Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd. Aslam on 29 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANU GROVER BALIGA: SPECIAL JUDGE - NDPS PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI SC No. 15/10 ID No. 02403R0263402010 FIR No. 47/10 PS Crime Branch u/s 21 NDPS Act State Vs. Mohd. Aslam S/o Late Sh. Mohd. Saifuddin R/o H.No. C-4/R-94, Jhuggi JPN, Mahaaja Ranjeet Singh Marg, Delhi Date of Institution : 27.07.2010 Judgment reserved on : 29.02.2012 Date of pronouncement : 29.02.2012 JUDGMENT
The charge-sheet in the present case has been filed against the aforementioned accused u/s 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act").
Briefly stated the allegations against the accused as contained in the charge-sheet are as follows:
(a) It is asserted that on 11/4/2010 at about 9:30 a.m. ASI Narender Singh received a secret information that one Aslam r/o JPN Jhuggis is procuring smack from one Lalu Langada and thereafter selling the same and that on 11/4/2010 he would be coming at bus stand near gate no. 3 of Indraprastha Park, Outer Ring Road, Delhi between 11:00 AM to 12:00 noon to deliver a consignment of smack to some person. The said information was reduced in the daily diary and was produced before the SHO.
(b) The raiding party was constituted as per the instructions of the SHO consisting of ASI Narender Singh, HC Parvinder, HC Soran,Ct. Rajesh and Ct. Prithivi. The said team alongwith secret informer left the police station Crime Branch Nehru Place for the spot in private vehicle Qualis at about 10:15 a.m.
(c) On the way IO ASI Narender Singh is stated to have requested three shop keepers at Ashram Chowk, two shopkeepers and two passersby at Kilokari Village to join the raiding party but none of them is stated to have agreed. At about 10:40 AM the raiding party is stated to have reached the spot. The members of the raiding party were deployed at different positions and at about 11:20 AM one person was seen coming from Sarai Kalen Khan side and he halted at the bus stand. He was identified by the secret informer as the suspect Aslam. Thereafter the accused was seen waiting for some person for about 10 minutes and thereafter walking briskly towards the gate number 3 of Indraprastha Park, at which point he was intercepted by the police officials.
(d) The IO is stated to have introduced himself and the other members of the raiding party to the accused and is also stated to have apprised the accused of the secret information received. It is further asserted that the accused was also then served with the notice u/s 50 NDPS Act and accused being illiterate, he was made to understand the contents of the notice as well as his legal rights. Since the accused is stated to have refused to be searched in the presence of the Gazetted Officer and Magistrate, he was searched by the IO himself. On frisking of the accused one white polythene was recovered from his right hand on which the word 'Thank You' and a colorful Parrot was found printed. It is asserted that the said polythene was found containing palatial colour powder which on testing with the help of field testing kit, gave positive result for heroin and its total weight came to be 500 grams.
(e) Two samples of 5 gms each were drawn out of the said bag and were given mark A and B. The samples, the remaining substance were sealed in pullandas, the FSL Form was filled, seal after use was handed over to HC Parvinder Singh, the rukka was prepared and was sent to PS for registration of the case.
(f) Further investigation of the case was then handed over to SI Chander Prakash, who came to the spot after further investigation was entrusted to him and during further investigation SI Chander Prakash prepared the site plan and formally arrested accused Mohd. Aslam. The remaining proceedings were completed at the spot and the accused was produced before the SHO concerned and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana.
(g) On 21/4/2010, samples taken out from the substance were sent to FSL through Ct. Rajender Singh.
On the basis of the aforementioned allegations and the material placed on record by the investigating agency, charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 09.08.2010 for the offence punishable u/s 21 NDPS Act.
The Prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused persons has examined 10 witnesses in all.
PW5 HC Parvinder Kumar, PW6 HC Soran Singh and PW7 ASI Narender Singh, being all members of the raiding team have deposed on similar lines. They have more or less reiterated the allegations made in the charge sheet. PW7 ASI Narender Singh was the main Investigating Officer and he has deposed that the secret information received by him was reduced into writing vide DD no. 4 and the same has been exhibited as Ex.PW3/A. He has also in particular deposed that on the way to the spot he had requested many public persons at various places to join the raiding party but all of them refused to do so. He has also in particular deposed that it was he who had prepared the notice u/s 50 NDPS Act and had served it upon the accused. The said notice has been proved as Ex.PW5/A. He has also specifically deposed that accused Mohd. Aslam had refused to get himself searched before the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and the refusal asserted to have been given by the accused to the said notice has been Exhibited as Ex.PW5/B. This witness has deposed that 500 grams of smack was found recovered from Mohd. Aslam and after drawing out the two samples of 5 grams each from the same the samples were converted into the pullanda mark A and B and the remaining substance was converted into a pullanda and given mark C. The seizure memo has been proved as Ex.PW5/C. He has also deposed that he had prepared rukka Ex.PW7/C and handed over the same to HC Saron for registration of the case along with the FSL form, pullandas, carbon copy of the seizure memo with direction to hand over the same to the SHO Crime Branch. He has also proved the report prepared by him u/s 57 NDPS Act as Ex.PW7/E. PW10 SI Chander Prakash is second investigating officer of the present case who has deposed that he had reached the spot after receiving directions from ACP Sh. M.S. Dabas. According to him he left the Crime Branch along with Ct. Sandeep at 02:30 PM and on reaching the spot ASI Narender produced before him the accused and documents prepared by him. As per this witness he thereafter prepared the site plan Ex.PW7/D, recorded the statement of HC Parvinder and then interrogated accused and thereafter recorded the disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Aslam Ex.PW10/A and also arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/B. Personal search of the accused was taken vide personal search memo Ex.PW5/D. The report prepared by him u/s 57 NDPS Act has also been proved by him as Ex.PW3/F. According to this witness on 21/4/2010 the exhibits of the case were sent to the FSL through Ct. Rajender for depositing the same in FSL Rohini.
PW1 Ct. Rajender has deposed that on 21/4/2010 on the directions of SHO, he had taken pullanda mark A from MHC(M) vide RC no. 141/21/10 and deposited the same with FSL, Rohini. He has also specifically deposed that so long as the case property remained with him, it was not tampered with.
PW2 Dr. Madhulika Sharma, Assistant Director, CFSL, Rohini has deposed that on 21/4/2010, one parcel marked A alongwith FSL form and specimen seal impression were received in the CFSL office and same were handed over to her for chemical examination. Parcel A was found to contain Ex.A. According to her, on the basis of chemical examination, Ex.A1 was found to contain paracetamol, caffeine, acetyclodeine, monoacetylmorphine, diacetylmorphine, phenobarbital and on Gas Chromatography examination Ex.A was found to contain diacetylmorphine and phenobarbital 1.3% and 28.9% respectively. The report prepared by her with respect to the sample has been exhibited as Ex.PW2/A. PW3 HC Hakikat Rai has deposed that he was posted as Reader ACP, Narcotic Cell. As per the record produced by this witness, on 12/4/2010 SHO PS Crime branch had forwarded DD no. 4 and that the entry in this regard was mentioned in the concerned diary at Sl. no. 330 and the relevant page of the diary has been exhibited as Ex.PW3/B and the DD no. 4 has been exhibited as Ex.PW3/A. He has also deposed that on the same day, report u/s 57 NDPS Act, prepared by ASI Narender Singh and SI Chander Prakash was also received in the office of ACP regarding the recovery of smack and arrest of accused and that same reports were put before ACP. The records produced by this witness have been duly exhibited during his testimony as Ex.PW3/C to Ex.PW3/F. PW4 Duty officer HC Ram Mehar has deposed that he was the duty officer on 11/4/2010 and that on this date he had received the rukka of the present case through HC Soran Singh and had registered the FIR, Ex.PW4/B and made endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW4/C and had also recorded DD no. 6 Ex.PW4/A. PW8 Inspector Kuldeep Singh has deposed that on 11/4/2010, he was posted as SHO, Crime Branch and according to his deposition on this date, ASI Narender Singh had come to his office alongwith the informer who had then told them about the activities of the accused. This witness has also deposed that pursuant to the secret information, he had informed the ACP, AATS and then on the direction of the ACP, he in turn directed ASI Narender Singh to organize a raiding party and forwarded the secret information Ex.PW3/A to ACP AATS for compliance of section 42 NDPS Act. On this day at about 2:30 PM, HC Soran Singh had handed over to him three sealed pullandas alongwith copy of seizure memo and FSL form. According to his deposition, all the pullandas were sealed with the seal of NS and that he also then put his own seal of KSY on the said pullandas and FSL form alongwith FIR number. He has further deposed that he had then handed over all the pullandas to MHC(M) HC Chand Ram for depositing the same in the Malkhana. The DD entry made by this witness with respect to the deposit of the case property before him has been duly exhibited.
PW9 HC Chand Ram has deposed that he was posted as MHC(M) at PS Crime Branch on 11/4/2010 and that on this date, SHO of the said branch had deposited with him three pullandas sealed with the seal of NS and KSY with one FSL form. The said witness has also given details of the entries made by him with respect to the deposit of case property as Ex.PW9/A. He has also deposed that SI Chander Prakash had also deposited the articles of personal search of accused. He has proved the said entry at Sl. no. 112/10 as Ex.PW9/A. According to his deposition, he had also sent the samples mark A to FSL Rohini through Ct. Rajender vide RC no. 141/21 Ex.PW9/B. He has also deposed that on 14/7/2010 the result was deposited along with the remnant sample. He has proved the said entry at Sl. no. 112/10 as Ex.PW9/C. The entire aforementioned evidence was put to the accused and his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. In the said statement, the accused has denied his complicity in the present case and has stated that he has been falsely implicated.
According to him on 10/4/2010, 3-4 police officials had come to his residence at LNJP Colony and had forcibly picked him and had taken him to an office at Nehru Place. The accused has also stated that at the said office he was tortured and beaten and it was demanded from him that he must pay Rs. 1 lac to the police officials or that they will plant 2 Kg Heroin upon him. It is relevant to mention herein that though initially accused had produced his wife in the witness box and she was examined in chief on 30/9/2011, thereafter she was not produced for her cross examination by Ld. APP for the state. As per record, on the date when the wife of the accused was examined in chief, the regular APP was on leave and therefore on request of substitute APP the cross examination of this witness was deferred for 02/11/2011. She however did not appear on this date and on request of Defence counsel another date 01/12/2011 was again given to the defence to produce her. On this date also she did not appear and the accused stated that he does not wish to produce her in the witness box as she remains unwell. In view thereof the case was fixed for final arguments and accordingly this court is not considering the evidence of DW1 on record as the same is incomplete.
I have heard Ld. APP for the state and on behalf of accused Mohd. Aslam Ld. Defence counsel Sh. K.J.S. Maan has filed written submissions. In the said submissions it has been inter alia contended that the present case must fail because there has been no substantial compliance of section 42 NDPS Act, Section 50 and that of section 57 NDPS act. As per the contentions made since the secret information has been reduced only in the daily diary and not on a separate sheet of paper it cannot be stated that the provisions of section 42 NDPS Act have been complied with. It has also been pointed out in the written submissions that the report u/s 57 NDPS Act was not put up before the SHO by the IO himself and that therefore it cannot be held that the said section has been complied with. It has also been contended that the provisions of section 50 of the NDPS Act have also not been complied with in as much as the prosecution witnesses namely the IO has himself admitted that the accused was illiterate and that he could not read the notice u/s 50 of the NDPS act given to him. It is the contention of defence that the evidence on record clearly shows that the meaning of Gazetted Officer was not explained to the accused and that therefore there has been no compliance of section 50 of the NDPS Act. It is also one of the contentions of the defence that no public witnesses have been joined in the investigation and that the deposition of various witnesses shown that no serious efforts were made to join them in the proceedings. Ld. Defence counsel has also pointed out that the contradictions in the testimony of PW7 and PW8 shows that the IO was not carrying any field testing kit and that this itself creates doubt on the version put forward by the prosecution. According to the written submissions filed there is also a discrepancy in the evidence of PW7 and PW8 with respect to the FSL form, benefit of which must also be given to the accused. In support of his contentions Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon following judgments:
i. Peeraswami Vs. State NCT of Delhi 2007 (2) JCC (Narcotics) 80.
ii. Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat 2011 Cri.L.J. 680.
iii. Sanjeev Puri vs. State 1996 (1) C.C. Cases 223 (HC).
In rebuttal Ld. counsel for the State has contended that non joining of independent witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as generally public persons are hesitant to join police proceedings. He has pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment pronounced in the case titled as State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh AIR 1999 SC 2378 has categorically held that non joining of public witnesses is only an irregularity and that the same does not vitiate the entire trial. He has also submitted that the contradictions pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsels are not so material that they can be made the basis for the rejection of the case of the prosecution. He has further contended that the witnesses are not expected to have photogenic memory to remember and narrate all the facts of an incident and therefore the contradictions pointed out by the defence should be viewed in this perspective.
As regards the compliance of the Section 42 of NDPS Act, Ld. APP submitted that there has been due and substantial of the said Section as much as DD No. 4, Ex.PW3/A clearly records the secret information received by the IO. He has further pointed that after the pronouncement of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Peeraswami's case (supra) (judgment relied upon by the Ld. Defence Counsel), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment pronounced in Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2009) 8SCC 539 had made it clear that it is not strict but substantial compliance of the Section 42 of NDPS Act which is required. He has further pointed that recently in the case titled as Mohd. Anwar Vs. State, 2011(1) JCC(Narcotics) 67 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court after referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnail Singh's case has accepted that the reduction of secret information into DD is substantial compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act. He further submits that similarly the compliance of the Section 57 of NDPS Act has also done in the present case in as much as there is sufficient evidence on record to show that report made by the IO under Section 57 of NDPS Act were forwarded to the SHO by the IO within the time stipulated in the said Section. He has also submitted that even otherwise the provisions of section 57 of NDPS Act have been held to be only directory and not mandatory. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced in the case reported as State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh (1994) 3SCC 299.
Ld. APP has also submitted that in the present case, though, it was not required that the provisions of the Section 50 of NDPS Act have to be followed, keeping in view that the recovery of the contraband has been made from the bag carried by the accused, even then the provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act have been duly complied with by the IO. He has pointed that no doubt the accused is illiterate and was unable to read the contents of the notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act, the members of the raiding party have categorically deposed that he was made to understand the contents of the same. His submission, therefore, is that all the statutory provisions of the NDPS Act have been duly complied with, in the present case and that therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
I have considered the submissions by both the Ld. APP for State and the Ld. Defence Counsel and have perused the entire material on record and the judicial dicta referred by the counsels.
I would first deal with the contentions made with respect to the compliance of Section 42 and 57 of NDPS Act.
In my considered opinion, in view of the judicial dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnail Singh's case and Balbir Singh's case (supra), it is to be held that taking into account DD no. 4, Ex.PW3/A , the reports u/s 57 NDPS Act, Ex.PW3/C and PW3/F and the deposition of PW7, the IO, PW8, the SHO, PW3 HC Haqikat Rai, Reader to ACP, AATS Crime Branch, the prosecution has been able to show that as per official records, the secret information after being reduced into writing and the reports u/s 57 NDPS Act were duly relayed to the senior officer i.e. the ACP. The DD no.4 Ex.PW3/A vide which the secret information was reduced into writing is shown to have been recorded at 10.00 AM i.e. before the raiding team left for the spot and therefore it does appear that there has been due compliance of section 42 of the NDPS Act. Similarly, PW3 the Reader to the ACP has confirmed that the reports u/s 57 NDPS Act were duly received in the ACP office on 12.04.2010 and the said reports also bear the signatures of the SHO and the ACP.
However, having held that as per the documents on record the investigating officer appears to have complied with the provisions of section 42 and 57 of the NDPS Act, it is to be also noted that his testimony does not inspire such confidence that this court is able to hold that the said IO carried out the investigation of the present case in a fair manner. Admittedly, there is not a single public witness joined in the investigation by him. No doubt non joining of public witnesses is not always fatal to the case of the investigating agency and public witnesses are generally hesitant to join police proceedings, however the evidence on record does show that the testimony of the IO that he made a sincere effort to join public witnesses in the investigation cannot be taken to be the gospel truth. According to the testimony of this IO, he had made sincere efforts to join the public witnesses in the proceeding, namely 5 shopkeepers on the way to the spot and two passersby at Kilokari Village but none acceded to his request. When asked during cross examination whether he made any such efforts at the parking lot from where the accused was allegedly apprehended he has deposed that though parking attendants were available at the spot they refused to become witnesses to the proceedings. Now this statement of the IO is completely belied by the statement made by PW5 HC Parminder Kumar. This witness in his cross-examination has categorically deposed that no parking attendants were available at all at the spot, since it was free parking. Such a statement of PW5 makes it clear that the IO has concocted the version of the parking attendants being there and refusing to join the proceedings.
Apart from the fact that the IO appears to have deposed incorrect facts with respect to the availability of public witnesses, it is also apparent that he has not deposed correct facts even with respect to the search and seizure proceedings conducted by him. In his examination in chief he has deposed that at the time of leaving of police station for the spot, he had taken alongwith him the IO bag, field testing kit, electronic machine, etc and that he had used the said kit to test the substance allegedly recovered from the accused at the spot and on being asked during cross examination as to from where had he obtained the field testing kit, he has deposed that he had purchased the said kit from the market two years back but that he does not have the receipt of the same nor does he remember the make of the same. Contrary to this deposition of PW7, the SHO PW8 Inspector Kuldeep Singh has stated in his cross-examination that there were only two field testing kits available in the police station and both the the said kits were under his custody and were being kept in the malkhana. This witness has categorically deposed that none of the IOs of the PS were having their personal field testing kits. The said discrepancy between the deposition of PW7 and 8 clearly shows that the contraband was never tested at the spot. Another discrepancy between the deposition of both these witnesses is with respect to the FSL form.
Though according to the IO, PW7 he had filled up the FSL form at the spot and the same consisted of two pages, the SHO, PW8 has stated in his cross-examination that the FSL form deposited with him was consisting of a single page. This discrepancy also shows that either the IO had not himself filled up the FSL form or the FSL form filled up by the IO was not the one deposited with the SHO. The handing over of seal by the IO, PW7 Narender Singh to PW5 HC Parminder Kaur is also not free from doubt. Though according to PW7, he was returned back his seal 4-5 days after the date of the incident, PW5 in his cross-examination has deposed that he had returned the seal to PW7 on the evening of the same day i.e. on 11.04.2010 itself. The use of a private Qualis vehicle to reach the spot has also not been sufficiently explained. According to the SHO PW8, the private Qualis vehicle in which the raiding team left for the spot belonged to one of his friends namely Sh. Deepak Chhabra. It is not understandable as to why a government vehicle was not used for the raid (for if it had been done so, its entry would have been there in the log book maintained in the police station) and if for some reasons the SHO felt the necessity to borrow a private vehicle from his friends, why the fact was not mentioned in any of the proceedings. In the absence of any such record, there is no material before this court to satisfy itself that the raiding party did leave for the spot in the manner deposed by the police officials.
I do not at all agree with the Ld. APP for the state that the aforementioned discrepancies are minor which should be ignored by this court. In a case like the present one, where there are no public witnesses, the only way an accused can rebut the evidence produced against him by the police officials, is by pointing out the discrepancy between the statements of the police officials on the material aspects of the case. It is to be borne in mind that in the present case, the accused is an illiterate person and his defence is that he was threatened by the police officials to pay Rs. 1 lac to them or that they would plant 2 Kg heroin upon him and that thereafter, he was made to sign various documents at the police station under pressure and coercion. In particular, it has been contended by the Ld. Defence counsel that the accused was forced to sign the notice u/s 50 NDPS Act without actually being made aware that he has a legal right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. No doubt, it has been rightly pointed out by Ld. APP that since in the present case the contraband was allegedly recovered from a polythene bag which the accused was carrying in his right hand, it was not mandatory for the investigating officer to have served the accused with a notice u/s 50 NDPS Act, however since, the members of the raiding team, in particular the IO has deposed that he did subject the accused to a body search after giving him a notice u/s 50 NDPS Act, it is open to the accused to show that the said witness is not speaking the truth and therefore is not a credible witness. In the case reported as Union of India Vs. Shah Alam & Anr. 2009(1) Drug Cases (Narcotics) 390, the facts before Hon'ble Supreme Court were that two accused persons were subjected to body search in course of which packets of heroin were found in the shoulder bag carried by them and in such facts also Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the provisions of section 50 should have been complied with and if the same had not been done, it would have a bearing on the credibility of the evidence of the official witnesses. In the present case, IO PW7 ASI Narender has deposed that he had informed the accused the he has a legal right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted officer or a Magistrate. According to the IO, accused however refused to get himself so searched and was amenable to be searched by the police party itself. Now this refusal of the accused has been recorded by the IO in his own handwriting and the reason being given is that since the accused was a illiterate person, he had requested the IO to so write the refusal. The said refusal of the accused is also recorded on Ex.PW5/B however, the question to be considered is that whether the accused was read over the said refusal by an independent person so as to confirm whether the police official had written as per his dictation or not and the answer to the said question is obviously in the negative. The mere deposition of the IO in this regard can hardly be taken to be credible and trustworthy in view of the other incorrect facts deposed by him on record.
In fact, the signatures of the accused have been shown appearing on all the documents allegedly prepared at the spot namely the notice u/s 50 NDPS Act, the seizure memo, the arrest memo, the personal search memo, his alleged disclosure, etc. If the accused is an illiterate person and is therefore unable to understand the contents of the documents being prepared by the police officials, it is not understandable as to why his signatures were insisted upon each of the documents prepared by the IO. It is not the case of the prosecution witnesses that the contents of all the documents were read over to the accused before he was made to sign the same.
The argument that the signature of the accused on the said documents show that he had voluntarily participated in the proceedings and that in fact the contraband was recovered from him, does not have much weight for then there is no reason as to why his signatures were not taken on the pullandas prepared of the contraband allegedly recovered from him. Admittedly, the signatures of the accused do not appear on the pullandas of the contraband which were allegedly prepared on the spot.
Another aspect which cannot be ignored in the present case is that the FSL report proved on record shows that the sample drawn from the 500 gms of the substance allegedly recovered from the accused was found to contain only 1.3 % of diacetylmorphine (heroin) i.e. in other words only 5 gms of heroin were allegedly recovered from the accused. No doubt, in view of the notification dated 18.11.2009, issued by the Central Government, this court is not to consider the pure drug content of the heroin alone in the mixture of 500 gms, but the very small percentage of heroin found to be present in the substance allegedly recovered from the accused is a fact which is being rightly relied upon by the accused in the present case to support his contention that he has been falsely implicated and the contraband has been planted upon him.
In view of my discussion hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that the discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that have come to the fore during trial, are sufficient to hold that the prosecution has been unable to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. He is accordingly acquitted from the charges of offence punishable u/s 21 NDPS Act. He be released from JC if not required to be detained in any other case. However, in terms of provisions of Section 437 Cr.PC, accused is hereby directed to tender personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to ensure his presence before Ld. Appellate Court in case an appeal is filed against the present judgment. It is made clear that the said bond shall remain in force for six months from today. On request of the accused his personal bond tendered has been accepted and he is granted time till 07.03.2012 to produce a surety bond. Case stands adjourned for same on 07.03.2012.
Announced in open Court on this 29th day of February, 2012 (Anu Grover Baliga ) Special Judge NDPS : New Delhi Patiala House : New Delhi FIR No. 47/10SC NO. 15/10 Page 44 of 44