Delhi District Court
State vs Sh Rajesh Kumar on 16 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF PREETI:
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS - 03 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Rajesh Kumar
FIR No : 243/2010
U/s : 420/468/471 IPC
P.S. : IP Estate
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 14831/2022 2. Date of commission of offence : In the year 2009 3. Date of institution of the case : 10.11.2022 4. Name of the complainant : State 5. Name of accused and parentage : Rajesh Kumar S/o Kishan Chand 6. Offence complained or proved : 420/468/471 IPC 7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty 8. Date on which order was reserved : 13.02.2026 9. Final order : Acquitted 10. Date of final order : 16.02.2026
1. The accused is facing trial for offence u/s 420/511/471 IPC. The
genesis of the prosecution story is that in the year 2009 at unknown time at
PHQ, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS IP Estate accused submitted form no.
FIR No. 243/2010 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 1/17
9464(Roll No. 803916) with forged DL No. 14400/MTR/01 issued from
Transport Authority, Mathura, UP for the post of driver in Delhi Police and
fraudulently and dishonestly induced the examining / appointing authority of
Delhi Police to believe that the same was original / genuine and on
representation of accused, he was provisionally selected for the post of driver
(Constable) in Delhi Police and also on the abovesaid date, time and place he
used the forged DL No. 14400/MTR/01 as genuine which he knew or had
reason to believe that the same was forged and thus committed an offence u/s
420/468/471 IPC. Pursuant to the complaint made by the complainant, the
criminal law was set into motion vide registration of the FIR against accused.
The aforesaid person was however, never arrested by the police. On completion
of investigation, the present charge-sheet for offence u/s 420/468/471 IPC was
filed against accused.
2. After taking the cognizance of the offence, the provisions of section
207 Cr.P.C. were complied with by supplying copy of charge-sheet and
documents to accused. Thereafter, on the basis of material on record, charges
for offence u/s 420/511 IPC and 471 IPC were framed against accused. The
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Accused has admitted factum of registration of FIR No. 243/2010 PS
IP Estate Ex. A1, Certificate u/s 65-B Evidence Act Ex. A2 u/s 294 Cr.PC and
concerned witness was dropped.
FIR No. 243/2010 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 2/17
4. Following is the table for the relevant prosecution witnesses:-
Prosecution Name of witness Description
witness
number
1 SI Surjit Singh Invigilator
2 HC Vikas Record Clerk from PHQ
3 Sh. Ishwar Singh, Addl. CP Complainant
4 Ms. Anjali Singh Chemical Examiner
5 Retired SI Yashpal Singh 1st IO
6 Inspector Pradeep Sharma 2nd IO
7 SI Narender Kumar Collected FSL result
8 Sh. Naresh Kumar Examined as court
witness
5. Following is the chart for exhibited documents:
Exhibit number Description of the exhibit Proved by / Attested by
Ex. PW1/A Relevant entry PW-1
Ex. PW2/A, Verification reports PW-2
PW2/B and
PW2/C
Ex. PW2/D Original result PW-2
Ex. PW2/E Attendance sheet PW-2
Ex. PW2/F Newspapers PW-2
Ex. PW2/G Handing over letter regarding PW-2
documents
Ex. PW3/A Original Complaint PW-3
Ex. PW4/A FSL report PW-4
Ex. PW6/A, Ex. Notice u/s 91 Cr.PC and notice PW-7
PW6/B, Ex. u/s 91 Cr.PC to NPL, reply to
PW6/C notice
Ex. PW6/D Notice u/s 41(A) Cr.PC PW-6FIR No. 243/2010 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 3/17
Ex. PW6/E and Notice u/s 91 Cr.PC to NPL and PW-6
PW6/E1 is reply
Ex. PW6/F Interrogation memo PW-6
Ex. PW6/G Undertaking on record PW-6
Ex. PW6/H Specimen signature PW-6
Ex. PW6/I Bound down memo PW-6
Ex. PW6/J FSL acknowledgment PW-6
6. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution has
examined 07 witnesses in all. In brief, the testimonies of the material
prosecution witnesses are discussed as under:
6.1 PW-1 SI Surjit Singh deposed that he was working as Record Clerk
at New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. He had brought summoned
record i.e- original record register of invigilators deployed in the written
examination conducted at Wazirabad for the post of Constable (Driver) in
Delhi Police in the year 2009. As per record, SI Champa Lal was deployed for
the duty of invigilator in examination ground-B, Row No. 31 where
candidate/accused Rajesh Kumar had appeared at Roll No. 803916. This
witness was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for defence.
6.2 PW-2 HC Vikas deposed that he was working as Assistant Dealing
Clerk in PHQ. He had brought summoned record i.e. file containing
documents maintained by the Recruitment Cell in respect of candidate Rajesh
Kumar who had applied for the post of constable (driver) in Delhi Police in the
year 2009. The file contained the original DL verification report no.
103/DL/Satyapan/2010 dated 03.05.2010 issued from Mathura, ARTO, DL
FIR No. 243/2010 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 4/17
verification report no. 214/license/satyapan/2010 dated 07.06.2010 issued from
Mathura, ARTO, Original DL verification report no. 26/license/ satyapan/2011
dated 07.04.2011 (running into 2 pages), Original result (running into 06
pages), attendance sheet of candidate Rajesh Kumar, Copy of newspaper
dated 19.02.2009 and 21.02.2009 regarding publication of recruitment for the
post of Constable driver, and other documents/letter in respect of
correspondence by senior officers. On 12.01.2011, the original application of
candidate Rajesh Kumar and of 10 more candidates alongwith photocopy of
aforesaid DL verification reports and news papers / employment news were
provided to SHO IP Estate vide letter no. 163/recruitment cell/PHQ/AC-II.
This witness was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for defence.
6.3 PW-3 Sh. Ishwar Singh deposed that in the year 2010, he was posted
as DCP, (Establishment) PHQ Delhi. In the month of February 2009,
advertisement was issued in leading National Newspapers for filing up of 676
vacancies for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police. As per the
eligibility criteria, all the candidates desirous of applying for the post of
Constable (Driver) were required to be in possession of valid HTV (Heavy
Motor Vehicle) driving license along with other eligibility requirements. In
response to the advertisement, accused Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Kishan Chand
R/o VPO-Baliana Pana, Majara, District, Rohtak, Haryana applied vide
application form No. 9464 and also submitted the photocopy of the required
educational certificate and driving license number 14400/MTR/01 for driving
heavy vehicles issued from Mathura, U.P. Transport Authority valid upto
10.05.2009. Accused Rajesh Kumar was provisionally selected for the post of
Constable (Driver) and subsequently his driving license was sent for
verification to the transport authority concerned. The DL verification received
FIR No. 243/2010 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 5/17
from Mathura Transport Authority revealed that the above mentioned driving
license of accused Rajesh Kumar was not found issued and not valid for
driving heavy motor vehicles in the name of Rajesh Kumar. The matter was
reported to DCP Central vide letter number 9788 dt. 19.07.20008.
6.4 PW-4 Ms. Anjali Singh, Junior Forensic/Assitant Chemical Examiner
deposed that on 20.08.2018, the questioned documents i.e. questioned writing
and signature marked Q1 and Q2 on a application form for recruitment to the
post of Constable(Driver) in Delhi Police and standard writing and signature
marked S1 to S15 of Rajesh Kumar were received in laboratory for
examination in respect of case FIR no. 243/2010, P.S. I.P.Estate. The same was
marked to her for examination. On 11.10.2019, all the documents were
carefully and thoroughly examined with the help of scientific instruments under
various lighting conditions and magnification, she opined that the person who
wrote red enclosed writing and signatures stamped and marked S1 to S15 also
wrote the red enclosed writing and signatures similarly stamped and marked
Q1 and Q2. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for defence.
6.5 PW-5 Retired SI Yashpal Singh deposed that on 21.12.2010, he was
posted at PS IP Estate as ASI. After registration of the FIR, the investigation
was marked to him. During investigation, the request was made to the
Incharge Recruitment Cell, PHQ, Delhi requesting to provide the necessary
information/documents in respect of present case. Thereafter, he was
transferred and he returned the case file to MHC(R). This witness was cross-
examined by Ld. counsel for defence.
6.6 PW-6 Inspector Pradeep Sharma that on 15.10.2017, he was posted
FIR No. 243/2010 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 6/17
as SI in P.S. I.P.Estate. The present case file was marked to him for further
investigation. On 13.11.2017, he issued notice u/s- 91 Cr.P.C to Transport
Authority Mathura, U.P. for verification of the DL record of the accused. On
01.12.2017, he issued a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C to NPL, Kingsway Camp for
obtaining the record of the invigilator deployed for duty on the date of the
examination for the post of Ct. driver for the Delhi Police. On 04.01.2018, he
issued a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C to R.Cell, PHQ for obtaining the record of
accused Rajesh Kumar. On 10.02.2018, he received reply from Transport
Authority Mathura regarding the DL record verification of accused Rajesh
Kumar. Thereafter, on 07.05.2018, he issued notice u/s 41 A Cr.P.C to accused
for joining the investigation in the present case. On 30.05.2018, he again issued
notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C to R.Cell, PHQ and NPL. On 05.06.2018, the reply from
R.Cell and NPL was received regarding the said notice. On 06.06.2018,
accused joined the investigation in the present case. Thereafter, he interrogated
the accused and prepared the interrogation memo. Thereafter, he also obtained
undertaking of the accused for obtaining his specimen signatures/handwriting.
Thereafter, he obtained the handwriting and signatures of the accused.
Thereafter, he bound down the accused. Thereafter, on 20.08.2018, he sent the
specimen signatures and handwriting of the accused to FSL examination.
Thereafter, he got transferred and handed over the case file to MHC(R). This
witness was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for defence.
6.7 PW-7 SI Narender Kumar deposed that in April-2019, the
investigation of present case was marked to him. During the course of
investigation, he came to know that the invigilator had died. Thereafter, in
September 2021, he collected the FSL result from FSL Rohini. After
completion of investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and same was filed
FIR No. 243/2010 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 7/17
before the Hon’ble Court. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for
defence.
7. After prosecution evidence, the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
was recorded, wherein all the incriminating circumstances were offered to
accused to which accused stated that he has been falsely implicated. He further
stated that the DL bearing no. 14400/MTR/01 was genuine and was issued by
office of ARTO Mathura. Thereafter, accused did not lead evidence in his
defence.
8. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. Ld. APP for State has contended that the prosecution has proved its
case beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, the accused is liable to be
convicted for offence u/s 420/511 and 471 IPC.
10. Per contra, Ld. Defence counsel for accused has vehemently argued
that the prosecution has failed to establish guilt of accused beyond all
reasonable doubts. It is argued that the verification report on the basis of which
prosecution was initiated against accused has not been proved as the authors of
the reports have not deposed. With these submissions, prayer is made for
acquittal of accused from the alleged offences.
11. Having discussed the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the
following issues emerge for our consideration:-
1. Whether the action of accused constitute the offence of cheating u/s
FIR No. 243/2010 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 8/17
420 IPC.
2. Whether accused forged the driving license punishable u/s 471 IPC.
Analysis:
The Hon’ble Supereme Court of India in Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr.
Vs. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr. Crl. Apeal no. 335/2024 observed
The offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC
:
10. Section 420 IPC provides that whoever
cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the
person deceived to deliver any property to any
person, or to make, alter or destroy, the whole or
any part of valuable security, or anything which
is signed or sealed, and which is capable of
being converted into a valuable security, shall
be liable to be punished for a term which may
extend to seven years and shall also be liable to
fine. Further, Section 415 IPC distinctly defines
the term’cheating’. The provision elucidates that
an act marked by fraudulent or dishonest
intentions will be categorised as ‘cheating’
if it is intended to induce the person so
deceived to deliver any property to any person,
or to consent that any person shall retain any
property, causing damage or harm to that person.
11.It is thus paramount that in order to attract the
provisions of Section 420 IPC, the
prosecution has to not only prove that the
accused has cheated someone but also that by
doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person
who is cheated to deliver property. There are,
thus, three components of this offence, i.e., (I)FIR No. 243/2010 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 9/17
the deception 10 P a g e of any person, (ii)
fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person
to deliver any property to any person, and (iii)
mensrea or dishonest intention of the accused at
the time of making the inducement. There is no
gainsaid that for the offence of cheating,
fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist
from the inception when the promise or
representation was made.
12.It is well known that every deceitful act is not
unlawful, just as not every unlawful act is
deceitful. Some acts may be termed both as
unlawful as well as deceitful, and such acts
alone will fall within the purview of Section 420
IPC. It must also be understood that a
statement of fact is deemed ‘deceitful’ when it is
false, and is knowingly or recklessly made with
the intent that it shall be acted upon by another
person, resulting in damage or loss.2
‘Cheating’ therefore, generally involves a
preceding deceitful act that dishonestly induces
a person to deliver any property or any part of a
valuable security, prompting the induced person
to undertake the said act, which they would not
have done but for the inducement.
13.Theterm ‘property’ employed in Section 420
IPC has a well defined connotation. Every
species of valuable right or interest that is
subject to ownership and has an exchangeable
value-is ordinarily understood as ‘property’. It
also describes one’s exclusive right to possess,
use and dispose of a thing. The IPC itself defines
the term 2 P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Advanced Law
Lexicon, 6th Edition, Vol. 1, pg.903. 11| P a g e
‘moveable property’ as, “intended to includeFIR No. 243/2010 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 10/17
corporeal property of every description, except
land and things attached to the earth or
permanently fastened to anything which is
attached to the earth.” Whereas immoveable
property is generally understood to mean land,
benefits arising out of land and things
attached or permanently fastened to the earth.
The offence of forgery under Sections 468 and
471 IPC: 21.The offence of ‘forgery’ under
Section 468 IPC postulates that whoever
commits forgery, intending that the document or
electronic document forged, shall be used for the
purpose of cheating, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also
be liable to fine. Whereas Section 471 IPC states
that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as
genuine any documents which he knows or has
reason to believe it 15 | P a g e to be a forged
document, shall be punished in the same manner
as if he had forged such document.
22.There are two primary components that need
to be fulfilled in order to establish the offence of
‘forgery’, namely: (I) that the accused has
fabricated an instrument; and (ii) it was done
with the intention that the forged document
would be used for the purpose of cheating.
Simply put, the offence of forgery requires the
preparation of a false document with the
dishonest intention of causing damage or injury.
23.The offences of ‘forgery’ and ‘cheating’
intersect and converge, as the act of forgery is
committed with the intent to deceive or cheat an
individual. Having extensively addressed the
aspect of dishonest intent in the context of
FIR No. 243/2010 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 11/17
‘cheating’ under Section 420 IPC, it stands
established that no dishonest intent can be made
out against the Appellants. Our focus therefore
will now be confined, for the sake of brevity, to
the first element, i.e.,the preparation of a false
document. The determination of whether the
Appellants prepared a false document, by
forging Respondent No. 2’s signature, however,
cannot be even prima facie ascertained at this
juncture. Considering the primary ingredient
of dishonest intention itself could not be
established against the Appellants, the offence of
forgery too, has no legs to stand. It is also
significant to highlight that the proceedings as
against the concerned Passport Officer, who
was implicated as Accused No. 4, already stand
quashed. In such like situation and coupled with
the nature of allegations, we are unable to
appreciate as to why the Appellants be subjected
to the ordeal of trial.
12. The case of prosecution as per original complaint Ex. PW3/A is that
accused applied for the vacancies of Constable(driver) upon the strength of the
heavy driving license no. 14400/MTR/01 issued from ARTO Mathura on
05.12.2001 having its validity upto 10.05.2009 but upon the verification, the
DL was not found issued and found not valid upon the basis of verification
report. In the trial, PW-3 complainant proved the original complaint Ex.
PW3/A by identifying his signatures upon the complaint and affirming the
version of complaint.
13. During the trial, the prosecution was required to prove all the
FIR No. 243/2010 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 12/17
verification reports on the basis of which the charge-sheet was filed against
accused and the fact that the verification reports were prepared after
considering the original record available at the office of ARTO Mathura. The
original verification reports Ex. PW2/A(Colly), Ex. PW2/B, Ex. PW2/C,
verification report dated 13.03.2012 and Ex. PW6/C have not been proved by
the prosecution in the trial. Even the authors who prepared the aforestated
verification reports have not been examined by the prosecution. The
prosecution was required to prove that all the verification reports were prepared
from the original record available in the ARTO Office, Mathura.
14. Sh. Naresh Kumar, Regional Inspector from office of ARTO
Mathura was examined as court witness who deposed that due to one fire
incident on 16.05.2016, the record lying in the record room was gutted in fire
for which GD no. 64 dated 18.05.2016 was registered. He further deposed that
the original DL issuing register in respect of DL no. 14400/MTR/01 was not
available in the office of ARTO Mathura on account of aforestated fire
incident. However, he could not bring anything on record showing that the
record pertaining to the present matter was also destroyed. No punchnama or
seizure memo has been placed on record by RI, ARTO Mathura to show that
the record pertaining to the present matter was destroyed. Merely placing on
record one photocopy of GD No. 64 dated 18.05.2016 is not sufficient to
discharge the burden of ARTO, Mathura from bringing the original record.
15. Section 65(c) of Indian Evidence Act allows the admissibility of
secondary evidence in the case when the original has been destroyed or lost or
when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason
not arising from his own record or neglect, produce it in reasonable time but in
FIR No. 243/2010 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 13/17
the present case, ARTO, Mathura has failed to satisfy that the original record
could not be made available for reasons not beyond their control. Merely
saying that one fire incident caused destruction of the record does not absolve
the liability of prosecution from bringing originals on record. Even otherwise,
prosecution could have brought certified copies of the record as the record
sought by this Court was public record but even the certified copies of the
record have not been brought on record.
16. Coming further, one verification report Ex. PW2/A was issued on
03.05.2010 by the then ARTO and it was remarked that the license could not
have been issued as no fees was found to be deposited on the alleged date of
issuance of license. Further, Ex. PW2/B is another verification dated
07.06.2010 which does not specifically mention about the present license
number. Further, Ex. PW2/C is another verification report which reflects that
no such license number was issued in name of Rajesh Kumar. Furthermore, one
verification report bearing no. 286/license satyapan/2012 dated 13.03.2012 is
also part of record. However, it has not been exhibited and it reflects that
license no. 14400/MTR/01 was not issued in name of Rajesh Kumar and it was
issued in name of Sh. Prem Singh for LMV. Furthermore, there is another
verification report Ex. PW6/C which reflects that no such license was issued.
Ex. PW6/C was issued in year 2018. When the original record was already
destroyed in year 2016, the verification report Ex. PW6/C could not have been
prepared after tallying from the original record. Even otherwise, Ex. PW6/C
states that the license bearing no. 14400/MTR/01 was not issued. The
verification report was prepared by Ms. Babita Verma, the then ARTO Official
and the report was attested by Md. Ibrahim, the then Senior Assistant, ARTO
Official. Ms. Babita and Mohd. Ibrahim were not cited as witnesses in the list
FIR No. 243/2010 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 14/17
of witnesses and accordingly, Ex. PW6/C has not been proved in accordance
with law.
17. The moot question is when the original record was not available with
ARTO Mathura in year 2018, how could letter Ex. PW6/C be prepared.
Further, the contradictory verification reports were sent by ARTO officials
during investigation for which no clarification was sought by any of the IO.
The verification report bearing no. 286 dated 13.03.2012 states that the same
license was issued to some other person while Ex. PW2/A states that the
license number could not have been issued at all. When the license bearing
number 14400/MTR/01 could not have been issued as per Ex. PW2/A, another
verification report stating that it was issued to some other person could not
have been prepared.
18. It cannot be ignored that PW-6 IO Inspector Pradeep Sharma issued
notice u/s 91 Cr.PC to DTO, Mathura seeking the required information. The
notice u/s 91 Cr.PC is Ex.PW6/A and IO sought the information such as the
name of MLO on the date of issuance of license, submission of requisite fees
by accused and so on but ARTO Official replied to the notice in only one line
with remarks “jari nahi hai”. The other queries posed by IO vide Ex. PW6/A
were not addressed at all by ARTO official for reason best known to them.
More surprisingly, PW-6 IO Inspector Pradeep Sharma did not take any other
action against the officials of ARTO Mathura for not providing the information
which was repeatedly sought by the IO. PW-6 Inspector Pradeep Sharma
admitted that he did not check any record register physically at the office of
ARTO Mathura and did not inquire about the names of the ARTO who were
posted at the time when the license was allegedly issued to accused. He further
FIR No. 243/2010 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 15/17
admitted that he did not seize any Sample Seal from office of ARTO Mathura.
There is no explanation as to why the ARTO officials were not interrogated
even when they did not reply to the notice issued by IO in detail.
19. Another aspect to be considered is that none of the authors of any
verification reports has been examined by the prosecution. Examination of
authors of all the verification reports could have been beneficial for the
prosecution but the IO did not even mention the name of the persons in list of
witnesses who signed on original reports, upon the basis of which FIR was
registered.
20. Furthermore, during the trial, Sh. Naresh Kumar, Regional Inspector,
ARTO Mathura was examined as court witness who deposed that the original
verification reports were not available as the verification reports were gutted in
the fire. The photocopies of the verification reports would have been
considered by this court as per the section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act if
prosecution would have shown that the verification reports pertaining to the
present matter was gutted in fire or brought the author of these reports as per
section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act but as discussed in the preceding paras,
the authors of the reports were not examined either.
21. It is the settled law that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the
case beyond reasonable doubts, the burden of proof can never be shifted to the
defence. In the present matter, prosecution had to prove that accused with
dishonest intention got the forged DL issued in his favour and tried to cause
wrongful loss to the complainant but as discussed in the previous paras,
prosecution could not prove that the DL no. 14400/MTR/01 was not issued in
FIR No. 243/2010 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 16/17
the name of accused and accused had knowledge that DL No. 14400/MTR/01
was genuine and despite knowing, he used the DL while applying for the
vacancies. The authors of the verification reports never deposed before the
court. The alleged forged DL was never sent to FSL to show that it was
fraudulently prepared.
22. As an outcome of the discussion made above, this Court is of the
view that the answers to the issues framed at S.No. 1 and 2 are in negative and
prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts and benefit
of doubt must be given to the accused . Accordingly, accused Rajesh Kumar is
acquitted for offences u/s 420/511/471 IPC.
23. The bail bonds furnished by accused at the commencement of trial,
stands cancelled. Sureties stands discharged. The bail bonds furnished by
accused persons u/s 437A Cr.PC. shall remain in force for a period of six
months or till the statutory period to assail this judgment expires (whichever is
earlier). Documents, if any be returned to its rightful owner in accordance with
rules. Endorsement, if any, also stands cancelled. Case property shall be
disposed off after expiration of period for filing appeal and in case of appeal, as
per direction of Ld. Appellate Court.
Case stands disposed off.
File be consigned to record room after due completion.
Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI Date: 2026.02.16 16:10:34 +0545 Announced in the Open Court (PREETI) today i.e on 16th Day of Feb.,2026 JMFC-03/THC, CENTRAL:DELHI FIR No. 243/2010 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 17/17
