Delhi District Court
Kaliram vs State Of Himanchal Pradesh, Air 1973 Sc ... on 21 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05 (SOUTH-
WEST), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided by: Sh. Deepak Vats
STATE V VISHAL DHYANI
FIR No. 205/16
Police Station: JANAK PURI
Under Section: 408 IPC
Date of institution : 25.05.2017
Date of reserving : 04.11.2019
Date of pronouncement : 21.11.2019
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case 3986/17
b) Date of commission of offence 02.05.2016
c) Name of the complainant Sh. Satbir Singh s/o Sh. Aroor Singh,
r/o 846 Vikas Kunj, Vikas Puri,Delhi.
d) Name, parentage and address Vishal Dhyani s/o Sh. Harish Dhyani,
of the accused r/o H. No. 98A Gali no. 8 Sushant Vi-
har, Ibrahim Pur, Saroop Nagar, Delhi.
e) Offence complained of Section 408 I.P.C.
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order Acquitted
h) Date of final order 21.11.2019.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that accused Vishal Dhyani was working as an Accounts Clerk in the Janak Puri Club w.e.f 24.02.2016 and on 02.05.2016 the keys of cash Chest of Janak Puri STATE V VISHAL DHYANI FIR No. 205/16 PS : JANAK PURI U/S: 408 IPC 1 Club situated at Plot no. 17 Cultural Complex, District Center, Janak Puri within the jurisdiction of PS Janak Puri, were entrusted to accused by Mr. Satbir Verma, another employee of Janak Puri Club. Further on 02.05.2016, at unknown time at Janak Puri Club accused took away cash of Rs. 5,17,820/- from the cash Chest of the said club. Thus, it is alleged that accused has committed offence under section 408 IPC.
2. After investigation chargesheet was filed. Copy of the same was supplied to the accused. Charge was framed against the accused for the offences under Section 408 IPC vide order dated 29.06.2017 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined nine wit- nesses.
4. PW-1 Balbir Singh is the complainant. He deposed that on 02.05.2016 he came to know that the theft of Rs. Five lacs had taken place from the Accounts Department and accused Vishal Dhyani, Accountant Geeta (PW 3) and Accountant Satbir Verma (PW 2 ) were looking after the Accounts Department. PW 1 further deposed that he inquired from all the above three persons in account department regarding the theft but they re- fused to commit any such theft of about Rs. Five lacs. PW 1 made at 100 number. He further deposed that on the next day he went to PS and made a complaint Ex. PW 1/A. That on 04.05.2016 when he came to know the exact amount of stolen money he again made a complaint to SHO in de- tail and same is Ex. PW 1/B. He further deposed that the keys of the ac- counts Branch / locker were with the accounts department and he came to know regarding theft through Sh. Om Parkash, General Secretary and on STATE V VISHAL DHYANI FIR No. 205/16 PS : JANAK PURI U/S: 408 IPC 2 02.05.2016 after coming to know the said fact, he made a complaint to SHO PS Janak Puri. Copy of the same is Mark X. He proved the arrest memo Ex. PW 1/C and personal search memo vide Ex. PW 1/D. Witness correctly identified the accused before the court.
5. PW-2 Sh Satbir Verma, Accountant was the incharge of ac- counts Branch Janak Puri Club under whom the accused and PW 3 Ms. Geeta Saji were working in the accounts branch of Janak puri Club. He stated that on 01.05.2016, at about 10:00 pm accused checked the cash which was found to be Rs. 5,17,820/-. The said cash was put in the locker by the accused and keys were handed over to PW 2 Satbir Verma. He fur- ther stated that he handed over the keys of chest to the accused as the cash was to be deposited in the bank account on the next day morning and he had to come to office late. He further deposed that on 02.05.2016 accused was supposed to come to Janak Puri club with PW 3 Ms. Geeta, however, accused came alone at 11:00 am. That at about 12:45 pm, he made a call to the accused however, the accused did not pickup the same. At about 3:30 pm, when he reached the office, PW 3 Ms. Geeta Saji took the keys of the chest from the accused and opened the same and found that the cash of Rs. 5,17,820/- was missing. In his cross examination he interalia admitted that he had not seen the accused committing theft from the cash chest nor did he see the accused opening the cash chest.
6. PW3 Ms. Geeta Saji, deposed that on 30.04.2016, keys of chest were handed over by her to PW 2 Satbir Verma and she and ac- cused both left the club at about 9:30 pm. That 01.05.2016 was holiday being Sunday. She stated that on 01.05.2016 at about 9:00 pm she re- ceived a call from the accused that PW 2 Sh. Satbir Verma has handed STATE V VISHAL DHYANI FIR No. 205/16 PS : JANAK PURI U/S: 408 IPC 3 over keys of the chest to the accused and she was surprised on listening the same as to how, the keys were handed over to the accused without the approval of the management. She was declared hostile as she was resiling from her earlier statement and was cross examined by Ld. APP. In her cross examination by the Ld. APP she denied the suggestion that PW 2 Satbir Verma informed her that there is cash amounting to Rs. 5,17,820/- in the cash chest. She further denied the suggestion that she was in- formed by PW 2 Sh. Satbir Verma that the keys were handed over by him to the accused as he ( PW 2) would come late in the club on the next day.
In her cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused she ad- mitted that she did not see the accused committing any theft from the cash chest.
7. PW4 Rakesh Borah has produced copy of account opening form of accused which is mark X. Copy of DL is Marks X1. Copy of form 60 is Mark X2, copy of Ration card in the name of Harish Kumar Dhyani marked X3. Copy of voter ID card in the name of accused is Mark X4. Copy of DL verification form is mark X5 and copy of cash deposited receipt of Rs. 5000 at the time of account opening is mark X-6. He also proved the account opening form in the name of accused Ex. PW 4/A. He also proved the statement of account number 911010022737715 of accused from 01.09.2016 to 31.12.2016 vide Ex. PW 4/C
8. PW5 Kranti Paswan was the Security Guard on 02.05.2016 / 03.05.2016 at the Janak Puri club. He turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. He stated that he had no knowledge as to who stole the cash from account section Janak Puri club. In his cross examina-
STATE V VISHAL DHYANI FIR No. 205/16 PS : JANAK PURI U/S: 408 IPC 4 tion by Ld. APP, he stated that he did not see the accused alone in the ac- count section at Janak Puri Club at the time of alleged incident.
9. PW6 ASI Bijender with the IO. He deposed that on 28.12.2016 he joined the investigation of Insp. Jagtar Singh. He along-with Insp. Jag- tar Singh went to H. no. 98A, Gali no. 8, Sushant Vihar, Ibraham Pur, Swa- roop Nagar to conduct raid for arrest of accused where mother of the ac- cused Santosh Dhyani met them and informed that her son was not present at the house. Thereafter, they kept eyes at the house of the ac- cused. He further deposed that at about 7.00 PM to 7.30 PM, IO received secret information regarding coming of accused at District Centre Janakpuri. Complainant Balbir Singh also came at the spot and joined them. Thereafter, they went District Centre and at the back side of the club Janakpuri, two persons were standing there. Complainant had identi- fied the accused Vishal Dhyani and they arrested the accused. Arrest memo is already Ex. PW1/C. Personal search of accused was also con- ducted which is already Ex. PW1/D.
10. PW7 HC Maan Singh is the IO and has proved site plan Ex. PW 7/A. Thereafter investigation of the present case was transferred to Inspt Jagtar Singh.
11. PW8 ASI Bajrang has proved the E FIR number WDJP 000205 dated 03.05.2016 vide Ex. PW 8/A.
12. PW 9 Inspt. Jagtar Singh ( 2nd IO) of the present case He de- posed regarding the investigation conducted by him. He further deposed STATE V VISHAL DHYANI FIR No. 205/16 PS : JANAK PURI U/S: 408 IPC 5 that after completion of the investigation he prepared the charge sheet and filed the same before the court.
13. After the examination of witness, PE was closed and the recording of statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with as there was no incriminating evidence / material available on record against the accused.
14. I have heard the submissions of Dr. Yadvender Singh Ld. APP for the State and Sh. M.P. Singh, Ld. Defence counsel for the accused and perused the record carefully.
15. Ld. APP submits that prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that prosecution has proved that money was entrusted to the accused as he was the servant of PW1 in the club. He submitted that accused has taken away Rs. 5,17,820/- from the Janak Puri Club. He submits that all the elements of the offence have been proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, accused be convicted.
16. Sh. M. P. Singh, Ld. Defence counsel for accused submits that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He ar- gued that there is nothing on record to show that accused was having keys of the chest at the time of alleged incident. He argued that prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the money was ever given or entrusted to the accused or theft had taken place or committed by the accused in the club of PW1. He submitted that the there is no eye witness to the offence of STATE V VISHAL DHYANI FIR No. 205/16 PS : JANAK PURI U/S: 408 IPC 6 committing of theft and accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that accused has not committed any theft or breach of trust. He submits that nothing has been proved against the ac- cused beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, accused deserved to be acquitted on this ground.
17. I have heard the submissions of Dr. Yadvender Singh Ld. APP for the State and Sh. M. P. Singh, ld. Defence counsel for the accused and perused the record carefully.
18. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Since, there is a strong presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and rebuttal of the same always lies upon the prosecution. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
19. Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kaliram vs State of Himanchal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773 and held that accused is presumed to be innocent till charges against him are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In another case titled as Mousam Singh Roy & ors. vs. State of West Benga (2003) 12 SCC 377 wherein it was held that burden of STATE V VISHAL DHYANI FIR No. 205/16 PS : JANAK PURI U/S: 408 IPC 7 proof in criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. It was further observed that it is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused.
20. In the present case as per the prosecution, accused had taken away/embezzled cash amounting to Rs. 5,17,820/- from the cash chest of the Janakpuri Club on 02.05.2016 as the keys of the said chest were in his possession. First of all it has to be seen whether the prosecution has proved that an amount of Rs. 5,17,820/- was lying in cash chest of the said club at the time of alleged embezzlement. Here it may be noted that the prosecution has not placed on record any documentary proof i.e. any reg- ister, invoice or any other statement to show that the cash of the aforesaid amount was lying in the cash chest of the club at the relevant time. The prosecution has adduced only ocular evidence to prove the same. PW 1 who is the manager of Janakpuri club has stated that he came to know of the alleged theft / embezzlement by the accused. He has nowhere de- posed regarding the aforesaid amount in his examination in chief. PW 2 Satbir Verma, Accountant of Janakpuri Club has stated that there was cash amounting to Rs. 5,17,820/- at the time alleged theft/ embezzlement of the said cash lying in the cash chest of club. PW3 Ms. Geeta Saji, Ac- count officer, Janakpuri club has also not deposed regarding the exact amount lying in the cash chest at the time of relevant time. She further de- posed that on 30.04.2016 i.e. two days before the alleged incident, approx- imately a sum of Rs. 5 lacs were lying in the locker of chest/ club. Thus, PW 3 has also not clearly stated about the exact amount.
STATE V VISHAL DHYANI FIR No. 205/16 PS : JANAK PURI U/S: 408 IPC 8
21. The above discussion shows that only evidence regarding the amount of cash lying in cash chest of Janakpuri club at the relevant time is the testimony of PW 2. In the opinion of this court, the testimony of PW 2 is not sufficient to prove that aforesaid amount was lying in the cash chest of Janakpuri Club at the relevant date and time. In the opinion of this court, the prosecution should have furnished other documentary evidence for namely any statement, register, invoice etc. to show that indeed a sum of Rs. 5,17,820/- as aforesaid was lying in cash in the chest Janakpuri club. Further the testimony of PW 2 Satbir Verma has been appreciated in the later part of this judgment wherein the court has found that he is not a reli- able witness. In view of the above this court finds that prosecution has no cogently and clearly proved that the aforesaid cash amounting to Rs. 5,17,820/- was lying in the cash chest at the point of relevant time.
22. Further, admittedly, there is no eye witness to the alleged theft / breach of trust/embezzlement by the accused and the cash which was al- legedly embezzled/ stolen by the accused has also not been recovered from the accused. The prosecution has built its case on the premise that at the time of alleged incident there were only three employees of the Janak Puri Club in its accounts branch i.e. PW 1 Satbir Verma, PW 2 Ms. Geeta Saji and the accused had the keys of the cash chest in his posses- sion at the relevant time, the same being handed over to him by PW 2 Sat- bir Verma, Accountant of Janak Puri Club and further that the PW 5 Sh. Kranti Paswan, who was the guard of the Janak Puri club on 02.05.2016/03.05.2016, saw the accused present alone at the account section of Janak Puri Club at the time of the alleged incident. Thus, the prosecution has attempted to prove that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence against the accused showing that the alleged embezzlement/ theft was committed by him.
STATE V VISHAL DHYANI FIR No. 205/16 PS : JANAK PURI U/S: 408 IPC 9
23. Here, it is apposite to first of all look into the testimony of PW 5 Sh. Kranti Paswan. In his statement under section 161 Cr. PC dated 08.12.2016, he stated that he saw the accused alone at the time of alleged incident at accounts section of the Janak Puri Club, however, in his state- ment before the court he turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution at all. He stated that he has no knowledge of the aforesaid theft and the money from the Janak Puri Club. He denied the suggestion by the Ld. APP for the State that he saw the accused alone at the time of alleged incident or immediately prior to the theft. He further stated that the IO recorded his statement on his own. He also stated that the keys of the chest were carried by the PW 2 Satbir Verma. He also denied the sugges- tion that the keys of the cash chest Janak Puri Club were with the accused at the time of embezzlement/theft. Apart from PW 5 prosecution has not examined any witness to prove that accused was seen alone at accounts department of Janak Puri Club at the time of alleged incident. PW 5 havng turned hostile, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused was seen alone at the time of incident immediately prior to the incident.
24. Now it has to be seen whether the prosecution has proved that the accused was having keys of cash chest in his possession at the time of alleged incident. It is not disputed that the incharge of the account branch was PW2 Satbir Verma and accused and another employee at ac- count branch PW 3 Geeta Saji were Junior to PW 2 Satbir Verma. It is also not disputed that in ordinary course of the business, the keys were kept by the PW 2 Satbir Verma. Same has been admitted by the PW 1 Balbir, who was manager of Janak Puri Club. Thus, ordinarily the keys of cash chest should have been in the possession of PW 2 and it was incum- bent upon prosecution to prove that the keys were handed over by PW 2 to the accused. The prosecution has not placed on record any documen-
STATE V VISHAL DHYANI FIR No. 205/16 PS : JANAK PURI U/S: 408 IPC 10 tary proof for example handing over memo of the keys, or any other entry in any register, any authorization letter by the management of Janakpuri Club thereby authorizing PW 2 to handover keys to the accused or any other record to show that at the time of alleged incident, the keys of the chest were in the possession of the accused. Rather than placing on record any such document, here also, the prosecution has adduced ocular evidence to show that keys of the chest were with the accused at the time of alleged incident. Thus, the testimony of prosecution witnesses has to be throughly examined on this point.
25. PW 1 has not deposed regarding the fact that keys were in possession of the accused at the time of alleged incident. He also admit- ted in his cross examination that keys were used to kept by Satbir Verma. He also stated that he was not aware whether the PW2 handed over the keys to any other person or to the accused. Thus, there is nothing in PW 1's testimony showing that keys were in possession of the accused.
26. PW 3 Ms. Geeta Saji in her statement under section 161 Cr. PC. dated 14.11.2016 which is marked as mark X stated that she was ap- prised by Satbir Verma that he counted the cash of the amount of Rs. 5,17,820/- before the accused and handed over the keys of accused. Bare perusal of this statement shows that this part of her statement falls in the domain of the hearsay evidence as she did not herself see PW 2 Satbir Verma handing over the keys of the chest to the accused at the time of al- leged incident. It is settled law that hearsay evidence, except where it is so permitted in law, is not admissible as evidence.
STATE V VISHAL DHYANI FIR No. 205/16 PS : JANAK PURI U/S: 408 IPC 11
27. Further, in her statement before the court PW 3 turned hostile and she denied suggestion given by the Ld. APP that PW 2 Satbir Verma handed over the keys to the accused Vishal Dhyani. She also stated in her examination in chief that she got a call from the accused at about 9:00 pm that Satbir Verma handed over the keys and that she was surprised as to how the key was handed over by PW 2 Satbir Verma to the accused without the authorization by the management. This statement of PW 2 is completely at variance with her statement under section 161 Cr. PC. as discussed above and thus the same does not inspire much confidence. Since, the statement u/s 161 Cr. PC. of PW 2 regarding handing over the key to the accused is completely contradictory to her statement made in the court and there are two versions regarding the same, the court is of the view that her testimony is not sufficient to prove that accused had keys of the chest club in his possession at the time of alleged incident.
28. PW 2 Satbir Verma has categorically stated that at the time of alleged incident keys were in the possession of the accused which was handed over to accused by PW 2 himself. In his examination before the court, PW 2 stated that he handed over the keys as the cash was to be de- posited in the bank account on the next day and he used to come office at around 3:00 pm i.e. late in day. As stated earlier, there is no documentary proof or any other eye witness to support the statement of PW 2 that he handed over the keys to the accused. It is noteworthy that PW 2 Satbir Verma was himself a suspect in the present case. He was the incharge of the accounts branch and accused used to work under his supervision. Fur- ther, it has been admitted by PW 2 that the keys used to remain with him only. The reason given by the PW 2 for handing over the keys to the ac- cused does not appear to be compelling enough to be believed because there is no documentary proof to show handing over the keys, there is no STATE V VISHAL DHYANI FIR No. 205/16 PS : JANAK PURI U/S: 408 IPC 12 other witness to prove handing over of the keys, there is no proof to show that PW 2 had the authority to hand over the keys to the accused or any- body else and also because PW 2 was himself was a suspect and was or- dinarily custodian of the said keys. The court is of the opinion that it is not safe to believe PW 2's statement that he handed over the keys to the ac- cused at the time of alleged incident as there is no other proof of the same apart from his oral testimony.
29. From the above discussion, it is established that the testi- monies of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 are not sufficient to prove that the keys of cash chest of the club were in the possession of accused at the time of alleged incident. Apart from the testimonies of above witnesses there is no other witness of prosecution to prove the same. Thus, prosecution has not proved that the keys of the cash chest of the club were with the accused at the time of alleged incident. Since, the prosecution has failed to prove the same the whole case of the prosecution falls.
30. Further, it may be relevant to note that there are certain lapses of prosecution in the present case which further fortifies the above reason- ing of the court. First of all the date of the alleged incident was 02.05.2016 however, all the statements under section 161 Cr. PC. were taken after a considerable time for example supplementary statement of the PW 1 Bal- bir was taken on 26.10.2016. Statement u/s 161 Cr. PC of most important witness PW 2 Satbir Verma, who was the star witness of prosecution was recorded on 10.11.2016 i.e. for more than 5 months of the alleged incident. Similarly, statement of PW 5 Sh. Kranti Paswan was recorded on 08.12.2016. Statement of Ms. Geeta Saji was recorded on 14.11.2016. Delay in recording statements of the witness has not been explained prop-
STATE V VISHAL DHYANI FIR No. 205/16 PS : JANAK PURI U/S: 408 IPC 13 erly by the prosecution. Delay in recording statement gives rise to the pos- sibility of the concoctions or improvements. PW 9 Inspt Jagtar Singh stated that he was assigned the case on 18.09.2016 and thereafter statements were recorded, however it has not been explained by the prosecution as to why the previous IOs did not record the statement of witnesses in time. Delay in recording statements of the witnesses has further weakened the case of prosecution.
31. Further PW 9 IO Inspt. Jagtar Singh has admitted that there was CCTV Camera installed outside the premises of the club. The same was not collected by him. In the opinion of this court CCTV Footage in- stalled outside the club was crucial piece of evidence and could have thrown light on the role of accused in the alleged breach of trust / theft and thus failure of the prosecution in collecting the said CCTV Footage raises doubt about the case of the prosecution.
32. The court also deems it appropriate to discuss the document marked as mark 9A placed on record by the IO. As per the prosecution the accused admitted his guilt in the said statement marked 9A. First of all only a copy of the said statement mark 9A has been placed on record and original has not been shown. Thus, document mark 9A is only a secondary evidence. No evidence has been led to show as to where the original lies. Further PW 9 has admitted in his cross examination that the statement was not recorded in his presence. Further, even it is believed that docu- ment Mark 9A can be read in evidence, perusal of the same shows that the accused only settled the case with the janak puri club and the accused agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,58,000/-. First of all considering the impor- tance of the document mark A original of the same should have been STATE V VISHAL DHYANI FIR No. 205/16 PS : JANAK PURI U/S: 408 IPC 14 placed on record and non production of the same and production of sec- ondary evidence without fulfilling the conditions specified in Section 65 Indian Evidence Act which provides for circumstances in which secondary evidence may be led, the court is of the considered view that document marked 9A cannot be read in evidence against the accused. Moreover, even if it is believed that same can be read in evidence, perusal of the same reveals that the accused had settled the case with Janak puri Club and nowhere in document marked 9A he admitted his guilt. Merely be- cause the accused was willing to settle the case the same does not mean that he has committed the offence. Most importantly, document mark 9A appears to be part of a set of documents which was received by this court on 20.03.2018. On 20.03.2018 Ld. Predecessor of this court ordered that the said set of documents be put up on 17.04.2018. On 17.04.2018 Ld. Predecessor of this court was on leave and there is nothing in the subse- quent orders which could show that Ld. Predecessor of this court applied his mind on the said set of document, however, as the prosecution has re- lied upon one document of the said set of documents ( i.e document mark 9A), the court is of the opinion that the said set of documents may be looked into to see the case of the prosecution. Perusal of the said set of documents shows that a letter was written by certain members of the Janak Puri club, as per which alleged embezzlement / theft was committed by PW 2 Satbir Verma and Vishal Dhyani and the accused Vishal Dhyani and Satbir agreed to give half amount each of the total amount allegedly embezzled by them. As per the said letter only accused Vishal Dhyani (who was poor and also innocent as per the letter) was made culprit by the IO. The said set of documents contain a copy of the statement dated 14.05.2016 allegedly made by the PW 2 Satbir Verma wherein he also paid Rs. 2,58910 to the Janak Puri Club. None of the said members of the Janakpuri club who wrote the above said letter have been examined by STATE V VISHAL DHYANI FIR No. 205/16 PS : JANAK PURI U/S: 408 IPC 15 the prosecution and thus this set of documents ( except document mark 9A) have not been placed on record. However, as the prosecution has re- lied upon one of these documents ( mark 9A) court is of the opinion that the said set of documents may be looked into to see the veracity of the case of prosecution. When all the set of documents are seen in entirety same raises grave doubt about the case of the prosecution because if the said set of documents is to be believed, PW 2 Satbir Verma was the main perpetrator of the alleged crime /breach of trust/ theft. Accordingly, in view of the above, the court is of the view that accused cannot be held guilty only on the basis of document mark 9A.
33. To sum up, the court has found that prosecution has failed to prove that accused had the keys of the chest at the time of alleged incident or that he was seen alone in the accounts branch on the date of alleged in- cident. The premise on which the prosecution built its case has not been proved to the hilt. Accordingly, accused Vishal Dhyani is acquitted of the offences punishable und 408 I.P.C.
34. Fresh bail bonds u/S 437A Cr. P.C of accused Vishal Dhyani already furnished and accepted.
35. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on 21.11.2019 Digitally signed by DEEPAK (Deepak Vats) DEEPAK VATS VATS Date: 2019.11.21 21:06:47 -0500 Metropolitan Magistrate-05 (South-West)- 21.11.2019 STATE V VISHAL DHYANI FIR No. 205/16 PS : JANAK PURI U/S: 408 IPC 16