Delhi High Court – Orders
State Nct Of Delhi vs Hridya Nath Pradhan & Ors on 5 August, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2476/2013
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP.
SI Gunjan, P.S. Seelampur.
versus
HRIDYA NATH PRADHAN & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Shiv Kumar Pandey and Mr.
Ranjan Parmar, Advocates for R-1.
Ms. Astha (DHCLSC) and Ms.
Megha Singh, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 05.08.2025
1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19731 is directed against order dated 8th January, 2013 passed by
the Sessions Court in Crl. Rev. No. 56/2012. By the said order, the Sessions
Court allowed the revision preferred by the Respondent against order dated
4th June, 2012, wherein the Trial Court had framed charges against them
under Sections 409/272/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,2 and Section 61
of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914.3 Consequently, the Respondents were
discharged of the aforesaid offences by the Revisional Court.
2. Briefly stated, the factual background of the case, leading to the filing
of the present petition, is as follows:
2.1 A raid was conducted by a team of Excise Officers at the Retail L-2
1
“Cr.P.C.”
2
“IPC”
3
CRL.M.C. 2476/2013 Page 1 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:51:07
Vend operated by DSCSC at Brahampuri, during which it was found that the
crowns of one case of Bagpiper Whiskey, consisting of 12 bottles of 750 ml
each, dated 25th November, 1997 and bottled by M/s Herbertsons Limited,
had been tampered with. One of the bottles was found to contain less than
750 ml. The entire carton was seized, sealed with the seal of OS, and taken
into possession for analysis at the Excise Control Laboratory. Thereafter, it
was reported that all the bottles had tampered crowns and five out of the
twelve bottles were diluted in respect of Ethyl Alcohol content.
2.2 Based on these findings, a complaint was filed alleging that the
Respondents, along with the co-accused, had entered into a criminal
conspiracy and adulterated the liquor bottles by cracking open the seals, and
therefore, they should be prosecuted under Sections 420 and 120-B of the
IPC, as well as Sections 61/1/14 of the Excise Act. Accordingly, the
complaint was registered and the accused persons, including the
Respondents, were charge-sheeted.
2.3 The Trial Court, by an order dated 3rd August, 2011, directed that the
accused persons (including the Respondents) be charged under the
aforementioned offences. However, this order was challenged by the
accused in Criminal Revision No. 35/2011, which was decided in their
favour, resulting in the setting aside of the said order and remanding the
matter for fresh consideration.
2.4 Subsequently, the Trial Court, by order dated 5 th June, 2012, charged
the accused (including the Respondents) under Sections 409, 272, and 34 of
the IPC, and Section 61 of the Excise Act. Aggrieved, the Respondents filed
a revision petition, which was allowed through the impugned order dated 8 th
January, 2013, resulting in their discharge. At the same time, the other two
CRL.M.C. 2476/2013 Page 2 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:51:07
accused persons [Vijender and Rakesh] filed a separate revision petition
[Crl. Revision Petition 36/2012], which was also allowed by order dated 9 th
January, 2012.
2.5 Dissatisfied, the State has now filed the present revision petition,
specifically challenging the impugned order dated 8 th January, 2013,
discharging the Respondents.
3. Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State, challenges the impugned
order on the following grounds:
3.1 The impugned order is based on conjecture and surmise, and is
therefore not sustainable in the eyes of law.
3.2 The Sessions Court erred in granting the Respondents protection
under Section 197 Cr.P.C. It is a settled position of law that, in order to
invoke the protection under Section 197, the accused must demonstrate a
reasonable nexus between the alleged act and the discharge of their official
duty. An act not done in the discharge of official duty, or in dereliction
thereof, does not attract such protection. In the present case, the official duty
of the Respondents was to sell liquor bottles. However, the acts alleged
against them, i.e., tampering with bottles and diluting Ethyl Alcohol, clearly
fall outside the scope of their official functions. Such acts are covered under
Section 409 IPC, and as such, no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is
warranted.
3.3 The Respondents, being employees at a government shop, committed
criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 406 IPC. At the stage of
framing of charge, there was sufficient material on record to raise a strong
suspicion against the Respondents. The Sessions Court thus erred in
discharging them prematurely.
CRL.M.C. 2476/2013 Page 3 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:51:07
3.4 As regards the issue of limitation, the Sessions Court failed to
appreciate the scope of Section 473 Cr.P.C., which empowers the Court to
take cognizance of an offence even after the period of limitation, provided
the delay is either properly explained or condonation is necessary in the
interest of justice. Reliance is placed on the judgement of this Court in
Shrikant Kaushika v. State.4
4. The Court has duly considered the contentions advanced on behalf of
the parties. It is pertinent to note that, apart from the present Respondents,
two other co-accused, namely Vijender and Rakesh, had similarly
challenged the order framing charge by filing a separate petition [Crl.
Revision Petition No. 36/2012]. The said petition was allowed in their
favour by order dated 9th November, 2012. Notably, the State has not
preferred any challenge against that order.
5. Be that as it may, this Court has carefully considered the submissions
advanced, as well as perused the material on record. A reading of the
impugned order reveals that the Revisional Court has comprehensively dealt
with the rival contentions advanced by the parties. The relevant observations
of the Revisional Court are extracted below:
8. Learned Addl.PP for the State also submitted that the
cognizance as per section 75(2) of the Punjab Excise Act for
the alleged offence could not have been taken by the learned
MM as the same was barred under the said section. Learned
Addl PP has also invited my attention to the order dated
19.3.2012 passed by Sh.RPS Teji, learned ASJ (Fast Track
Court) wherein the then impugned order dated 3.8.2011
passed by the learned predecessor of learned Trial Court for
framing charge for the offence under section 61 Excise Act
and 420/120-B IPC was set aside and the matter was
remanded back with the direction to pass a fresh order in the
light of observations made therein but the impugned order is4
Crl. M.C. No.CRL.M.C. 2476/2013 Page 4 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:51:07
silent even about those observations and has been passed
without discussing the relevant issues.
9. A perusal of the charge sheet shows that a raid was allegedly
conducted by a team of Excise officers in the presence of
Mr.HN Pradhan – Shop Incharge, Mr.Vijender Kumar
Assistant Grade-3, Mr.Chanderpaul -Assistant Grade – 3 and
Mr.Ramesh Kumar – Helper, at Retail L-2 Vend run by
DSCSC at Brahampuri and it was noticed and found that
crowns of one case of Bagpiper Whiskey containing 12 bottle
of 750 ml capacity of batch No.318 dated 25.11.1997 and
bolloom by M/s Herbertsons Limited were tampered. In one
of the bottle the contents were less than 750 ml. The carton
containing all the 12 bottles was seized and sealed with the
seal of OS and taken into possession for analysis in the
Excise Control Laboratory and after the examination, it was
reported that all the bottles were having tampered crowns
and five out of 12 bottles were diluted in respect of Ethyl
Alcohol. In the complaint, it was alleged that the accused
persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy and
adulterated the contents of the liquor bottles by cracking
open the seals and therefore a complaint was made against
the accused persons under section 420/120-B IPC as well as
under section 61/1/14 Excise Act. The case was accordingly
registered and accused persons were charge sheeted.
10. The learned predecessor of the trial Court after hearing
arguments on charge, vide order dated 3.8.2011, directed
that accused persons should be charged for the offences
under section 420/120-B IPC as well as under section
61/1/14 Excise Act. The said order was assailed by the
accused persons through Crl Revision 35/2011 which was
decided in their favour and the impugned order dated
3.8.2011 was set aside whereby the case was remanded back
for passing fresh order, in terms of the observations made
therein which are reproduced hereunder –
The impugned order has been assailed on the following three
counts:
i. no sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. has been obtained by the
prosecution
ii. challan is barred by limitation as the same has been filed
after 12 years from the date of alleged offence
iii. Revisionists have been exonerated in the departmental
proceedings initiated against them
11. The impugned order is totally silent on the observations
contained in the order dated 19.3.2012 passed in CrlCRL.M.C. 2476/2013 Page 5 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:51:07
Revision No.35/2011 except a brief mention of section 197
Cr.PC. In the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has
mentioned that the learned defence counsel has conceded
that sanction under section 197 Cr.PC for the accused
persons was not required but this fact has been denied by the
learned counsel for the revisionists who has submitted that
he had never conceded that sanction was not required and he
raised this objection even in the present revision petition.
12. When the learned counsel had taken the objection of sanction
197 Cr.PC even in the earlier revision, it can not be believed
that he would have conceded that no sanction was required
and there is force in the submission made by the learned
counsel for the revisionists because such observation made
was in para 5 of the order dated 19.3.2012 passed by the
learned ASJ in Crl. Revision No.35/2011. It seems that the
counsel for other accused and not the revisionist herein,
might have conceded in this regard.
13. Learned trial Court has further recorded that even otherwise
to claim immunity under section 197 Cr.PC there must be a
reasonable nexus between the act alleged and the official
duties of the accused persons, relying on authority reported
in PK Pradhan versus State of Sikkim 2001 Cr.LJ 3505 (SC).
It was further observed that requirement of sanction under
section 197 Cr.PC comes into picture only when the offender
can not be removed from his service except by sanction of
Government. Learned Trial Court has gone to add that it was
squarely admitted by the learned counsel that accused
persons can be removed from their position even without
sanction and therefore they can not claim immunity Learned
counsel for the revisionists has denied that he had ever
conceded so before the learned Trial Court, therefore, the
observation that learned counsel for the revisionists had
conceded before the learned Trial Court that no sanction was
required under section 197 Cr.PC or that accused persons
could be removed from their post without sanction can not be
believed qua the counsel for the revisionists. There is no
denial that accused persons were government employees and
they have been discharged in the departmental enquiry. A
copy of the order No. Vig. 10 (27)/97-DSCSC/779 dated
4.2.2002 has been placed on record whereby the
Disciplinary Authority Sh.Rakesh Bhatnagar has exonerated
the accused persons of the charges leveled against them. The
accused persons were employees of Delhi State Civil
Supplies Corporation Limited. At the time of alleged raid
they were on duty at the Retail L-2 Vend, run by DSCSC
CRL.M.C. 2476/2013 Page 6 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:51:07
when the five bottles were diluted in respect of Ethyl Alcohol
and they were supposed to perform their duty e.g. to sell
those liquor bottles and therefore they were performing
public duty.
14. As per section 197 Cr.PC, a sanction of the Government is
mandatory for removal of a public servant but no such
sanction is claimed to have been taken by the prosecution
and therefore there is force in the argument raised by the
learned counsel for the revisionists.
15. The impugned order shows that the learned Addl.PP as well
as learned defence counsel before the Trial Court have
conceded that the issue of limitation depends upon the moot
question of law as to whether an offence under section 409
IPC is also attracted in the present case but this contention
has also been denied by the learned counsel for the
revisionists that he ever conceded so before the learned Trial
Court and a defence counsel in my view will never concede a
point which goes against the accused in his defence.
16. The impugned order reveals that the learned Trial Court by
referring to rule 33(28) of Delhi Liquor License Rules has
observed that prima facie, offence under section 409/272 IPC
read with section 34 IPC besides section 61 of Punjab Excise
Act was made out.
17. A perusal of the complaint and charge sheet shows that as
per the laboratory report out of the 12 seized bottles, only
five bottles were diluted in respect of Ethyl Alcohol. There is
no mention of use of any adulterant substance. The word
dilution means that the product has been diluted which
obviously can be diluted with addition of water because as
per the laboratory report, there is no evidence of addition of
any other material such as spirit or kerosene.
18. Section 272 IPC is defined as under:
272. Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale –
Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to
make such article noxious as food or drink intending to sell
such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that
the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees or with both.
19. In the present case, the complaint shows that the bottles were
diluted in respect of Ethyl Alcohol which suggests that the
dilution was done by adding water which can not be said to
be adulterant and therefore in my considered view section
272 IPC was not attracted nor the charge sheet was filed for
CRL.M.C. 2476/2013 Page 7 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:51:07
the said offence.
20. Section 409 IPC is defined as under:
409 Criminal breach of trust by public servant or by
banker, merchant or agent whoever, being in any manner
entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property
in is capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business
as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent,
commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property,
shall be punished with (imprisonment for life) or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
21. The word “criminal breach of trust” is defined as under:
405. Criminal breach of trust – Whoever, being in any
manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over
property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own
use that property or dishonestly uses or disposes of that
property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the
mode in which such trust is to be discharged or of any legal
contract, express or implied which he has made touching the
discharge of such trust or willfully suffers any other person
so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”
22. In the present case, the accused persons even though were
entrusted with the property and were also having dominion
over the property but there is no allegation or evidence that
they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own
use or dishonestly used or disposed of the property. In fact,
the property was seized during a raid and was not recovered
from any other person. The accused persons were present at
the vend on duty, and therefore, in my considered view the
offence under section 409 IPC was also not prima facie made
out against the accused/(revisionists).
23. In an authority reported as Crl (Misc) 4308/2009 titled JP
Singh & Another versus Vinay Kanodia dated 1.3.2011,
passed by Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.N.Dhingra of Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi, it was held that learned ACMM had acted
illegally in entertaining a complaint under the provisions of
IPC and instead he should have taken action only under
section 20 of the Central Excise Act in view of section 40 of
the Central Excise Act and in any case, if he had to take
cognizance of the offences, under IPC, sanction under
section 197 Cr.PC was must. The Punjab Excise Act 1940
which was applicable to the State of NCT of Delhi as per
section 75(2), provides a bar against the judicial magistrate
from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under
section 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68 or 70 of the Act after expiry
CRL.M.C. 2476/2013 Page 8 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:51:07
of period of one year unless special sanction of the State
Government was taken.
24. In the present case, no sanction of the State Government was
taken to prosecute the accused persons for the alleged
offence under section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act. The said
Act is complete code in itself and prosecution of any person
for violation of provisions of the said Act under IPC is not at
all justified without prior sanction of the State Government.
Moreover, in the present case, the accused persons were
employees of DSCSC and no sanction to prosecute them was
taken and as per section 75 (2) of the Punjab Excise Act, no
cognizance could have been taken by the learned MM after
the expiry of a period of one year from the date of
commission of the alleged offence. In the present case, the
charge sheet itself was filed on 10.9.2009, therefore, the
cognizance being barred, the impugned order, in my
considered view, is illegal and is liable to be set aside
25. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted. The order on
charge of the Distt. & Basslo aside. The Karkaracosm passed
by the learned Trial Court dated 4.6.2012, is set aside. The
accused persons(revisionists herein) are discharged.
The revisionists are directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum
of Rs. 10,000/- as per provisions of section 437 (A) Cr.PC
within a week
26. Copy of order be sent to Ld. Trial Court for compliance and
information. TCR be sent back. Revision file be consigned to
Record Room.”
6. A perusal of the aforesaid reveals that the Revisional Court correctly
delineated the essential ingredients of all the offences alleged against the
Respondents and examined whether the same were satisfied in the present
case. Specifically, in relation to Section 272 of the IPC, which pertains to
the adulteration of food or drink intended for sale, the Revisional Court
concluded that the alleged act of dilution of Ethyl Alcohol by the accused
persons did not amount to rendering a food or drink article “noxious,” which
is a necessary element of the said offence. Consequently, the charge under
Section 272 IPC was held to be not attracted.
7. As regards the allegation under Section 409 IPC, relating to criminal
CRL.M.C. 2476/2013 Page 9 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:51:07
breach of trust by a public servant, the Revisional Court rightly noted that
the offence requires: (i) entrustment with property or dominion over
property; and (ii) dishonest misappropriation or conversion to one’s own
use, or dishonest use/disposal of such property. While it was observed that
the accused were indeed entrusted with the relevant property and had
dominion over it, there was no material on record indicating dishonest
misappropriation or conversion for personal use, or dishonest disposal of the
same. Therefore, the offence under Section 409 IPC was also, prima facie,
not made out.
8. Further, with regard to the alleged offence under Section 61 of the
Excise Act (which provides for penalties related to unlawful import, export,
transport, manufacture, possession, etc.), the Revisional Court correctly
observed that cognizance of such an offence was barred under Section 75(2)
of the Act, which prohibits the Magistrate from taking cognizance of an
offence punishable under, inter alia, Section 61 after the lapse of one year,
unless special sanction of the State Government is obtained. In the present
case, no such sanction was obtained. Furthermore, the chargesheet was filed
on 10th September, 2009, almost twelve years after the alleged incident,
thereby, clearly contravening the statutory bar. Consequently, cognizance
could not have been validly taken for the offence under Section 61 of the
Punjab Excise Act.
9. The State has contended that sanction under Section 197 of the
Cr.P.C. was not required in the present case, as the Respondents were
engaged in acts of tampering with liquor bottles and diluting Ethyl Alcohol,
which were not part of their official functions as government employees.
However, the Revisional Court rightly observed that the Respondents were
CRL.M.C. 2476/2013 Page 10 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:51:07
employees of the Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and were,
at the relevant time, posted and discharging duties at the Retail R-2 Vend.
The alleged tampered and diluted liquor bottles were discovered during a
raid conducted while the Respondents were on official duty. As such, the
acts attributed to the Respondents were in connection with their official
functions, and thus, the absence of prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
rendered the prosecution unsustainable.
10. The Revisional Court also took into account that a departmental
inquiry had been initiated against the Respondents based on the same set of
facts and allegations as those contained in the FIR. Pursuant to the inquiry,
the Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 4 th December, 2001 to the
Disciplinary Authority, concluding that the charges against the Respondents
were not proved. This report was subsequently accepted by the Disciplinary
Authority by order dated 4th February, 2002, which reads as under:
WHEREAS the following officials were charge-sheeted for
major penalty on account of irregularities noticed by the Excise team
at L-2 vend Brahmpuri on 11.12.1997 when an inspection was carried
out by them:-
1. Shri H.N. Pradhan, Asstt. Grade-II (Emp. Code No. 0340)
2. Shri Vijender Kumar, Asstt. Grade-Ill (Emp. Code No.0459)
3. Shri Chander Pal, Asstt. Grade-Ill (Emp. Code No.0519)
4. Shri Rakesh Kumar, Helper (Emp. Code No.0526)
AND WHEREAS al the above officials denied the charges
leveled against them and Shri A.K. Mendiratta, Asstt. Manager
(Personnel) was appointed as Inquiry Officer to inquire in to the
charges in common proceedings of this case;
AND WHEREAS the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on
4.12.2001 to the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of documentary
and oral evidences adduced before him, opined that the charges
leveled against all the above officials are not proved;
NOW THEREFORE, I, Rakesh Bhatnagar, being the
Disciplinary Authority, having carefully considered the report of the
Inquiry Officer, documents available on records and the prevailing
CRL.M.C. 2476/2013 Page 11 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:51:07
circumstances, agree with the report of I.O. and exonerate of the
charges leveled against all the above officials. This order is without
any prejudice to the outcome of the investigations/ trial pending
against all the officials in the Police/ in the Court of Law. Their
period of suspension shall be treated as period spent on duty for all
purposes. They shall also be paid the full pay and allowances to which
they would have been entitled, had they not been suspended.
11. A perusal of the inquiry report annexed with the aforesaid order
reveals that the decision to exonerate the accused, including the present
Respondents, was based on both oral and documentary evidence produced
before the Inquiry Officer. Relying on the said material, the Inquiry Officer
recorded the following reasons for exonerating the Respondents:
“1. No Instrument used for tampering could be seized by the Excise
team.
2. Excise Supdt. and Excise Sub-Inspector who were members of
raiding team offering no comments/not known regarding possibility of
tempering during transit from L-1 bond to L-2 bond where In private
labour/private trucks are used.
3. The cash proceeds not counted by the Excise team as in case of
dilutions/tempering sales proceeds should have been in excess.
4. The charged officials have produced some correspondence with the
excise department regarding loose caps of other companies alongwith
not of M/s Herbertsons Ltd. and ignorance of any correspondence made
by Excise officials in this regard.
5. The Excise Supdt./S-I not knowing the procedure for supply of
goods from L-1 Bond to L-2 Vend and not finding any empty
bottle/water/chemical/instrument during the raid.”
12. In light of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the Revisional
Court undertook a comprehensive examination of the appropriateness of the
charges framed against the Respondents. It duly considered the absence of
sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., the bar of limitation under Section 75(2)
of the Punjab Excise Act (as applicable to the NCT of Delhi), as well as the
outcome of the departmental inquiry which had exonerated the Respondents
on the same set of allegations. Upon an overall assessment of the facts and
CRL.M.C. 2476/2013 Page 12 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:51:07
circumstances, the Revisional Court rightly concluded that the ingredients of
the alleged offences were prima facie, not made out and, accordingly,
directed the discharge of the Respondents.
13. This Court finds no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the
Revisional Court. Consequently, the present petition is found to be devoid of
merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 5, 2025
as
CRL.M.C. 2476/2013 Page 13 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:51:07