Judiciary Judgment Ito Vs M S Handgar Indexport P LTD CC On 1 February 2010

Judiciary/ Judgment / Ito vs . M/S Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / Cc ...
on 1 February, 2010
Judiciary/ Judgment / Ito vs . M/S Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / Cc

... on 1 February, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DIG VINAY SINGH, ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE(SPL. ACTS):CENTRAL:TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In re:
ITO
VS.
M/S HANDGAR INDEXPORT (P) LTD
CASE NO. 82/4
U/S 276 C (1), 277 & 278 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND SECTION 193/196 OF
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
DATE OF RESERVATION OF JUDGMENT:
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT:
JUDGEMENT
(a) The serial no. of the case : 02401R
(b) The date of commission of offence : 28.06.

(c) The name of complainant : Sh.
Commis
XV, Ne
(d) The name, parentage, residence of accused: (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 ,
2010/ Page of /e H−459, New Rajinder Bagar, New Delhi (5) Smt. Jaswant Kaur, (deceased)
889/IT−10, Gali Raja Sawan Bazaar Mai Saiwan, Amritsar (6) Smt. Manorama Devi (deceased)
M/86, Greater Kailash−I, New Delhi (7) Parveen Kumar R/o−14−B/24, Dev Nagar, New Delhi (8)
Harish Chander S/o Sh. H.R. Kochhar, R/o B−1/249, Janakpuri, New Delhi
e) The offence complained of/ proved : U/s 276 C(1),277 & 278 of the Income Tax Act,1961 & section
193/196 of the Indian Penal Code
(f) The plea of accused : Acquitted
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/66039274/ 1

Judiciary/ Judgment / Ito vs . M/S Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / Cc ... on 1 February, 2010
(g) The final order : 01.02.2010
(h) The date of such order : 01.02.2010 Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:− This is a
complaint case filed by the Income Tax Officer against the Eight accused named above. Before
proceeding further let it be mentioned that the accused No 2, 3 and 6 expired during the pendency
of proceedings and the proceedings against them were declared Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s
Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page of /e abated on different
dates, therefore, the present judgment is directed against the remaining five accused, that is,
accused No 1, 3, 4, 7 and the accused No 8 only.
1. Briefly stated the facts are, that the present complaint was filed against the accused for offences
under section 276C (1), 277 and 278 of The Income Tax Act 1961, as also the offences under section
193 and 196 of the Indian penal code. The relevant assessment year is 1983−84 and, it is alleged that
the accused No 2 to 6 were directors of the accused No 1 company. During the accounting period
ending on 30th of June 1982, assessment year 1983−1984 the accused company was engaged in the
business of export of ready−made garments and handicrafts. The Return of the income of the
company for the relevant year was filed on 28 June 1983. In the Return filed, a loss of Rs 6,07,930
was reflected. The said Return of income comprised of a current loss of Rs 2,27,921 and unabsorbed
brought forward loss of Rs 2,95,346. The verification of the income tax Return was signed by the
accused No 2 who was one of the directors at the relevant time. The Return was also accompanied
by the profit and loss account of the company along with balance sheet. Those documents were
signed by the accused No 2 and accused No
3. In the Return filed a sum of Rs 26,41,184 was claimed to have been spent on fabrication and
processing charges and the said amount was debited to the profit of the company. The fabrication
and processing charges were mainly on account of tailoring, embroidery and dying charges.
Assessment proceedings were initiated by the income tax authorities and accordingly notices were
issued. A specific questionnaire was issued to the accused company to furnish certain
details/information. On examination of the trading details, supplied by the company along with
other details and information furnished on behalf of the company, the assessing officer felt that the
expenditure Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 /
February 1 , 2010/ Page of /e claimed by the company on fabrication and processing was excessive.
Thereafter the accused company was directed to file a complete list of the fabricators, including their
names and addresses, along with the quantum of payments claimed to have been made to them. A
list of 27 such parties, to whom payment in excess of Rs 10,000 was made by the company, was
supplied to the income tax authorities. The total amount claimed to have been paid to them was
approximately Rs 25,44,059. The copies of accounts of those 27 parties, indicating the mode of
payments to them and as recorded in the books of account of the accused company, were also
furnished on behalf of the accused company. The income tax authorities issued summons to those
27 parties under section 131 of The Income Tax Act through registered post. Out of those 27 parties,
16 parties could not be served and their notices were received back, with remarks 'left without
address', 'refused', 'no such person exist' etc. Thereafter the accused company was directed to
produce those 27 parties but none of them could be produced by the accused company. Ultimately
the accused company expressed its inability to produce the parties. It is claimed in the complaint

that one of the parties M/s Design Centre to whom certain processing charges to the extent of Rs
44,640 were claimed to have been paid did not exist at that given address. Out of the remaining 11
parties, from total 27 parties, 7 parties furnished copy of account of accused company in their books
of accounts and out of them five parties were examined on test check basis by the income tax
authorities. The proprietor of one such party appeared and made a statement that the accused
company used to charge him cash amount equal to Rs 1 per piece of garment tailored by him. From
the said statement it transpired that the payments made by the accused company to the fabricators,
in respect of fabrication and processing charges, as appearing Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s
Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page of /e in its books of accounts
were not the same as paid to the fabricators, because a part of the said payment was siphoned back
to the accused company on the basis of oral arrangement with the fabricators. The matter was
further investigated and attempts were made to summon those parties which could not be served
earlier. The proprietor of one more firm appeared, whose statement was recorded by the income tax
authorities and who stated that the accused company used to get over−billing done and the
difference in the bill amount and the actual tailoring charges used to be recovered back on behalf of
the accused company by way of cash from him after the payment was made to him by cheque. It was
also stated that sometimes the accused company used to accept Bearer cheques from him which
were got encashed by it through its employees. Certain discrete inquiries were made by the income
tax authorities which revealed that accused No 7 encashed certain cheques issued by the said
proprietor. The accused No 7 was an employee of the accused company. It is also claimed that at
times the accused company used to issue the cheques in respect of fabrication charges in favour of
the fabricators and those cheques were encashed by the company through accused No 7. The income
tax authorities came to know about two such cheques in the books of account of the accused
company which were in the name of M/s Hindustan traders and M/s U.K. enterprises. The income
tax authorities also recorded the statement of the accused No 7 who admitted his signatures on the
reverse of the cheques and also admitted that he used to encash cheques for the company. The
accused No 7 is claimed to have encashed five such cheques in such manner. Against accused No 7 it
is also claimed that he encashed one cheque of Rs 11,500 which was purportedly issued by M/S
Rainbow Garments but the proprietor of the said firm stated that he does not know the accused No
7. So far as the Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 /
February 1 , 2010/ Page of /e accused No 8 is concerned, it is the case of the complainant, that
during the assessment proceedings the affidavit of this accused No 8 was filed before the assessing
officer. To verify the authenticity of the affidavit, the accused No 8 was called, and in his statement
the accused No 8 stated that he did not go through the contents of the affidavit before signing it and
that he never appeared before the Oath commissioner and, signed the affidavit on the asking of son
of accused No 4. He claimed that the cheque bearing No 4948354 for Rs 5000 was never received or
encashed by him. The assessing officer also recorded statements of other persons to prove that the
expenditure claimed by the accused company was untrue.
2. On these allegations the present complaint was filed for the offences under section 276C (1), 277
and section 278 of The Income Tax Act 1961 and also section 193 and 196 of the Indian penal code.
3. My learned predecessor court summoned the accused vide order dated 15th of January 1987 for
the above−mentioned offences. Thereafter pre−charge evidence was recorded against the accused

persons and charges were framed against the accused No 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8. The charges were
framed on 11th of April 2001. It would be pertinent to mention here that my learned predecessor
court vide its order dated 12 of March 2001 ordered that charges against the accused be framed only
for the offences under section 276 C (1), 277 and section 278 of The Income Tax Act and no charges
were ordered to be framed under section 193 and 196 of Indian penal code. The said order was never
2010/ Page of /e challenged and it has attained finality. Needless to say that the present judgment
confines to the charges framed against the accused.
4. The material parts of Sections 276C and 277 of the Act read as follows:
"276C. Willful attempt to evade tax etc. − (1) If a person willfully attempts in any
manner whatsoever to evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable
under this Act, he shall, without prejudice to any penalty that may be imposable on
him under any other provision of this Act, be punishable, ........................."
" (2) If a person willfully attempts in any manner whatsoever to evade the payment of
any tax, penalty or interest under this Act, he shall, without prejudice to any penalty
that may be imposable on him under any other provision of, this Act, be punishable
with ......
...............".
"Explanation ......................."
5. "277. False statement in verification etc. − If a person makes a statement in any verification under
this Act or under any rule made there under or delivers an account or statement which is false and
which he either knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true, he shall be
punishable,..................."
6. In support of its case the prosecution examined total five witnesses namely PW 1 Sunil Chopra,
PW 2 Smt. Vanita Chopra , PW 3 Ramesh Kakkar , PW−4 S.P.Aggarwal and PW−5 Vinay Kapoor.
2010/ Page of /e
7. PW 1 Sunil Chopra was the concerned inspecting assistant Commissioner of Income Tax at the
relevant time and the accused company was one of his assessee. When he took over from the
previous inspecting assessing officer he found that the proposal had already been made by earlier
assessing officer to the Commissioner of Income Tax, seeking authorization to launch prosecution
against the accused company. The assessment of the accused company was already completed by the
previous assessing officer vide order dated 27th March 1986. The previous assessing officer had
already initiated penalty proceedings against the accused company under section 271 (1) C of the
Income Tax Act. This witness made a request to the C. F. S. L. seeking opinion on the signatures of

accused No 7 appearing on the backside of cheques, which were allegedly encashed by him. This
witness proved his request letters Exhibit PW 1/1, Ex 1/2 , and Exhibit PW 1/3. He also proved the
letter from the C. F. S. L. through which he received the report of the F. S. L. as Exhibit PW 1/4. The
report has not been proved in this case in accordance with law and the F. S. L. report was only
marked as Mark A in the testimony of this witness. The witness also proved the authorization to
launch prosecution against the accused as Exhibit PW 1/5 and his complaint Exhibit PW 1/6. The
witness is, therefore, more or less a formal witness and in the cross−examination this witness
admitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, vide its order dated 1st Jun 1992, relating to the
assessment year in question regarding the accused company, dismissed the appeal against the order
of remand back of the assessment proceedings, by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The witness
admitted that the Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 /
February 1 , 2010/ Page of /e original affidavit against accused No 8 was not filed on the record of
the present case and it was kept in the records of the income tax authorities only.
8. PW 2 Smt. Vanita Chopra, is the concerned assessing officer who assessed the accused company
at the relevant time. She proved the Return filed by the accused company as Exhibit PW 2/1 along
with the documents bearing signatures of the accused No 2. She also proved the notice issued by her
to the accused company under section 143(2) of The Income Tax Act as Exhibit PW 2/2, the
questionnaire sent to the accused company Exhibit PW 2/3. This witness also deposed that the
accused company was doing business of fabrication and sale including export of ready−made
garments and that she conducted inquiries against the claim of fabrication charges from the parties
to whom the payment for fabrication expenses were allegedly made by the company, on the basis of
the list of fabricators provided by the accused company. She deposed that the inquiries revealed that
the assessee company was claiming fictitious expenses and was inflating expenses claimed as
fabrication charges. It is deposed that it was found by her on the basis of statements recorded by
her, of some of the fabricators who stated that the directors of the accused company were taking
some money back by way of cash from the fabricators after making payment to them through
cheque. The witness also deposed that the modus operandi of the accused company, for taking back
some of the payments, was that some cheques were issued by the accused company to the
fabricators which were bearer cheques and which were encashed by the employee of the accused
company i.e. accused No 7, who encashed the cheques by signing behind the cheques while
presenting the cheques to the bank for encashment. One such cheque is Exhibit PW 1. The witness
2010/ Page of /e also deposed that after conducting inquiries she made the assessment order
Exhibit PW 2 against the accused company and that, the proprietors of few firms admitted before
her that the accused company was indulging in over−billing for fabrication charges and the excess
amount of fabrication charges used to be recovered from the fabricators by the accused company by
way of cash. The witness also deposed that vide letter dated 5th of March 1991 the assessing officer
submitted a report Exhibit PW 3. The witness was subjected to cross−examination by the accused in
which the witness admitted that the payments were not made directly to any of the accused directors
of the company and as per the statement of fabricators, accused No 2 and 3 used to ask the
fabricators to do the over−billing.

9. This part of the testimony of this witness is barred by the principles of hearsay as none of those
fabricators who allegedly made any such statement has been examined by the complainant in its
favour. The witness also deposed that the cheques which were bearer cheques were taken by the
accused No 7 to the fabricators who used to withdraw the money himself from the bank. The witness
specifically admitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax set aside the assessment order and the
matter was remanded back for the assessment. The witness in the next breath stated that the
assessment order was not set aside but in fact remand report was sought which was submitted to the
Commissioner of Income Tax. The witness also specifically admitted that after submission of the
remand report, no final order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), is on the file. The witness
2010/ Page of /e also admitted that the fabricators who were allegedly examined by her during
assessment proceedings were named as witnesses in the complaint.
10. It would be pertinent to mention here that this witness did not prove any of the statement of any
of the fabricators recorded during the assessment proceedings, which even otherwise would have
been not admissible, in absence of examination of fabricators. Therefore, the deposition of this
witness as to what was stated by the fabricators before her is barred by the principles of hearsay, in
absence of examination of those persons who made such a statement against the directors of the
accused company or the accused company.
11. The complainant also examined, PW 3 Ramesh Kakkar who deposed, that during the assessment
proceedings, the accused No 7 agreed that the signatures on the backside of certain cheques were his
signatures and he further agreed that he used to encash cheques and gave the money to the
company. The witness also deposed that during the course of assessment proceedings it was found
that fabrication charges claimed by the accused company were bogus and excessive. He deposed that
the modus operandi of the party was that it used to issue bearer cheques to its fabricators and get
them encashed through one of its own employee that is accused No 7.
12. This witness nowhere deposed as to on what basis he makes such a deposition and whether in his
presence any of the fabricators made such a statement or whether the accused No 7 in his personal
presence made such a confession. Even Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P)
Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page of /e otherwise had any such statement made in
presence of this witness by the fabricators, the same would have been barred by the principles of
hearsay in absence of examination of those fabricators. Similarly the admission/confession of
accused No 7 before the authorities becomes inadmissible under the Indian Evidence Act. This
witness also did not prove any of the statements made by any of the fabricators during the
assessment proceedings nor he proved any of the cheques which as per this witness bear signatures
of the accused No 7.
13. Complainant also examined, PW 4 who was a chartered accountant of the accused company and
who did not support the case of the complainant at all and deposed that he does not know whether
any case under The Income Tax Act was made out against the company, or not. Despite the witness
turning hostile to the case of the complainant, the complainant did not thought it proper to cross−
examine this witness to elicit any further facts in favour of the complainant.

14. Lastly, the complainant also examined PW 5 Vinay Kapoor, Manager from Canara bank who
deposed that the cheques Exhibit PW 5/A1 to Exhibit PW 5/A9 were issued by Canara bank
Parliament Street New Delhi. But this witness stated that he does not know anything about this case.
Accordingly, even this witness turned hostile to the case of prosecution but despite this witness
turning hostile to the case of complainant, the complainant did not thought it proper to cross−
examine this witness to elicit any facts in favour of the complainant. Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs.
M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page of /e
15. After conclusion of the evidence of the complainant, the incriminating evidence was put to the
accused In their examination under section 313 read with section 281 of the Criminal Procedure
Code. It would be also pertinent to mention here that the statement of accused No 3, 4 and accused
No 7 was recorded on 10th of March 2005 but the statement of accused No 8 was not recorded. It is
recorded in the ordersheet dated 21.07.2005 that there is no incriminating evidence against this
accused and his statement was dispensed with. The statement of AR of the accused No 1 company
was also recorded on 21.01.2010 through accused no. 4 Jatinder Singh.
16. The accused No 3 in his statement admitted that he was a director of the accused company at the
relevant time but he claimed that he was not in charge of or responsible for the day−to−day affairs of
the company. He admitted that the accused company was doing the business of ready−made
garments which included fabrication and export of ready−made garments but he stated that the
assessment proceedings conducted by the income tax department was incomplete and based on
incomplete facts. The accused No 3 also stated that the fabricators were not examined in the court
and that if any cheque was encashed by the accused No 7 , it was encashed by him for the fabricators
and not for the accused company or any of its directors. The accused also claimed, that had the
fabricators been examined in the court they would not have supported the claim of the complainant.
He also claimed that the Commissioner of Income Tax appeal remanded the matter back for fresh
report which was never done. It is also claimed that as on date no penalty has been imposed on the
accused company and even the case was not fit for imposition of any penalty.
2010/ Page of /e
17. Similarly the accused No 4 and AR of accused company denied the incriminating evidence
against him on the same grounds.
18. Similarly the accused No 7 denied the incriminating evidence against him and claimed that he
was an employee of the company and sometimes the fabricators used to give him the cheques and
after encashing the same he used to hand over the money to the fabricators and no money was paid
to the company or its directors. He stated that the allegations appearing that the money was being
paid to the company or its directors are absolutely false.
19. None of the accused led any defence evidence in their favour.

20. I have heard learned counsels for the accused as well as Learned Counsel for the complainant,
and have perused the record.
21. As is clear from the above facts the whole case of the complainant was based upon the fact that
some of the fabricators to whom, allegedly, certain payments were made were non−existent. In this
connection, the least which was expected from the complainant was, to have proved those notices or
those registered envelopes which were received back undelivered from the addresses of fabricators
allegedly supplied by the accused company to the income tax authorities. But unfortunately not even
a single notice or single registered envelop, which has been received back undelivered, with the
report that the addressee does not exist at the address, has been proved on record. There is not even
a single report by any of the income tax employee, on the notices, to reveal that as to which income
tax employee visited the address and Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd
/ CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page of /e found that the fabricators did not exist at the given
address. Admittedly PW 1, 2 or 3 did not personally visit any of the addresses of the fabricators nor
they have deposed any such fact that they personally went to any of the addresses to find out that the
fabricators did not exist. The person who visited any such address and gave the report is not
examined.
22. Despite the fact that the fabricators were named in the list of witnesses, none of them has been
examined by the complainant in support of its case to prove the fact that the claim made by the
accused company in the income tax was false in any manner. Although the complainant claims that
those fabricators were examined by the assessing officer during assessment proceedings but none of
them were examined in the court. The examination of those fabricators before the assessing officer
and, whatever those fabricators stated before the assessing officers, is not admissible ipso facto,
being barred by the principles of hearsay evidence, in the absence of examination of those
fabricators in the courts.
23. Learned Counsel for the complainant claimed that statements of those fabricators were recorded
by the assessing officer during assessment proceedings. But this fact by itself is insufficient since the
statements given by the fabricators to the assessing officer during assessment proceedings are not
per se admissible in evidence. At the most those statements could have been used for contradicting
or confronting the witnesses had they been examined in the court. The complainant ought to have
examined those fabricators in the court in order to prove their statements. In Judiciary/ judgment /
ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page of /e absence of
examination of those fabricators in the courts, absolutely no reliance can be placed upon the fact
that those fabricators made any such statement against the accused company before the assessing
officer during assessment proceedings.
24. Learned counsel for the complainant claimed that the proceedings before the income tax
authorities are judicial proceedings under section 136 of the Income Tax Act, therefore, the
statements of fabricators can be used.
25. Section 136 of The Income Tax Act, provides, that any proceedings under the Act before an
income tax authority shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193

and section 228 and for the purposes of section 196 of the Indian penal code and every income tax
authority shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of section 195 but not for the purposes
of chapter XXVI of the criminal procedure code.
26. This section does not, per−se, makes admissible the proceedings or the statements of individuals
recorded during the assessment proceedings. The purpose of this section to make it judicial
proceedings is only limited to the point that in case during such proceedings any false statement or
evidence is given such person can be proceeded against under section 193/196 of Indian penal code
or section 228 of the Indian penal code, as the case may be. This section nowhere provides that the
statements recorded by an assessing officer during assessment proceedings are per se admissible in
evidence, without examination of the person making the statement. Therefore this contention of
learned counsel for the complainant is of no help. Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar
Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page of /e
27. Turning to the cheques which are claimed to have been encashed by the accused No 7, again,
even if this fact is taken to be proved that the accused No 7 encashed certain cheques which were in
the name of fabricators, that fact by itself does not prove the guilt of either the accused No 7 or the
accused No 1 to 6 to the effect that he encashed the cheques and gave the money to the accused No 1
to accused No 6. At the most this fact proves that the cheques were encashed by the accused No 7.
But then he has specifically stated in his examination that he used to encash those cheques for the
fabricators. In absence of examination of fabricators, to deny this fact, the said fact has to be read in
favour of the accused and none else. Although the claim of accused No 7, that he used to encash the
cheques for the fabricators and not for the accused company or its directors, may not appeal to
common sense and may not appear inspiring, but, unfortunately due to non examination of the
fabricators the benefit of this has to be given to the accused.
28. In such circumstances the complainant has miserably failed to prove the charges against the
accused company and its directors that they made claim of rebate in the name of non−existent
fabricators or that they used to inflate the fabrication bills or that fictitious fabrication rebates were
claimed.
29. So far is accused No 8 is concerned, against him the prosecution case was that he gave an
affidavit before the assessing officer during assessment proceedings which was not true.
Unfortunately the complainant has not even proved that affidavit on Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs.
M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page of /e record, what to
talk of the falsity of the claim made by the accused No 8 in the affidavit.
30. For the foregoing reasons there is only one conclusion which comes out of this discussion, that
is, that the complainant has failed to prove its case against any of the eight accused and all the eight
accused are entitled to benefit of doubt and thus they are acquitted of the charges.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON (DIG VINAY SI
FEBRUARY 1st, 2010 ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

SPECIAL ACTS, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI
2010/ Page of /e

Judiciary Judgment Ito Vs M S Handgar Indexport P LTD CC On 1 February 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judiciary Judgment Ito Vs M S Handgar Indexport P LTD CC On 1 February 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judiciary/ Judgment / Ito vs . M/S Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / Cc ...

Judiciary/ Judgment / Ito vs . M/S Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / Cc

IN THE COURT OF SH. DIG VINAY SINGH, ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

(a) The serial no. of the case : 02401R

(b) The date of commission of offence : 28.06.

(f) The plea of accused : Acquitted

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/66039274/ 1

(g) The final order : 01.02.2010

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/66039274/ 2

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/66039274/ 3

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/66039274/ 4

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/66039274/ 5

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/66039274/ 6

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/66039274/ 7

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/66039274/ 8

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON (DIG VINAY SI

FEBRUARY 1st, 2010 ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/66039274/ 9

SPECIAL ACTS, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/66039274/ 10

You might also like