposing about the manner in which the accused inflicted injuries on his person. PW4, PW7 and PW9 have also deposed about this fact.
PW3 SI Rajnikant further deposed about removal of accused to the hospital in the company of Ct. Narender. PW4 Ct. Narender has supported the prosecution version by stated that he too accompanied the accused to Hospital after he selfinflicted injuries at the spot. According to PW9 SI Manoj Kumar, FIR No. 85/2009 13 the accused was removed to the hospital from spot as he self inflicted injury soon after the recovery.
Learned counsel pointed out towards MLC of the accused prepared at Lady Hardinge Medical College and Hospital where the time of the arrival of the accused finds mention at 3.15 a.m. The contention is that the time recorded in MLC is not in consonance with the version narrated by PW9 and PW6 which creates doubt in the version of the prosecution.
However, a perusal of the statements of witnesses do not reveal that they have made any contradictory version regarding departure of SI Rajnikant and Ct.Narender in the company of accused from the hospital. When the doctor specified in the MLC the time of their arrival at the hospital at 3.15 am. There is nothing on record to doubt the time recorded by the doctor about their arrival. All this also falsifies the defence plea put forth by the accused as is going to be discussed herein after.
Defence plea It is case of the accused that he had gone to Ghaziabad to celebrate the birth of her niece i.e. daughter of her sister Madhu. He was not apprehended on the date, time and place and rather he was picked from Pakka Talab, Ghaziabad alongwith his brother in law Deepak @ Babu and then falsely implicated in this case; that his brother in law was also implicated in similar case.
In defence, accused has examined Smt. Madhu as DW1. According to her, accused is her maternal uncle and that on 12.10.2009 accused and his real brother of Deepak had come to her house to condole the death of her child who FIR No. 85/2009 14 had died 23 days after the delivery. Both of them were sleeping on roof of her house. During the night at about 23 am, four police officials in plain clothes came there ascended the roof and ultimately took away the accused and his brother from the house. On the next date, when she reached her parental house, she learnt that accused and his brother had been falsely implicated.
Learned defence counsel has referred to the statement of DW1 Smt. Madhu and submitted that accused has been able to establish from her statement the defence plea that actually he was picked up by the police from Ghaziabad where she had gone to condole the death of child.
It may be mentioned her that during cross examination of the prosecution witness, it was no where suggested that when and from which place in Ghaziabad accused was picked. It was suggested that accused suffered injuries when he was manhandled by the police at the time of his arrest. Prosecution witnesses have denied this version put forth in their cross examination.
First of all, it is significant to note that according to the accused, he had gone to Ghaziabad to celebrate the birth of her niece i.e. daughter of her sister Madhu. On the other hand, Smt. Madhu (DW1) deposed that accused and his brother Deepka Kumar had come to condole the death of her child.
Secondly, as per defence plea of accused, Deepak is his Saadu. However, Smt. Madhu stated in her chief examination that accused and Deepak @ Babu are real brothers.
Had he been picked up from Ghaziabad during the midnight and particularly on the occasion of death of child of Madhu, persons from locality FIR No. 85/2009 15 must have come forward and talked to the police as to why they were being arrested or taken away. There is no explanation from the side of accused as to why persons from the locality have not been examined. Nonexamination of the witnesses from public also adversely affects the defence plea put forth by the accused.
Thirdly, Smt. Madhu nowhere reported the matter to any Senior Police officer that the accused was picked up from her house and then falsely implicated. Whey she did not report? There is no explanation from DW1 in this regard.
Compliance with Section 52 & 57 of the Act
13. Prosecution has proved on record compliance of Section 52 & 57 of the Act. It is in the statement of PW8 SI Ram Narain that he submitted report under Section 52 and 57 of the Act Ex PW2/A and ExPW2/B and the same were forwarded by the SHO to the office of ACP. The witness was not subjected to any cross examination on this point.
PW6 Inspector H. S. Chauhan has supported PW8 by deposing that reports Ex PW2/A and Ex PW2/B were forwarded by him. Receipt of these two reports at the office of ACP stands established from the statement of PW2 HC Gajender. Statement of PW2 HC Gajender has not been subjected to any cross examination by suggesting that no such report was received at the office of ACP.
Even otherwise Ex PW2/A and Ex PW2/B reveal that these were prepared by SI Ram Narain and then forwarded by the SHO to the office of ACP where the same were received on the same day i.e. 13.10.2009 vide diary no. 7608 and FIR No. 85/2009 16 7609. These entries finds mention in Ex PW2/C. So this is a case of due compliance with provisions of Section 52 and 57 of the Act.
Report of FSL
14. A perusal of file would reveal that sealed parcel reached office of FSL on 26.10.2009 through Ct. Deepak. The seal on the sample tallied with the specimen seals as available on the FSL form.
On analysis, the contents of the sample led to following opinion of the expert: "(i) The Samples(s) 'S1' was examined by chemical test, chromatography and instrumental methods.
(ii) On the basis of above examinations the sample(s) 'S1' was found to contain paracetamol, Caffeine, Acetylcodeine, Monoacetylmorphine & Diacetylmorphine.
(iii) However, the percentage of Diacetylmorphine was found to be 4.04% in exhibit 'S1'."
Learned defence counsel has pointed out that the alleged recovery is dt. 13.10.09 but the sample was sent to FSL on 26.10.09. Contention is that there is delay of 13 days which the prosecution has failed to explain and benefit thereof should go to the accused.
However, this court does find any merit in the contention of learned counsel when prosecution has established that the sample parcel was no allowed to be tampered with any time before it reached the laboratory. FIR No. 85/2009 17
Conclusion
15. Accordingly, this Court holds that on 13.10.2009, accused Bharat @ Mirchi kept in possession of Diacetylmorphine, percentage of which was found to be 4.04% and as such he is held guilty of the said offence under Section 21
(a) of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act. Accused is convicted thereunder.
Let convict Bharat @ Mirchi be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in Open Court
on 16.03.2012 (Narinder Kumar )
Special Judge(Central)
Delhi.
FIR No. 85/2009 18
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
SPECIAL JUDGE (CENTRAL): DELHI
S. C. No. 79/2009
FIR No. 85/2009
PS Narcotics Branch
U/s 21 NDPS Act
In the matter of :
State
Versus
Bharat @ Mirchi .....Convict
ORDER ON SENTENCE
16.03.2012
Present: Convict Bharat on bail, with counsel Sh. Lokesh Aggarwal.
Heard on the point of sentence. Counsel for Convict submits that he is 24 years of age, and that having regard to the percentage of purity of diacetylmorphine found to be 4.04%, the convict can be said to have contravened the provisions of the Act by keeping in possession small quantity of diacetylmorphine and that he has already remained in custody during investigation, inquiry and trial for a period of 04 month and 23 days and as such leniency be shown on the point of sentence.
Section 21 (a) of the Act provides rigorous imprisonment for term which may extend to six months, and with fine which may extend to Rs. 10000/ or with both.
FIR No. 85/2009 19
Having regard to the percentage quantity of the contraband recovered from the convict, which is even lesser than the smaller quantity, as shown at item no. 56 of the notification dated 19.10.2001, all the facts and circumstances of the case including that the accused is not a previous convict, this Court deems it a fit case to sentence the convict to undergo Imprisonment for a period already undergone i.e. and to pay fine of Rs.1000/ or in default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo Imprisonment for one week under Section 21 (a) of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act.
Accordingly, convict Bharat @ Mirchi is hereby sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period already undergone and to pay fine of Rs.1000/ or in default of payment of fine, the defaulter shall undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for one week, for the offence under Section 21 (a) of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, extending him benefit of Section 428 of CrPC.
Case property be disposed of in accordance with law on expiry of period for Appeal/Revision, if none is preferred or subject to decision thereof.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Court
on 16.03.2012 (Narinder Kumar )
Special Judge(Central)
Delhi.
FIR No. 85/2009 20