Delhi District Court
State vs . Rafiq Sheikh on 24 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHETNA SINGH:ACMM-02
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. Rafiq Sheikh
FIR No. 72/17
New Case No. 6694/17
U/s : 379/411/34 IPC and Section 147/179 Indian Railways Act r/w
Section 75 IPC.
P.S. : Old Delhi Railway Station
Date of Institution : 17.06.2017
Date on which case reserved for Judgment : 24.09.2018
Date of Judgment : 24.09.2018
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 72/2017
2.Date of the Commission : 18.04.2017
of the offence
3.Name of the accused : Rafiq Sheikh
S/o Sh. Hafiz Sheikh,
R/o Vill. Moispur Thana Ulvariya
District Hawra (West Bengal) &
Vegabond Footpath Old Delhi
Railway Station, Delhi.
4.Offence complained of : 379/411/34 IPC and Section
FIR No. 72/17 State Vs. Rafiq Sheikh PS: ODRS Page No. 1 / 21
147/179 Indian Railways Act r/w
Section 75 IPC.
5.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
6.Final order : Convicted.
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 18.04.2017 at about 7.20 PM at Enquiry counter, Main Hall, Old Delhi Railway Station within the jurisdiction of PS ODRS, accused Rafiq Sheikh alongwith co-accused Surender (since not apprehended) in furtherance of his common intention committed theft of one bag colour blue carrying Rs.7000/- & clothes belonging to complainant Sh. Rijwan Ahmad by dishonestly removing the same from his possession without his consent & handed over one trouser carrying Rs.7000/- to co-accused Sunder who escaped from the spot, The accused was found in possession of the said bag belonging to the complainant which he dishonestly received/retained, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be a stolen property and was also previously convicted in case FIR No. 17/12 PS ODRS u/s 379/411 IPC & Section 147 r/w 179 of IR Act and hence liable to enhanced punishment u/s 75 IPC and thereby committed offences u/s 379/411/34 IPC and Section 147 r/w 179 of IR Act. The matter was investigated and chargesheet was filed in the Court on 17.06.2017.
FIR No. 72/17 State Vs. Rafiq Sheikh PS: ODRS Page No. 2 / 212. On the basis of a complaint, present FIR was registered. After carrying out the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Accused Rafiq Sheikh was summoned. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C, charge u/s 379/411 IPC & Section 147 r/w 179 of IR Act and enhanced punishment u/s 75 IPC was framed against accused Rafiq Sheikh and the charge was duly explained to him in vernacular on 25.07.2017 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thus, the matter was put to trial.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
3. In order to prove the above said allegations against the accused, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses in total.
4. PW-1 Sh. Rizwan Ahmed deposed that on 18.04.2017, he alongwith his friend Hilal Ahmed was present at ODRS as they had to go their native place. They kept their baggage near enquiry counter and Sh. Hilal Ahmed was standing near the baggage and he went outside to purchase food. In the meantime, some persons stole his bag and at about 7.20 PM, when he was returning, he saw one person was checking his bag. He immediately raised alarm and his friend came there. They apprehended accused Rafiq Sheikh (correctly identified by the witness in the court). He checked his bag and found Rs.7000/- missing and his bag was containing one towel and one bedsheet. They took accused and the bag to PS ODRS and they handed over the same to IO. IO recorded his statement which is Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. IO seized his bag (blue and grey colour) vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point A. He also handed over his e-ticket to the FIR No. 72/17 State Vs. Rafiq Sheikh PS: ODRS Page No. 3 / 21 IO. IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C bearing his signature at point A and arrested accused vide arrest memo which is Ex.PW1/D bearing his signature at point A and also conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW1/E bearing his signature at point A. IO recorded his supplementary statement.
This witness was cross-examined at length by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel. However, his cross-examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
5. PW-2 Sh. Hilal Ahmed deposed that on 18.04.2017, he alongwith his friend Rizwan Ahmed was present at ODRS as they had to go their native place. They kept their baggage near enquiry counter and he was standing near the baggage and his friend went outside to purchase food. In the meantime, some persons stole his bag and at about 7.20 PM, when he was returning, he saw one person was checking his bag. He immediately raised alarm and he went there. They apprehended accused Rafiq Sheikh (correctly identified by the witness in the court). He checked his bag and found Rs.7000/- missing and his bag was containing one towel and one bedsheet. They took accused and the bag to PS ODRS and they handed over the same to IO. IO recorded his statement.
This witness was cross-examined at length by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel. However, his cross-examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
6. PW3 ASI Mohan Kurup deposed that on 18.04.2017, he was posted as Duty Officer at PS ODRS from 8.00 PM to 9.00 AM. At about 8.15 PM, a rukka was received by him through Ct. Sukhpal for FIR No. 72/17 State Vs. Rafiq Sheikh PS: ODRS Page No. 4 / 21 getting the case registered and he registered the present FIR. The photocpy of FIR is placed in the judicial filed which is Ex.PW3/A, bearing his signature at point A. The certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act qua the FIR is Ex.PW3/B, bearing his signature at point A. He made endorsement on the original rukka which is Ex.PW1/C, bearing his signature at point B. This witness was cross-examined at length by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel. However, his cross-examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
7. PW-4 ASI Pawan Kumar (inadvertently mentioned as PW5) deposed that on 18.04.2017, he was posted as MHCM with PS ODRS. On that day, ASI Sukhpal Singh had deposited the case property i.e. one bag (blue & grey colour) sealed with the seal of SP in the malkhana and the relevant entiries regarding the same had been made in the register no. 19 at serial no. 1724 in case FIR No. 72/17, PS ODRS which is Ex.PW5/A (OSR).
This witness was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity being given.
8. PW5 Sh. Pankaj Kumar (inadvertently mentioned as PW7) deposed that on 18.04.2017, he alongwith his friend Rizwan Ahmed and Hilal Ahmed were present at ODRS as they have to go their native place. They kept their baggage near enquiry counter. Hilal was standing near the baggage and he and his friend Rizwan went outside to purchase food. In the meantime, some persons stole bag of Rizwan and at about 7.20 PM, when he was returning, he saw one person was FIR No. 72/17 State Vs. Rafiq Sheikh PS: ODRS Page No. 5 / 21 checking his bag. He immediately raised alarm and they went there. They apprehended accused Rafiq Sheikh (correctly identified by the witness in the court). He checked his bag and found Rs.7000/- missing and his bag was containing one towel and one bedsheet. They took accused and the bag to PS ODRS and they handed over the same to IO. IO recorded his statement. IO also recorded disclosure of accused Rafiq vide memo Ex.PW7/A, bearing his signature at point A. This witness was cross-examined at length by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel. However, his cross-examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
9. PW6 SI Madan Gautam deposed that on 19.04.2017, he was posted as fingerprint expert at Fingerprints Bureau, Crime Branch, Delhi Police, Delhi. On that day, one search slip was assigned to him for giving the previous conviction record of accused Rafiq Sheikh S/o Sh. Hafiz Sheikh. After analysis of search slip, he found that accused Rafiq Sheikh was convicted in FIR No. 17/12, PS ODRS in the name of Rupek Sheikh @ Rupak S/o Ahmad Sheikh. The report of previous conviction of accused Rafiq Sheikh is Ex.PW6/A, bearing his signature at point A. He has also issued the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act qua the report of previous conviction and the same is Ex.PW6/B, bearing his signature at point A. This witness was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity being given.
FIR No. 72/17 State Vs. Rafiq Sheikh PS: ODRS Page No. 6 / 2110. PW7 ASI Sukhpal deposed that on 18.04.2017, he was posted as ASI at PS ODRS. On that day, complainant Rizwan Ahmed alongwith his friend Hilal Ahmed and one passenger came to police station and handed over accused Rafik Sheikh S/o Sh. Hafiz Seikh (Accused correctly identified by the witness in the court) alongwith one blue colour bag into his custody. He recorded the statement of complainant. On the statement of complainant he made endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW7/A, bearing his signature at point A. The rukka was given to Duty Officer. He alongwith complainant and accused reached the spot and on the indication of complainant, site plan was prepared which is Ex.PW7/B, bearing his signature at point A. He seized railway ticket from complainant. He recorded statement of witnesses. After completing the investigation, he filed the chargesheet before Hon'ble Court.
This witness was cross-examined at length by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel. However, his cross-examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
11. Upon completion of Prosecution Evidence, statement of accused Rafiq Sheikh u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 19.09.2018 wherein he has pleaded innocence and he had opted not to lead any defence evidence. Final arguments were heard on 24.09.2018.
12. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
FIR No. 72/17 State Vs. Rafiq Sheikh PS: ODRS Page No. 7 / 21REASONS FOR DECISION
13. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the complainant namely Rizwan Ahmed as PW1 alongwith his friend namely Sh. Hilal Ahmed as PW2 who accompanying the complainant for going to their native place. The prosecution has also examined police officials and thus seven witnesses in total have been examined for proving that the accused committed theft of the articles belonging to the complainant and was also found in railway premises without any valid ticket.
14. Before appreciating the testimony of the above mentioned witnesses, it is necessary to list out the essential ingredient of Sections 379/34 IPC and Section 147/179 of Indian Railways Act, 1989, which are as follows:
The essential ingredient for proving offence u/s 379 IPC are as follows:
(i) that the property in question is movable property;
(ii) that such property was in the possession of a person;
(iii) that the accused moved such property whilst in the possession of that person;
(iv) that he did so without the consent of that person;
(v) that he did so in order to take the same out of the possession of that person;
(vi) that he did so with intent to cause wrongful loss to that person or wrongful gain to himself.FIR No. 72/17 State Vs. Rafiq Sheikh PS: ODRS Page No. 8 / 21
Essential ingredients of Section 34 IPC are as follows:
(1) That there must be a criminal act;
(2) The act must have been done by several
persons in furtherance of their common intention.
Section 147/179 of Indian Railways Act, 1989 read as under:
Section: 147 of IR Act:
(1) if any person enters upon or into any part of a railway without lawful authority or having lawfully entered upon or into such part misuses such property or refuses to leave; and (2) Any person referred to in sub-section (1) may be removed from the railway by any railway servant or by any other person whom such railway servant may call to his aid.
Section: 179 of IR Act:
(1) if any person commits any offence mentioned in sections 150 to 152, he may be arrested without warrant or other written authority by any railway servant or police officer not below the rank of a head constable.
(2) if any person commits any offence mentioned in section 137 to 139, 141 to 147, 153 to 157, 159 to 167 FIR No. 72/17 State Vs. Rafiq Sheikh PS: ODRS Page No. 9 / 21 and 172 to 176, he may be arrested, without warrant or other written authority, by the officer authorized by a notified order of the Central Government. (3) The railway servant or the police officer or the officer authorized, as the case may be, may call to his aid any other person to effect the arrest under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be. (4) Any person so arrested under this section shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the Magistrate.
15. The main witness for the prosecution is PW1 Sh. Rizwan Ahmed who deposed that he had gone near the enquiry counter and has kept his baggage where his friend Hilal Ahmed was standing on 18.04.2017, as he went to purchase food, in the meantime, some persons stole his bag and at about 7.20 PM when returning he saw one person being the accused (correctly identified) was checking his bag. He immediately raised an alarm and his friend came there and accused Rizwan Ahmed was apprehended. On checking the bag, Rs.7000/- were found missing and his bag containing one towel and one bedsheet was recovered. The accused was handed over to the police officials alongwith the bag and statement of PW1 was recorded vide Ex.PW1/A. He correctly identified his bag produced in the court and also identified his signatures vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B qua the bag. The also handed over his e- ticket to the IO which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C, bearing FIR No. 72/17 State Vs. Rafiq Sheikh PS: ODRS Page No. 10 / 21 his signature at point A.
16. The complainant has consistently deposed as regards sequence of events and his presence on the railway station has been further proved by e-ticket Ex.PW1/C which bears the signatures of the complainant as well as his friend Hilal at point "A" and "B" respectively. The e-ticket mention the date of journey to be on 18.04.2017 and the names of both the complainant and his friends mentioned on the same. Thus it is proved by the prosecution that both the complainant and his friend Hilal Ahmed and Pankaj were travelling together. Another witness who was traveling alongwith PW1 and PW2 namely Sh. Pankaj Kumar has also been examined by prosecution as PW7 and he has also deposed similarly as PW1 and PW2. His presence on the railway station has also been proved by the e-ticket Ex.PW1/C bearing his signature at point C. No contradiction whatsoever could be noted in his cross- examination.
17. Even otherwise the testimony of the complainant is corroborated by the fact that he has stated similar facts in his original statement Ex.PW1/A. His statement is further corroborated by the testimony of PW2 namely Sh. Hilal Ahmed who was also traveling with him who also deposed on the similar lines as complainant as regards of sequence of events. The signatures of PW1 and PW2 have been taken by the Investigating Officer (IO) on the seizure memo of the bag which is Ex.PW1/B, seizure memo of e-ticket is Ex.PW1/C, arrest memo of the accused is Ex.PW1/D and personal search memo is Ex.PW1/E. FIR No. 72/17 State Vs. Rafiq Sheikh PS: ODRS Page No. 11 / 21
18. Even though it is settled law that a cogent, coherent and trustworthy testimony of one witness is also sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution, however, in the present case the testimony of the complainant is corroborated by his original statement as well as by the testimony of his friends who have been examined as PW2 and PW7.
19. Be that as it may, it is also settled law that the testimony of a sole eye witness which is cogent and coherent and trustworthy can be the sole basis of conviction.
20. In the matter of State U.P. Vs Ballabh Das (AIR 1985 SC 1384) (1984 Cri LJ 2009) the Supreme Court in paras 3 and 5 at page 385 observed:-
"There is no law which says that in the absence of any independent witness, the evidence of interested witnesses should be thrown out at the behest or should not be relied upon for conviction an accused. What the law requires is that where the witness are interested, the court should approach their evidence with care and caution in order to exclude the possibility of false implication."
21. In the matter of State of U.P. Vs M.K. Anthony (Air 1985 SC
48): (1985 Cri LJ 493) the Supreme Court observed in para 10 at page 54:-
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the FIR No. 72/17 State Vs. Rafiq Sheikh PS: ODRS Page No. 12 / 21 approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once the impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiency, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general benor or the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render if unworthy of belief.
Even honest and trustful witness may differe in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retentions and reproduction differ with individuals."
22. Further, in the matter of "Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. V. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 (three Judge Bench) 1973 Cri LJ 1783 : AIR 1973 SC 2622, Para 19" it has been observed that:-
"....Even if the case against the accused hangs on the evidence of a single eye-witness it may be enough to sustain the conviction given sterling testimony of a competent, honest man, although as a rule of prudence Courts call for corroboration. It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in FIR No. 72/17 State Vs. Rafiq Sheikh PS: ODRS Page No. 13 / 21 human affairs...."
23. In the present matter, apart from the complainant, his testimony is supported by two other witnesses, who may be called as interested witnesses being friends of the complainant, however, it seems unlikely that any person would unnecessarily implicate any accused in a false case without any personal enmity. It is not the defence of the accused that he was known to the complainant or his friend earlier or that he had previous enmity with the complainant or his friend and thus the possibility of falsely implication without any reason is ruled out.
24. Even otherwise, both the witnesses have been cross- examined by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel, however no material contradictions could be noted. The witnesses denied the suggestions that the accused had not stolen their bag. PW1 and PW2 both admitted that they had not seen the accused stealing the bag. However its presumption of law that if an accused is found in possession of the stolen property soon after the theft, it can be safely presumed that he is the thief. In this case, the accused was found with the stolen bag within 15 minutes of the theft. It is not denied that the stolen bag was found in the possession of the accused.
25. It was argued by the Ld. defence counsel that the bag was handed over to the accused by some other person who took away the money as stolen cash was never recovered from the accused. However the accused in his disclosure statement has stated that he was accompanying his friend Sunder on the day of the incident and his friend FIR No. 72/17 State Vs. Rafiq Sheikh PS: ODRS Page No. 14 / 21 took away cash from the bag and the remaining articles of the bag were left with him. The said disclosure statement is Ex.PW7/A and the same has been signed by both complainant and his friend. Even though the disclosure statement of accused cannot be considered as an incriminating evidence against him without any recovery in pursuance of the same, however, the accused has not been able to satisfactorily explain as to how the stolen bag was recovered from his within 10 minutes of the theft. He also could not explain as to how Rs.7000/- could not be recovered from the bag. However in all probabilities, it is clear that the co-accused ran with the stolen money and the present accused was trying to find out other articles which were left for being taken from the bag when he was apprehended.
26. Be that as it may, it has been adequately proved by the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of the stolen bag soon after the theft. The story of the prosecution is further corroborated by the testimonies of police witnesses namely PW3/ASI Mohan Kurup who registered the present case FIR on the basis of rukka Ex.PW1/C, PW5/ASI Pawan Kumar who made relevant entries in register no.19 as regards the deposition of the case property vide memo Ex.PW5/A, PW6 Madan Gautam who proved the search slip qua the accused who was found to be previously convicted in case FIR No. 17/12, PS Old Delhi Railway Station vide memo Ex.PW6/A, which was proved vide certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW6/B, and PW7/ASI Sukhpal being the Investigating Officer who prepared the site plan Ex.PW7/B and other documents which have already been exhibited and filed the chargesheet in the court.
FIR No. 72/17 State Vs. Rafiq Sheikh PS: ODRS Page No. 15 / 2127. All the police officials have deposed consistently as regards documents prepared by them and the documents on record support the sequence of events as narrated by the complainant and is other friends.
28. It is settled law that police witnesses are reliable witnesses even without independent corroboration. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of "Karamjit Singh v. State" (AIR 2003 SC 1311) that :-
"The testimony of the police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds'.
29. The Apex Court reiterated the above position in precedent titled as Girija Prasad v. State of MP (AIR 2007 SC 3106) has held that:-
"It is well settled that credibility of witness has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and FIR No. 72/17 State Vs. Rafiq Sheikh PS: ODRS Page No. 16 / 21 trustworthiness. It is quite possible that in a given case, a court of law may not base conviction solely on the evidence of complainant or a police official but it is not the law that the police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police official as any other person. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force. There is no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of police officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence".
30. Further, corroborating the story of the prosecution is the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC recorded on 19.09.2018 wherein he admitted that he had taken away the bag of the complainant and he was thereafter apprehended and he admitted that he was present at the railway premises. It is settled law that the admission of accused u/s 313 FIR No. 72/17 State Vs. Rafiq Sheikh PS: ODRS Page No. 17 / 21 Cr.PC can be taken as a corroborating piece of evidence for corroborating the story of the prosecution.
31. It has been settled by various higher courts that admission u/s 313 Cr.PC can be taken to be a relevant fact in deciding the fate of the accused. This question has been decided by the Hon'ble High Court in the case titled "Janki Dass Vs. State" 1995 CLJ 2175 in which the court held that:
"The underlying object behind section 313 Cr.PC is to give an opportunity to the accused to be heard not only on what is prima-facie prove against him but on a very circumstance appearing in evidence against him so that he is not condemned unheard. It enables the accused to explain the circumstance against him in evidence. That the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in judging not only his innocence but also judging his guilt. There is nothing in the language of section 313 Cr.PC to suggest that answers given by an accused admitting the evidence or circumstance proved against him, have to be ignored and have not to be taken into consideration for judging his guilt.
The weight to be attached to the statement of an accused made under section 313 of the code FIR No. 72/17 State Vs. Rafiq Sheikh PS: ODRS Page No. 18 / 21 though cannot be placed in a straight jacket since it has to vary according to the circumstance of the each case, yet the legal position seems to be clear that such statement can be taken into consideration in judging not only the innocence but the guilt of the accused and admission made in statement under section 313 of the code can be made the basis of the conviction".
32. It is matter of record that the accused had admitted that he was present at the railway station on the date of incident. However, he could not produce a valid railway ticket and thus clearly he was present in the railway premises without a valid ticket and thus offence punishable u/s 147/179 of Indian Railways Act stands proved against the accused.
33. It is also matter of record that accused has been previously convicted u/s 379/411 IPC in case FIR No. 17/12, PS ODRS and the same was proved by PW6 ASI Madan Gautam who gave the previous conviction report which is Ex.PW6/A, bearing his signature at point A. Thus it has been proved by the prosecution that the accused was previously convicted for the same offence for which he has been chargesheeted in the present case. Thus offence u/s 75 IPC also stands proved against the accused.
34. It is clear from the testimony of this witness that the accused was present at platform without any valid railway ticket or pass and thus accused committed offence punishable u/s 147/179 of Indian Railways FIR No. 72/17 State Vs. Rafiq Sheikh PS: ODRS Page No. 19 / 21 Act.
35. In case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sharda Vs. State of Maharastra AIR 1984 SC 1622, the apex court had laid down the test which are per-requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:-
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established;
(2) The circumstances concerned "must or should"
and not "may be" established;
(3) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(4) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
(5) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (6) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and FIR No. 72/17 State Vs. Rafiq Sheikh PS: ODRS Page No. 20 / 21 must so that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
36. Thus, it is clear from the above mentioned discussion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against accused Rafiq Sheikh and hence the accused is hereby held guilty for the offences punishable u/s 379/34 IPC and Section 147/179 of Indian Railways Act and Section 75 of IPC. Thus, accused Rafiq Sheikh is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 379/34 IPC and Section 147/179 of Indian Railways Act and Section 75 of IPC.
37. Ordered accordingly.
Digitally signed by CHETNA CHETNA SINGH
Announced in the open SINGH Date:
2018.09.25
Court on 24.09.2018 16:02:56 +0000
(Chetna Singh)
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-02
Central/Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/24.09.2018 FIR No. 72/17 State Vs. Rafiq Sheikh PS: ODRS Page No. 21 / 21