Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh vs C.B.I on 18 September, 2024
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122844-DB
CRA-S-643-SBA-1998 & CRR-1410-2005 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Reserved on: 05.09.2024
Pronounced on: 18.09.2024
1. CRA-S-643-SBA-1998
THE STATE (THROUGH C.B.I.) .....Appellant
Versus
RAKESH KUMAR AND ORS. .....Respondents
2. CRR-1410-2005
SURJIT SINGH ....Petitioner
Versus
C.B.I. .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Argued by: Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Senior Panel Counsel
for C.B.I.
Mr. Vivek Dahiya, Advocate (legal aid counsel)
for the respondents (in CRA-S-643-SBA-1998).
Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CRR-1410-2005).
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Since the criminal appeal (supra) as well as the revision
petition (supra), both involve common questions of facts and law.
Therefore, they are amenable to be decided through a common order.
2. CRA-S-643-SBA-1998 is directed by the appellant-CBI,
against the verdict drawn on 15.12.1997, upon Case/challan No.
1 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122844-DB
22T/26.04.85/11.01.1990 by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate,
CBI, Patiala, wherethrough in respect of charges drawn for offences
punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC, he
made a verdict of acquittal qua accused Rakesh Kumar and Ravi
Shankar.
3. CRR-1410-2005 is directed by the convict-petitioner Surjit
Singh, for setting aside impugned order dated 15.07.2005 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 15.12.1997, as became passed
by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Patiala, became upheld
in respect of charges drawn for offences punishable under Sections
120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. Resultantly, the
concurrent verdicts of conviction and consequent thereto sentence(s)
became pronounced qua accused Surjit Singh (petitioner herein) and
qua Ram Pal (since expired).
4. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order drawn on
15.12.1997, the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to impose
upon the convict (supra) both sentence(s) of imprisonment as well as of
fine, but in the hereinafter extracted manner :-
1. Accused/convicts To undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay
Surjit Singh and Rs. 500/- each as fine and in default of
Accused Ram Pal are payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one
sentenced. month u/s 120 B IPC read with Sections
420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
2. -do- To undergo R.I. for one year and to pay
Rs. 1000/- each as fine and in default of
payment of fine to undergo R.I. for three
months u/s 420 IPC.
2 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122844-DB
3. -do- To undergo R.I. for two years and to pay
Rs. 15000/- each as fine and in default of
payment of fine to undergo R.I. for three
months u/s 467 IPC.
4. -do- To undergo R.I. for one year and to pay
Rs. 1000/- each as fine and in default of
payment of fine to undergo R.I. for three
months u/s 468 IPC.
5. -do- To undergo R.I. for one year and to pay
Rs. 1000/- each as fine and in default of
payment of fine to undergo R.I. for three
months u/s 471 IPC.
6. -do- To undergo R.I. for one year and to pay
Rs. 500/- each as fine and in default of
payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one
month u/s 465 IPC.
5. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment are ordered
to run concurrently.
Factual background.
6. The facts of the case are that a written complaint was
lodged by the Chief Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional
Office, Punjab, with the allegation that Jasbant Singh, M/s Gupta
Enterprises (India) and M/s Guru Nanak Traders have defrauded State
Bank of India, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, through clearance of 73 forged
bank drafts of State Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 54,50,784.20 and
by withdrawing the said amount through withdrawal cheques to their
current accounts opened with Punjab National Bank, Miller Ganj
Branch, Ludhiana in the name of Jasbant Singh, M/s Gupta Enterprises
(India) and M/s Guru Nanak Traders.
7. During investigation, it was revealed that between March
1983 to June 1983 at Ludhiana (Punjab), accused Sushil Kumar
3 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122844-DB
Kaushal, Kuldip Kumar Mehta alias Vipan Mehta, Ram Pal, Surjit
Singh alias Jasbant Singh, Rakesh Kumar, Tara Singh, Mohinder Nath
Tiwari and Ravi Shanker were parties to a criminal conspiracy, with the
object to cheat the State Bank of India by preparing/submitting forged
demand drafts of State Bank of India in order to dishonestly and
fraudulently withdraw lacs of rupees. In pursuance of the aforesaid
criminal conspiracy, the above named accused persons opened three
fictitious current accounts in Punjab National Bank, Miller Ganj
Branch, Ludhiana. The first such current account No. 4015 was opened
on 7.3.83 by Surjit Singh in the assumed name of Jasbant Singh by
giving a false address as 226, Gambhir Market, Gill Road, Ludhiana.
The second fictitious current account no. 4026 was opened on 9.4.83 by
accused Kuldeep Kumar Mehta in the assumed name of M/s Gupta
Enterprises (India), Over Lock Road, Ludhiana. The third fictitious
current account No. 4030 was opened on 13.4.83 by accused Surjit
Singh in the assumed name of M/s Guru Nanak Traders, Gambhir
Market, Gill Road, Ludhiana. All the accused in pursuance of the
criminal conspiracy deposited 74 counterfeit demand drafts of State
Bank of India purportedly issued by various branches of State Bank of
India and drawn at State Bank of India, Main Branch, Ludhiana in the
aforesaid three fictitious accounts to the tune of Rs. 55,25,784.20 ps.
Out of the said amount, the accused persons withdrew an amount of Rs.
48,68,810/- through various withdrawal cheques during the period
April 1983 to June 16, 1983.
4 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122844-DB
Investigation proceedings
8. After completion of investigations by the investigating
officer concerned, into the FIR (supra), he instituted an affirmative
report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., before the learned learned Special
Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Patiala.
Trial Court Proceedings
9. On finding a prima facie case, charge under Sections 120-
B read with Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and under Sections
420, 467, 468, 465 and 471 of the IPC became framed, against the
accused concerned, to which they pleaded not guilty, and, claimed trial.
10. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution
examined seventy seven witnesses. After completion of recording of the
depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the learned trial Judge, drew
proceedings under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., but thereins, the accused
claimed false implication, and, pleaded innocence. The accused
examined eight witnesses in their defence.
11. During trial accused Kuldeep Kumar and Mohinder Nath
absconded and were declared proclaimed offenders. Accused Sushil
Kumar died during trial and proceedings were dropped against him.
12. After conclusion of the trial, as, became entered into the
FIR (supra), by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Patiala,
the latter proceeded to make the afore verdict of conviction, and, also
made the consequent therewith sentence(s) (supra), upon, the accused.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the CBI.
5 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122844-DB
13. The learned counsel for the CBI-State, has made a
vigorous submission before this Court that, the passing of the impugned
verdict of acquittal qua accused Rakesh Kumar and Ravi Shankar,
suffers from a gross taint of gross mis-appreciation and non
appreciation of evidence germane to the charge. Thus, he argues that
the impugned verdict be quashed and set aside by this Court and the
accused be held guilty of the charged offences and they be accordingly
sentenced.
14. The learned State counsel (CBI) further argues that
impugned verdict dated 15.07.2005 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Patiala, upholding the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 15.12.1997, as passed qua accused Surjit Singh,
is well merited, and, does not warrant its becoming interfered with, by
this Court.
Submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-convict-Surjit
Singh (in CRR-1410-2005).
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner-revisionist has
argued that concurrent verdict(s) of conviction, passed by the Courts
below are based upon surmises and conjectures, and contrary to the
principle relating to appreciation of evidence, thus are liable to be set
aside.
Analysis of the submissions (supra)
16. It is not disputed that the accused allegedly opened
accounts in the name of fictitious persons and fictitious firms.
Therefore, since no living person was in existence nor when his
6 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122844-DB
admitted signatures were available, thus, for comparisons thereof being
made with the admitted/specimen signatures of the accused concerned.
Contrarily, when the disputed documents, whereons, existed only the
signatures of the accused concerned, who respectively un-authorizedly
represented the fictitious firm concerned and pretended to be one
Jasbant Singh, who then was a non existing person. Therefore, the
similarity of signatures of the accused concerned, with the ones as
became made on the disputed documents rather do not comprise
clinching incriminatory evidence. Consequently, the affirmative report
of the handwriting expert, who but made comparisons of the signatures,
as, existing on the relevant disputed documents, thus with the specimen
signatures as became provided by the accused concerned, rather prima
facie, may be not of immense evidentiary value. Conspicuously, yet the
said signatures resulted in the opening of the bank accounts concerned,
besides resulted in withdrawals therefroms taking place.
17. Be that as it may, the result of the apposite
examinations/apposite comparisons, as made by the handwriting expert
concerned, become extracted hereinafter.
"The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings and
signatures stamped and marked S-59 to S-117, S-124 to S-
126 and S-188 to S-204 also wrote the red enclosed
writings and signatures, similarly stamped and marked Q
225 and Q237 etc."
18. The effect of the above, is that, even if assumingly there
was no purveyings of sample signatures by the accused concerned, thus
either in the presence of the authorized officer or in the presence of the
7 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122844-DB
competent investigating officer concerned, yet for the reasons (supra),
the above infirmity is inconsequential, thus for determining whether the
accused concerned, is/are liable to be convicted for the charged
offences.
19. The reason for forming the above conclusion emanates
from the factum, that since pursuant to the opening of the alleged
forged bank accounts concerned, respectively in the name of the
fictitious persons and/or in the name of a fictitious firm, thus monies
entered into the said opened bank accounts, whereafters therefroms the
monies became withdrawn.
20. Importantly also, the makings of the withdrawals from the
fictitiously opened bank accounts, thus, at the instance of the accused
concerned, rather subsequently led them to make the respective
disclosure statements before the investigating officer concerned,
contents whereof are extracted hereinafter.
Signatured disclosure statement of accused Surjit Singh.
21. During the course of investigations, being made into the
appeal FIR, convict Surjit Singh made a signatured disclosure
statement, to which Ex. PW9/2 is assigned. The signatured disclosure
statement, as made by the accused is ad verbatim extracted hereinafter.
"I am running a fodder shop at Samrala Chowk, Ludhiana
and also doing a side business of property dealer. I joined
hands with Sarvshri Ram Pal, S.K.Kaushal and Kuldeep
kumar Mehta alias Vipin Kumar in preparation of fake
drafts purported to have been issued by different branches
of State Bank of India. I had opened two current accounts
8 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122844-DB
in fictitious names and fictitious addresses viz. Jasbant
Singh and non-existing firm i.e. M/s Guru Nanak Traders.
Sh. Kuldeep Kumar had opened one current account with
fictitious name and fictititous address with the name and
style Gupta enterprises (India). All these three fictitious
accounts were opened in Punjab National Bank,
Millerganj Branch, Ludhiana in the months of March/April
1983. We used to deposit fake drafts in the said accounts
and withdrew the money through withdrawal cheques on
different dates. The cash so received by defrauding the
bank was distributed by us in four shares. I received about
rupees 20 lacs in cash as my share from the defrauded
money. Out of this amount I have kept deposited/spent as
per detail below :-
1. Rupees two lacs given to Kishan Singh & Co. for the
purchase of agricultural land.
2. Rupees two lacs I have kept in locked steel box with
my cousin brother of Village Bawani, Distt.
Ludhiana.
3. Rs. 1,20,000/- cash and jewellery worth Rs. 40,000/-
which was purchased out of the fraud money was
kept locked in steel box in the house of Sh.
Sudarshan Sharma, Hira Singh Road, Civil Lines,
Ludhiana.
4. Rs. 40,000/- were given to Sh. R.K. Sharma,
Principal of Everest Model High School, Ludhiana.
5. About Rs. 1,38,000/- I have deposited in my Savings
Bank account which I opened with Indian Overseas
Branch, Industrial Area, Ludhiana.
6. I have also got opened S.B. Account with Indian
Overseas Bank, Industrial Area, Ludhiana of my
9 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122844-DB
friend Jasbir Singh and got deposited Rs. 71,000/-
in it.
7. Rs. 1,10,000/- I have given to my uncle Tara Singh
of Moti Nagar, Ludhiana.
8. I had purchased three drafts two from Indian
Overseas Bank, Industrial Area Ludhiana for
Rs.60,000/-each and one draft from Bank of India,
Model Town, Ludhiana for Rs. 80,000/- in favour of
Sh. Balbant Singh my cousin residing at Indore
(M.P).
9. I have opened an Savings Bank Account in my name
with Bank of Baroda, Industrial Area, Ludhiana by
depositing Rs. 1,71,000/-
10. I also got purchased a draft for Rs. 65,000/- from
Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana
in the name of Tara Singh, my Uncle.
11. I had also got opened an S.B. account in Punjab
National Bank, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana of Sh.
Balvinder Singh of Village Tibba my maternal uncle
by depositing Rs. 95,500/.
12. I have also purchased one draft for Rs.75,000/-
from Punjab & Sind Bank, Sherpur Branch,
Ludhiana.
13. I have also purchased one draft for Rs. 80,000/-
from S.B.I. Branch Link Road, Ludhiana.
14.I and Sh. Ram Pal my associate purchased one
Ambassadar Car for Rs.80,000/-from Ludhiana in
the name of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, nephew of said
Sh.Ram Pal. Out of this Rs.80,000/-, Rs.40,000/-
were paid by me and Rs.40,000/- by Sh.Ram Pal and
This car was with Ram Pal.
15.I have also paid Rs. 50,000/- to Sh.Bhagwan Dass of
Ludhiana for purchase of a residential plot.
10 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122844-DB
16.I have also paid Rs.50,000/- to Sh.Kaka Singh of
V.Sadhugark and got released our agricultural land
mortgaged to him.
17. Rs.30,000/- I have given to Sh.Charan Singh alias
Charani of V. Bawani Ludhiana my relative.
18.I have also purchased one two wheeler scooter for
Rs.15,000/-
19. Rs. 3000/- I have given to Dr.
20. I have also spent Rs.7,700/- for purchasing of my
golden Kara and golden ring.
21. I have also spent about Rs.65,000/- for the
purchase of VCR set Sterio, Revolver, Camera etc.
from Singapore.
22. I have also spent about one lac during these three
months including my Singapore tour. I can point out
the places/persons and can get the articles/cash
recovered.
22. Pursuant to makings of the above said signatured
disclosure statements, convict Surjit Singh ensured the effectuation of
the recovery of the relevant incriminatory items, which were taken into
police possession through the respectively made recovery memo(s), as
detailed in the hereinafter extracted manner.
Recovery memo Ex. PW7/2.
Accused Surjit Singh alias Jasbant Singh son of Teja Singh
resident of 626 L, Model Town, Ludhiana in police custody led the
police party to Everest Public High School, Moti Nagar, Ludhiana and
pointed out Sh. Rajinder Krishan Sharma, Principal of the said school
and told that he had given Rs. 74,972/- to him out of fraud money. Sh.
R.K.Sharma admitted to have received Rs. 74,972/- in cash from
accused Surjit Singh in the month of July, 1983. Out of Rs. 74,972/- he
had spent Rs. 39,572/- for making arrangement for Singapur Trip for
11 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122844-DB
Sh. Surjit Singh. On demand he produced the balance amount of Rs.
35,400/- and following connected documents:-
i) Cash (Two packets) 100 x 204 20,400
(Three packets) 50 x 300 15,000
total 35,400
ii) Expenditure statement for Singapore Trip
iii) Receipt dated 16.7.83 for Rs. 2 lacs signed by Sh. Kishan Singh,
581, Industrial Area B, Ludhiana.
Accused Surjit Singh @ Jasbant Singh son of Sh. Teja
Singh resi of 626 L, Model Town, Ludhiana (Pb.) in police custody led
the police party to the fodder shop in Samrala bypass chowk, Ludhiana
owner which is of Sh. Tara Singh (uncle of accused Surjit Singh) and
pointed out a scooter, which he had purchased from Mulak Raj,
Harnam Nagar, Ludhiana with money out of the money obtained from
bank fraud by using fake bank drafts of SBI.....
The scooter alongwith documents have been taken into
possession in the presence of signatories to the memo vide this
recovery memo."
Expenditure receipt of visit made by convict Surjit Singh to
Singapore.
Recovery of Rs. 1,38,000/- by withdrawal by convict Surjit
Singh from savings bank account No. 3471 of the Indian Overseas
Bank, Industrial Area, Ludhiana.
Recovery of Rs. 71,000/- from bank account No. 3536,
Indian Overseas Bank, Industrial Area, Ludhiana, which was opened in
the name of Jasbir Singh.
12 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122844-DB
Recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- which the accused Surjit Singh
had given in cash to Sh. Kishan Singh on 16.07.83, for purchase of
Agricultural land.
Recovery of Rs. 3000/- which the accused Surjit Singh had
given in cash to Sh. Doctor Parshotam Lal, Prop. Verma Clinic, on
13.07.83.
Recovery/seizure memo Ex. PW10/2
Recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- which he had kept concealed in
a steel box in the house of Baljinder Singh.
Recovery of Rs. 50,000/- which the accused Surjit Singh
had given in cash to Sh. Bhagwan Dass, on account of purchase of
residential plot.
Recovery of Rs. 62,000/- which the accused Surjit Singh
had given in cash to Sh. Tara Singh son of Sh.Shyam Singh.
Recovery of Rs. 1,20,000/- (in cash), 6 gold bangles (114
gms), one pair gold ear ring, one gold necklace and various other
articles/documents. The said recovery was got effected from a locked
steel trunk, at the instance of the accused from the house of Sh.
Sudarshan Sharma.
Recovery of Rs. 1,71,712/- from bank account No. 13112,
Bank of Baroda, Industrial Area-B, Ludhiana.
Disclosure Statements of other co-accused and consequent thereto
recoveries.
23. During the course of investigations, being made into the
appeal FIR, convicts-Ram Pal (since expired), Kuldeep Kumar
(proclaimed offender), Sushil Kumar (expired during trial), made their
respective signatured disclosure statements, to which Ex. PW18/37 /
13 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122844-DB
Ex.PW39/2, Ex. PW11/3 / Ex.PW18/44 and Ex.PW11/1 become
respectively assigned.
24. Pursuant to the makings of the above said signatured
disclosure statements, the accused ensured effectuations of
recovery(ies) of the relevant incriminatory items, which were taken into
police possession through the respectively made recovery memo(s), as
detailed in the hereinafter extracted manner.
Name of the Disclosure Recovery
convict Statement
Ram Pal Ex.PW18/37 He got recovered a scooter vide
Ex. PW39/2 recovery memo Ex. PW9/4, which he
purchased out of the fraud money
obtained by using fake drafts of SBI.
He got recovered a process camera
with lens, one wooden tray used for
preparation of blocks, one printing
frame and one kerosene stove vide
recovery memo Ex. PW9/7.
He got recovery of Rs. 2,43,480/-
from bank account which was opened
by the accused in the name and style
of Shiv Enterprises through recovery
memo Ex. PW69/1.
Recovery of Ambassador Car from
the nephew of Ram Pal one Rakesh
Kumar through recovery memo Ex.
PW67/A.
Kuldeep Kumar Ex. PW11/3 He got recovered a scooter vide
recovery memo Ex. PW9/6, which he
Ex.PW18/44 purchased out of the fraud money
obtained by using fake drafts of SBI.
Sushil Kumar Ex.PW11/1 He got recovered a scooter vide
recovery memo Ex. PW 12/1, which
he purchased out of the fraud money
obtained by using fake drafts of SBI.
INFERENCES DRAWN FROM THE DISCLOSURE
STATEMENT(S) AND RECOVERY MEMO(S).
14 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122844-DB
25. Moreover, when in pursuance to the signatured disclosure
statements as made by the accused concerned, the latter ensured the
apposite effectuations of recoveries thus, at their respective instances to
the investigating officer concerned. Resultantly the respectively validly
drawn disclosure statements and the respectively validly drawn
recovery memo(s), do comprise clinching and cogent evidence for
constraining this Court to conclude that thereby the charge drawn
against the accused becomes proven to hilt.
Reasons for agreeing with the reasons made by the learned trial
Judge concerned for acquitting accused Rakesh Kumar.
26. Admittedly co-accused Rakesh Kumar is the nephew of
accused Ram Pal. Though accused Ram Pal made an inculpatory
disclosure statement to the effect, that from the money withdrawn from
the fictitiously opened bank accounts, he purchased Ambassador Car
for a sum of Rs. 80,000/-, thus in the name of co-accused Rakesh
Kumar. Though therein he has also stated that both he and co-accused
Surjit Singh paid Rs. 40,000/- each, towards the total sale consideration
of Rs. 80,000/-. Moreover, though the recovery of the said Ambassador
Car was effected at the instance of Rakesh Kumar, but yet unless there
was evidence existing on record, thus displaying that the nephew of
accused Ram Pal was in the know that his uncle accused Ram Pal, had
made fictitious withdrawals from fictitiously opened bank accounts,
therebys no finding of conviction could be recorded against him.
27. However, reiteratedly since there exists no evidence with
candid speakings thus to the above effect, therefore, merely on the
15 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122844-DB
disclosure statement of co-accused Ram Pal, no finding of conviction
can be recorded against accused Rakesh Kumar.
Reasons for agreeing with the reasons made by the learned trial
Judge concerned for acquitting accused Ravi Shanker.
28. The allegation against accused Ravi Shanker are that he
alongwith accused Mohinder Nath Tiwari (proclaimed offender) had
prepared blocks of the bank demand drafts in their shop at Laxman
Nagar, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana. However, since no recovery became
effected of the blocks allegedly prepared by accused Ravi Shanker nor
any amount of fraud monies became recovered from him.
29. Therefore, it can be forthrightly stated that the charge
drawn against the accused was not well founded nor also when no
recovery of money became effected at his instance, in pursuance to the
inculpatory disclosure statement being made by accused Ram Pal,
therebys, reiteratedly the finding of acquittal recorded against him is
required to be affirmed and maintained as such.
Final Order of this Court.
30. In consequence, there is no merit in the appeal (CRA-S-
643-SBA-1998) and, the same is dismissed. The impugned verdict of
acquittal, as made qua accused Rakesh Kumar and qua accused Ravi
Shanker, by the learned trial Court concerned, is maintained, and,
affirmed.
31. For all the reasons (supra), the connected petition bearing
number CRR-1410-2005 is dismissed. The impugned concurrent
verdict(s) of conviction, and, consequent thereto sentence(s) (supra), as
16 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122844-DB
imposed upon the convict-petitioner by the Courts below, are affirmed
and maintained.
32. If the convict (supra) is on bail, thereupon, the sentences(s)
as imposed upon the convict-petitioner, be ensured to be forthwith
executed by the learned trial Judge concerned, through his forthwith
drawing committal warrants.
33. The case property, if any, be dealt with in accordance with
law after the expiry of period of limitation for the filing of an appeal.
The records be sent down forthwith.
34. Since the main case itself has been decided, therefore all
the pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
35. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected case.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
18.09.2024 JUDGE
kavneet singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
17 of 17
