Delhi District Court
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sikka vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 13 January, 2023
DLNW010114282019
Presented on : 23-11-2019
Registered on : 25-11-2019
Decided on : 13-01-2023
Duration : 3 years, 1 months,
20 days
IN THE COURT OF
ASJ/SPECIAL.JUDGE(NDPS)
AT NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided Over by Sh. Vikram)
Cr Case/228/2019
Mr. RAJEEV KUMAR SIKKA
S/o Late Sh. Bhagwan Das Sikka,
R/o BT-21, Ground Floor, Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi-110088.
.... Petitioner/Revisionist
Vs.
1. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
2. Mr. RAJ KUMAR KHURANA
(Builder-Complainant)
S/o Sh. O.P. Khurana,
R/o KU-21, Pitampura,
Delhi-110034.
.... Respondents
C.R No. 228/19 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr.
C.R. No.221/2019 Mr. Ajay Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr. Page 1 of 17
DLNW010108922019
Presented on : 16-11-2019
Registered on : 18-11-2019
Decided on : 13-01-2023
Duration : 3 years, 1 months,
27 days
IN THE COURT OF
ASJ/SPECIAL.JUDGE(NDPS)
AT NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided Over by Sh. Vikram)
Cr Case/221/2019
Mr. AJAY KUMAR SIKKA
S/o Late Sh. Bhagwan Das Sikka,
R/o BT-21, Ground Floor, Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi-110088.
.... Petitioner/Revisionist
Vs.
1. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
2. Mr. RAJ KUMAR KHURANA
(Builder-Complainant)
S/o Sh. O.P. Khurana,
R/o KU-21, Pitampura,
Delhi-110034.
.... Respondents
C.R No. 228/19 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr.
C.R. No.221/2019 Mr. Ajay Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr. Page 2 of 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocate for petitioners : Sh. Dinesh Priani
Addl. PP for the State/Respondent No. 1 : Sh. Kumar Sanjay
Advocate for Respondent No. 2: Sh. Sandeep Chaudhary
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(13-01-2023)
1. These two revision petitions, under Section 397 Cr.P.C., have been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 21.09.2019 passed by Ld. M.M-7, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi (herein after called the impugned order) in a State case bearing FIR No. 395/16 titled as "State Vs. Kavita Sikka & Anr." under Sections 420/448/34 IPC whereby the application dated 06.06.2019 filed by respondent No. 2/complainant was allowed and the petitioners despite neither named as accused in the FIR nor being charge-sheeted, were summoned as accused.
2. The brief background leading to the present revision is that in the month of August, 2013, the accused Kavita Sikka along with her son Kunal Sikka visited the office of the complainant Sh. Raj Kumar Khurana with the offer of sale/construction of H.No. BT-21, West Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. They apprised the complainant that Kavita Sikka is the actual owner of the entire basement and 2nd floor with roof rights of H.No. BT-21, West Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and on the ground floor and 1 st floor, there are other co-owners namely Sh. Rajeev Kumar Sikka and Sh. Ajay Kumar Sikka respectively and they are also willing to C.R No. 228/19 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr.
C.R. No.221/2019 Mr. Ajay Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr. Page 3 of 17demolish the entire premises and construction of new one and for the same, some amount shall be given to them. Considering the proposal of Kavita Sikka and Kunal Sikka, it was finally decided that the complainant had to pay Rs. 33,33,000/- each to Rajeev Kumar Sikka and Ajay Kumar Sikka. Accused Kavita Sikka assured to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of 2nd floor and 3rd floor with roof rights and half portion of stilt parking for a total sale consideration on Rs.3,44,00,000/-. The entire expenditure of construction would be born by the complainant. Agreement to sell dated 04.09.2013 was made between the complainant and the accused Kavita Sikka in the presence of her son who also signed the said agreement. Two separate agreements were executed between the complainant and Rajeev Kumar Sikka and Ajay Kumar Sikka. The complainant paid Rs.33,33,000/- to Rajeev Kumar Sikka and Ajay Kumar Sikka. Thereafter, the complainant took possession of the entire premises in question and demolish it. Accused Kavita Sikka and her son have further received Rs.40 lakhs on 08.09.2013 and Rs. 10 lakh on 13.12.2014 and Rs.8,50,000/- and 14.12.2014 in addition to the earnest money. Thus, accused Kavita Sikka received Rs. 2,16,00,000/- till the filing of the complaint. As per the allegations of complainant despite entering into the agreement and talking huge sum from the complainant, the revisionist/accused Rajeev Kumar Sikka and Ajay Kumar Sikka in active connivance with accused Kavita and Kunal Sikka executed a partition deed dated 24.12.2014 in respect of aforesaid property. In the said partition deed, the property as mentioned in 3rd schedule of the partition deed was shown in the share of accused Kavita Sikka despite the fact that both proposed accused C.R No. 228/19 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr.
C.R. No.221/2019 Mr. Ajay Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr. Page 4 of 17persons knew that 2nd and 3rd floor portion of the property belong to the complainant. Thereafter, accused Kavita in connivance with co-accused Kunal and both proposed accused persons sold 2nd floor with 25% share in stilt parking to one person namely Sh. Mukesh Gupta vide sale deed dated 27.01.2015.
3. It is further contended that after investigation, a charge sheet was filed wherein accused Kavita Sikka and Kunal Sikka were arrayed as accused in Column No. 11 and cognizance was taken against Ms. Kavita Sikka and Sh. Kunal Sikka and the matter was posted for arguments on charge.
5. It is further contended that in the year 2019, the defacto complainant filed a belated application without mentioning any provision of law and notice of the same was issued to the revisionist herein. The revisionist filed his detailed reply and arguments were addressed by all the parties but Ld. MM vide the impugned order, by exercising its powers, suo moto summoned the revisionist under Section 319 of Cr.P.C as an additional accused. Hence, the present revision petition.
6. The revisionist has preferred the present revision petition on the following grounds :
(i) Because the application filed by complainant is not maintainable as same has not been filed by prosecution as per the mandate of law. Further, no permission has been sought by so called defacto complainant for conducting prosecution under Section 302 of Cr.P.C.
(ii) Because no provision of law or any section of Cr.P.C C.R No. 228/19 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr.C.R. No.221/2019 Mr. Ajay Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr. Page 5 of 17
has been mentioned under which the application was filed by defacto complainant.
(iii) Because the application filed by defacto complainant is nothing but an abuse of process of law as in the present FIR, charge sheet under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C had lready been filed far back in the year 2017 and the application filed by the complainant was/is filed at a belated stage.
(iv) Because Ld. MM failed to appreciate that the bare perusal of FIR and charge sheet will manifest that allegation leveled in the application filed by defacto complainant did form the part of said FIR and any of the statements so recorded of the defacto complainant or his witnesses.
(v) Because Ld. MM failed to appreciate that no allegation or incriminating evidence against the revisionist has been made even in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C of the defacto complainant.
(vi) Because Ld. MM failed to appreciate that in the entire application filed by defacto complainant, he failed to mention what are the allegations or evidence against the present non-applicant/revisionist. Further, Ld. MM failed to appreciate that defacto complainant is not seeking any further or re-investigation nor has filed a protest petition. Thus, the application filed by defacto complainant could not be considered by Ld. Trial Court.
(vii) Because revisionist is neither the beneficiary nor the witness to the alleged transaction between the defacto complainant and accused No. 1 and 2 namely Kavita Sikka and Kunal Sikka. Further, there was a separate agreement C.R No. 228/19 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr.
C.R. No.221/2019 Mr. Ajay Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr. Page 6 of 17with regard to property of the revisionist with defacto complainant which has nothing to do with the transaction between accused and complainant. Because Ld. MM failed to appreciate that a registered partition deed was executed at the instance of complainant only and he was well aware of the partition deed and same was done in 2014 but virtual partition had already taken place in the year 2013 further partition deed does not create any fresh rights or liabilities and same reiterated what was already decided between the parties and same do not manifest any ill will on part of the revisionist.
(viii) Because Ld. MM failed to appreciate that the complainant had entered into separate construction agreement with the revisionist and he has not even fulfilled it as construction done by the complainant is defective and present endeavour of the complainant is nothing but a cover up exercise on part of the complainant as to hide his own wrongs and to make civil dispute into a criminal case.
(ix) Because Ld. MM failed to apply the ratio of HardeepSingh's case (Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92) and failed to notice dictum as laid down in the said judgment.
(x) Because the impugned order is totally illegal, mechanical and curtailment of the rights of the revisionist.
(xi) Because the Ld. MM failed to appreciate even on merits that the revisionist is not liable for any so called offence and no prima facie case is made out against the revisionist.
(xii) Because Ld. MM failed to appreciate that Section C.R No. 228/19 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr.
C.R. No.221/2019 Mr. Ajay Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr. Page 7 of 17319 Cr.P.C could not be invoked at this stage.
(xiii) Because Ld. MM conducted jurisdictional error in passing of impugned order.
It was, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned oder passed by Ld. MM.
7. Reply to the present revision petition was not filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, however, brief written synopsis was filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 wherein in it is contended that the main question raised by the petitioner/revisionist in the present revision petition is that :
"After taking cognizance under Section 190 (1)(b) Cr.P.C by Ld. MM in the case "whether Ld. MM can summon additional accused placed in Column No. 12/not sent for trial, at subsequent stage and before the stage of charge?"
7.1. It is contended that FIR in the case was registered at P.S Shalimar Bagh and consequent, upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C against two accused persons namely Kavita Sikka and Kunal Sikka. In the same charge sheet, the petitioner was placed in Column No. 12 and summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C were accordingly issued against two accused persons placed in Column No. 11.
7.2. It is further contended that subsequently, on the pointing out of respondent No.2, Ld. MM looked into the material forwarded by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C and finding sufficient evidence against the petitioner herein, he was summoned vide order dated 21.09.019. This order passed by Ld. C.R No. 228/19 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr.
C.R. No.221/2019 Mr. Ajay Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr. Page 8 of 17MM has been impugned by the petitioner in the present revision petition on various grounds including the law points to the effect that Ld. MM cannot summon additional accused, once he has already summoned the earlier accused.
7.3. It is further contended that Ld. MM after taking cognizance in this case and summoning two accused persons to face trial, can summon additional accused persons at post cognizance stage and before the charge stage. This settled procedure pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court has been correctly adopted by Ld. MM.
In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as M/s. Swil Ltd. v. State of Delhi AIR 2001 SC 2747 and case tiled as M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka AIR 1989 SC 885.
7.4. It is further contended that it is also settled position that non-mentioning of correct provisions of law is not an illegality and further, the role of complainant is not totally washed away after registration of FIR and the complainant has all interest to see that the case is reached to its logical conclusion and as such, being victim in the case can well approach the Ld. Trial Court.
7.5. It is further contended without prejudice that the impugned order dated 21.09.2019 is for summoning the accused persons and suffice it to submit that the present revision petition being against the summoning order which is interlocutory is not maintainable in its present form.
C.R No. 228/19 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr.
C.R. No.221/2019 Mr. Ajay Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr. Page 9 of 17In view of the above facts and circumstances, it was prayed that the present petition may kindly be dismissed in the interest of justice.
8. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the entire record.
9. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that very short question is involved in the present revision petition and that is whether an accused can be summoned, whose name has neither been mentioned in the original complaint and in statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the charge sheet, on an application, after taking cognizance and summoning the accused charge sheeted? Would it not amount to revisiting summoning order without any additional evidence received on record?
10. In the order dated 21.09.2019 Ld. MM, after recording the contentions of parties decided the application of complainant/respondent no.2 in the following manner:
"the complainant/applicant has relied upon Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2014 AIR SCW 667. the said judgment is of a constitution bench of five judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has decided about the maintainability of application u/S 319 Cr.P.C qua additional accused persons after taking cognizance of the offence. Vide the aforesaid judgment it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the power u/S 319 Cr.P.C can be exercised against a person not subjected to investigation or a person placed in column 2 of the chargesheet and against whom cognizance had C.R No. 228/19 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr.C.R. No.221/2019 Mr. Ajay Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr. Page 10 of 17
not been taken or a person who has been discharged. It is held by Apex Court that the test has to be applied is one which is of more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted would lead to conviction. It is also held that word evidence in u/s 319 has to be broadly understood and not litteally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial.
Though the complainant has not mentioned in the application under which section the present application is filed. But it is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that if any person has committed guilt he should not got scot free. Therefore the application is being considered u/S 319 CrPC. As per the facts of the case both accused persons knew that the accused Kavita Sikka has already sold the case property to the complainant and then also they made partition deed of the case property with accused Kavita Sikka due to which the accused Kavita Sikka was able to sell the second floor to Mukesh Gupta. It is also pertinent to mention here that accused Kavita Sikka and Kunal Sikka are near relatives i.e. sister in law and nephew of both accused persons. Therefore, it is clear that proposed accused persons have also got benefited themselves by cheating the complainant in connivance of Kavita Sikka and Kunal Sikka.
It is also pertinent to mention here that the offence of criminal conspiracy always hetched in secrecy and it is not possible to collect direct evidence of the same. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that both proposed accused persons by making partition deed assisted the accused Kavita Sikka to sell the second floor to Mukesh Gupta. Thus prima facie there is enough evidence on record to summon accused persons C.R No. 228/19 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr.C.R. No.221/2019 Mr. Ajay Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr. Page 11 of 17
for offence u/s 420 IPC r/w section 120B IPC."
11. TCR reveals that the charge sheet was filed on 13.09.2017 for offence u/S 420/448/34 IPC against accused Kavita Sikka and Kunal Sikka. The charge sheet reveals that there is no accused in column no. 12, provided for the person who is not chargesheeted. In the complaint on which the FIR is registered the allegations are restricted only against accused Kavita Sikka and Kunal Sikka as the same is filed only against them. The names of petitioners find mention in the complaint only in reference to their share in the property and their agreement with complainant. But nothing is alleged against the petitioners. Therefore the investigation was also restricted to Kavita Sikka and Kunal Sikka and accordingly they were charge sheeted.
12. The cognizance of offence was taken on 24.10.2017 and on that day the accused chargesheeted were present. They were supplied with copy of chargesheet and the matter was adjourned for scrutiny and charge. The appearance of complainant came for the first time on 07.04.2018 when Ld. MM on application of complainant, after canceling the date already given, preponed the matter for 01.06.2018 but since accused did not appear on that date it was adjourned for date already fixed i.e. 16.07.2018.
13. It was on 16.07.2018 complainant moved his application seeking further investigation in the case which was heard by Ld. MM and listed for orders. However, on 07.06.2019 the complainant moved another application for summoning the petitioners. Ld. MM preferred to hear the petitioners before C.R No. 228/19 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr.
C.R. No.221/2019 Mr. Ajay Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr. Page 12 of 17passing order on the application hence issued notice upon them and on 21.09.2019 after hearing the complainant and petitioners Ld. MM passed the impugned order. No order was passed on the application for further investigation filed earlier.
14. After taking cognizance of offence and summoning the accused persons, of course, there is no other provision in Cr.P.C, except under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which empowers the court to summon additional accused, not named in chargesheet or not chargesheeted but suspected. The court can even summon an accused who is already discharged. Therefore the application of complainant could not have been treated in any other provision except u/S 319 Cr.P.C. Thus Ld. MM treated the application u/S 319 Cr.P.C and passed the impugned order placing reliance on Judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh (supra).
15. Ld. MM however committed mistake in deciphering the ratio of that judgment. In Hardeep Singh (supra) of 2014 Hon'ble Supreme Court framed six questions with respect to power of court u/S 319 Cr.P.C. The first question was to the stage at which power u/S 319 Cr.P.C can be applied. Before Answering this question hon'ble Supreme Court explained in what context the word 'inquiry' has to be read and held that:
"It is at this stage the comparison of the words used under section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be understood distinctively from the word used under Section 2(g) defining an inquiry other than the trial by a magistrate or a court. Here the legislature has used two words, namely the magistrate or court, whereas under
section 319 Cr.P.C., as indicated above, only the word "court"
has been recited. This has been done by the legislature to C.R No. 228/19 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr.
C.R. No.221/2019 Mr. Ajay Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr. Page 13 of 17emphasise that the power under section 319 Cr.P.C. is exercisable only by the court and not by any officer not acting as a court. Thus, the magistrate not functioning or exercising powers as a court can make an inquiry in particular proceeding other than a trial but the material so collected would not be by a court during the course of an inquiry or a trial. The conclusion therefore, in short, is that in order to invoke the power under section 319 Cr.P.C., it is only a Court of Sessions or a Court of Magistrate performing the duties as a court under section 319 Cr.P.C. that can utilise the material before it for the purpose of the said Section.
Hon'ble Supreme Court after discussing the previous laws as to stage of using powers u/S 319 Cr.P.C held that:
"53. It is thus aptly clear that until and unless the case reaches the stage of inquiry or trial by the court, the power under section 319 Cr.P.C.. cannot be exercised. In fact, this proposition does not seem to have been disturbed by the Constitution Bench in Dharam Pal (CB). The dispute therein was resolved visualizing a situation wherein the court was concerned with procedural delay and was of the opinion that the Sessions Court should not necessarily wait till the stage of section 319 Cr.P.C.. is reached to direct a person, not facing trial, to appear and face trial as an accused. We are in full agreement with the interpretation given by the Constitution Bench that Section 193 Cr.P.C. confers power of original jurisdiction upon the Sessions Court to add an accused once the case has been committed to it.
54. In our opinion, the stage of inquiry does not contemplate any evidence in its strict legal sense, nor the legislature could have contemplated this inasmuch as the stage for evidence has not yet arrived. The only material that the court has before it is the material collected by the prosecution and the court at this stage prima facie can apply its mind to find out as to whether a person, who can be an accused, has been erroneously omitted from being arraigned or has been deliberately excluded by the prosecuting agencies. This is all the more necessary in order to ensure that the investigating and the prosecuting agencies have acted fairly in bringing before the court those persons who deserve to be tried and to prevent any person from being deliberately shielded when they ought to have been tried. This is necessary to usher faith in the judicial system whereby the court should be empowered to exercise such powers even at the stage of inquiry C.R No. 228/19 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr.C.R. No.221/2019 Mr. Ajay Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr. Page 14 of 17
and it is for this reason that the legislature has consciously used separate terms, namely, inquiry or trial in section 319 Cr.P.C.
55. Accordingly, we hold that the court can exercise the power under section 319 Cr.P.C. only after the trial proceeds and commences with the recording of the evidence and also in exceptional circumstances as explained herein above.
56. There is yet another set of provisions which form part of inquiry relevant for the purposes of section 319 Cr.P.C. i.e. provisions of sections 200, 201, 202, etc. Cr.P.C. applicable in the case of Complaint Cases. As has been discussed herein, evidence means evidence adduced before the court. Complaint Cases is a distinct category of criminal trial where some sort of evidence in the strict legal sense of section 3 of the Evidence Act 1872, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Evidence Act') comes before the court. There does not seem to be any restriction in the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C. so as to preclude such evidence as coming before the court in Complaint Cases even before charges have been framed or the process has been issued. But at that stage as there is no accused before the Court, such evidence can be used only to corroborate the evidence recorded during the trial for the purpose of section 319 Cr.P.C., if so required.What is essential for the purpose of the section is that there should appear some evidence against a person not proceeded against and the stage of the proceedings is irrelevant. Where the complainant is circumspect in proceeding against several persons, but the court is of the opinion that there appears to be some evidence pointing to the complicity of some other persons as well, section 319 Cr.P.C. acts as an empowering provision enabling the court/Magistrate to initiate proceedings against such other persons. The purpose of section 319 Cr.P.C. is to do complete justice and to ensure that persons who ought to have been tried as well are also tried. Therefore, there does not appear to be any difficulty in invoking powers of section 319 Cr.P.C. at the stage of trial in a complaint case when the evidence of the complainant as well as his witnesses is being recorded.
57. Thus, the application of the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C., at the stage of inquiry is to be understood in its correct perspective. The power under section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only on the basis of the evidence adduced before the court during a trial. So far as its application during the course of inquiry is concerned, it remains limited as referred to C.R No. 228/19 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr.C.R. No.221/2019 Mr. Ajay Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr. Page 15 of 17
hereinabove, adding a person as an accused, whose name has been mentioned in Column 2 of the charge sheet or any other person who might be an accomplice."
16. Therefore on 21.09.2019, before Ld. MM, there was a charge sheet which was completely silent qua the role of petitioners as they were never investigated because there were no allegations against them in the complaint or in the statements u/S 161 Cr.P.C, alleging any conspiracy among petitioners and accused Kavita and Kunal to cheat the the complainant. Complainant being unsatisfied by the findings in the chargesheet or for any new discovery had rightly filed application u/S 173(8) Cr.P.C for further investigation but surprisingly Ld. MM allowed to bypass that application by entertaining the application for summoning petitioners on mere asking of complainant when there was no material in the chargesheet and no evidence as per section 3 Evidence Act, showing the involvement of petitioners, was on record.
17. In my view Ld. MM misread the ratio of Hardeep Singh (supra) in allowing the application of complainant/respondent no.2 and committed error in summoning the accused persons without having any material or evidence on record. Whatever material was brought by complainant in his application was not the part of chargesheet to be considered as material against the accused persons nor it was brought in evidence before Ld. MM to invoke the powers u/S 319 Cr.P.C.
C.R No. 228/19 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr.
C.R. No.221/2019 Mr. Ajay Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr. Page 16 of 17ORDER
18. The revision petitions are therefore allowed. The order of Ld. MM dated 21.09.2019 summoning the petitioners is set aside.
19. Copy of this judgment alongwith TCR be sent to concerned Court. Digitally signed by VIKRAM Announced in open Court VIKRAM Date:
2023.01.13 on 13th January, 2023 16:03:33 +0530 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/13.01.2023 Dictated on : 13.01.2023 Digitally signed by VIKRAM Transcribed on : 13.01.2023 checked on : 13.01.2023 VIKRAM Date:
2023.01.13 16:03:39 +0530 Signed on : 13.01.2023 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/13.01.2023 C.R No. 228/19 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr.C.R. No.221/2019 Mr. Ajay Kumar Sikka Vs. State & Anr. Page 17 of 17