STATE OF HP vs RAMESH KUMAR THAKUR

( 2026:HHC:49133 )
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
Cr. Appeal No. : 411 of 2015
Reserved on : 27.10.2026
Date of decision: 06.11.2026
Uploaded on : 06.11.2026
State of Himachal Pradesh …Appellant.
Versus
Ramesh Kumar Thakur …Respondent.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhupesh Sharma, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Appellant : Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional
Advocate General.
For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Pathak, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Parth Sagar, Advocate.

Bhupesh Sharma, Judge
The State of Himachal Pradesh is in appeal
before this Court against the judgment of acquittal dated
28.02.2015, passed by the learned Special Judge-1, Shimla,
District Shimla, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.10-S/7 of 2011,
titled, ‘State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Ramesh Kumar
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:03 :::CIS

( 2026:HHC:49133 )
2
Thakur’, whereby, the respondent (hereinafter to be referred
High Court of H.P.
to as the ‘accused’), has been acquitted for the commission of
offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, after giving him
benefit of doubt.
2. The accused was sent to face trial for the
commission of offence punishable under Section 18 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by
SHO, Police Station West (Boileauganj), Shimla, District
Shimla, H.P. in case FIR No.22 of 2009 dated 08.02.2009,
under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985. The accused was prosecuted for the
said offence and was subsequently acquitted by the learned
trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 28.02.2015,
passed in Sessions Trial No.10-S/7 of 2011, titled, ‘State of
Himachal Pradesh vs. Ramesh Kumar Thakur’.
3. The case of the prosecution as set out against
the accused, in short, is as under:-
3(a). On 08.02.2009, at 10:20 A.M., at Village Anji,
Post Office Tara Devi, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P., the
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:03 :::CIS

( 2026:HHC:49133 )
3
accused was found in exclusive and conscious possession of
High Court of H.P.
1 Kg. 50 Gram ‘Opium’.
3(b). On 08.02.2009, Sub Inspector Keshav Singh,
Investigating Officer, State CID, Crime Branch, Shimla,
received a secret, specific, reliable and credible information
that the accused being actively engaged in narcotic trade was
transporting narcotic contraband in his Maruti Van bearing
registration No.HP-02-6339. The information was further
specific that in case the said vehicle of the accused is
searched, sufficient quantity of ‘Opium’ and ‘Cannabis’
(Charas) can be recovered therefrom.
3(c). Pursuant to the receipt of said information,
requisite entry was made in the relevant register vide Rapat
No.7 dated 08.02.2009, in the office of State CID, Shimla and
thereafter, the Police party headed by SI Keshav Singh,
Investigating officer immediately proceeded towards Village
Anji. He was accompanied by other Police officials of State
CID Crime Branch i.e. SI Bhikham Ram, ASI Manjeet Kumar,
ASI Vidya Sagar, HC Prakash Chand, C. Mohinder Lal and C.
Manohar Lal. The Police party was travelling in the official
Maruti Gypsy bearing registration No.HP-07A-0303. On the
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:03 :::CIS

( 2026:HHC:49133 )
4
way, the Police party met Ms. Babita Rana, Dy.S.P., CID
High Court of H.P.
Crime Branch, near Sankat Mochan Temple Gate on NH-22.
The Police party under her supervision proceeded towards
Villages Kayari-Anji, Post Office Tara Devi, Tehsil and District
Shimla and on the way, they associated two independent
witnesses namely Krishan Gopal Thakur and Sohan Lal. On
reaching the spot, the Police party found a Maruti Van
No.HP-02-6339 parked on the lintel of the garage of Krishan
Gopal Thakur and the accused was found present near the
vehicle. Thereafter, the vehicle was searched leading to
recovery of 1 Kg. 50 Grams ‘Opium’ from a Thermos bottle,
kept beneath the rear seat of the vehicle.
3(d). Pursuant to the recovery of the contraband from
vehicle No.HP-02-6339, the Investigating Officer procured a
Weighing Scale from the shop of one Surender Thakur and
thereafter, the contraband was weighed and was found to be
1Kg. 50 Grams.
3(e). The Investigating Officer, SI Keshav Singh,
pursuant to the recovery of the contraband i.e. 1 Kg. 50
Grams of ‘Opium’, proceeded to conduct codal seizure
formalities. Two samples of 25 grams each were taken out of
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:03 :::CIS

( 2026:HHC:49133 )
5
the entire stuff, which were put in two different match-boxes
High Court of H.P.
and thereafter, the same were put in a cloth parcel and the
cloth parcel was sealed after affixing four(4) seals of
impression ‘N’. Remaining contraband was also sealed in a
separate cloth parcel along with thermos bottle by affixing six
(6) seals of impression ‘N’. The sample seal impression ‘N’
was taken on a separate piece of cloth and the seal after its
use was entrusted to the independent witness Krishan Gopal
Thakur. The Investigating Officer, thereafter, filled relevant
columns of NCB-1 Form in triplicate and the entire case
property was taken in to possession vide search, recovery
and seizure memo in presence of independent witnesses
namely Krishan Gopal Thakur, Sohan Lal and Ramesh
Kumar (Ward Member). The Investigating officer, SI Keshav
Singh, after completing the search and seizure formalities,
scribed a rukka and at 01:40 P.M., sent the same through
ASI Manjeet Kumar to Police Station West (Boileauganj)
Shimla, for registration of FIR against the accused.
3(f). On the basis of disclosure of facts in the rukka,
case FIR No.22 of 2009 dated 08.02.2009, under Section 18
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:03 :::CIS

( 2026:HHC:49133 )
6
1985 was registered against the accused at Police Station
High Court of H.P.
West (Boileauganj), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.
3(g). On 08.02.2009, at 05:30 P.M., SI Keshav Singh,
Investigating Officer produced the case property of case FIR
No.22 of 2009 dated 08.02.2009 under Section 18 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
along with two samples of 25 grams each, sealed with four (4)
seals of impression ‘N’ and another parcel bearing six (6)
seals of impression ‘N’ stated to be containing 1 Kg. 50
Grams of ‘Opium’ along with sample seal ‘N’ and NCB-1 form
in triplicate before Sub Inspector Mathura Dass, SHO, Police
Station West (Boileauganj) Shimla. He conducted resealing of
the case property and sampling of the same by affixing
four(4) seals of impression ‘R’. The sample resealing
impression ‘R’ was also taken on a separate piece of cloth for
the purpose of record. Specimen of seal impression ‘R’ was
affixed on NCB-1 form in triplicate and thereafter, the case
property was deposited with MHC, Police Station, West,
Shimla in safe custody and Resealing Certificate under
Section 55 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 was issued regarding the proceedings.
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:03 :::CIS

( 2026:HHC:49133 )
7
3(h). On 10.02.2009, the Investigating Officer, SI
High Court of H.P.
Keshav Singh prepared a Special Report under Section 57 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
and sent the same to Superintendent of Police Crime State
CID, Shimla through ASI Manjeet Kumar, which was
delivered at 10:00 A.M. and in this regard necessary entries
were made in the Special Reports Register.
3(i). On 10.02.2009, the case property along with
samples and relevant documents were sent for chemical
examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory Junga,
vide RC’s No.29/09 and 67/10. The case property on being
subjected to chemical examination at State Forensic Science
Laboratory was opined to be ‘Opium’.
3(j). Pursuant to completion of investigation, the
accused was found in exclusive and conscious possession of
1 Kg. 50 Grams of ‘Opium’, accordingly, he was found to have
committed an offence punishable under Section 18 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Therefore, Final Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was
prepared against him and the case was filed before Learned
Special Judge, Shimla. The accused was prosecuted for the
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:03 :::CIS

( 2026:HHC:49133 )
8
commission of offence punishable under Section 18 of the
High Court of H.P.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in
Sessions Trial No.10-S/7 of 2011, titled as ‘State of Himachal
Pradesh v. Ramesh Kumar Thakur’.
3(k). The learned trial Court after considering the oral
and documentary evidence led by the prosecution acquitted
the accused for the commission of offence punishable under
Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 vide impugned judgment of acquittal
dated 28.02.2015, passed in Sessions Trial No.10-S/7 of
2011, titled as ‘State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Ramesh Kumar
Thakur’.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court vide
impugned judgment dated 28.02.2015, in Sessions Trial
No.10-S/7 of 2011, titled, ‘State of Himachal Pradesh vs.
Ramesh Kumar Thakur’, the appellant-State filed the instant
appeal before this Court on following various grounds:-
 That the impugned judgment passed by
the learned trial Court is wrong on facts
as well as on law, hence, the same is liable
to be set aside.
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:03 :::CIS

( 2026:HHC:49133 )
9
 That the impugned judgment is based on
hypothetical reasoning, surmises and
conjectures, hence, liable to be set aside.
High Court of H.P.
 That the learned trial Court has
appreciated the evidence on record in a
slip-shod and perfunctory manner and
has acquitted the accused on the flimsy
grounds.
 That the learned trial Court has not only
failed to view the prosecution evidence in
its proper perspective but at the same
time has set unrealistic standards to
evaluate the direct and cogent prosecution
evidence. The reasoning of the learned
trial Court is manifestly unreasonable and
unsustainable as there was warrant at all
for the trial Court to discard the well
reasoned and consistent testimony of the
prosecution witnesses on material points.
 That the learned trial Court has discarded
the testimony of prosecution witnesses for
untenable reasons in the absence of any
proof of enmity no reasons whatsoever
have been assigned for discarding the
version of official witnesses. The acquittal
in this case is in disregard of material
evidence on record and as such, the same
is unreasonable, therefore, the impugned
judgment is liable to be set aside.

That the learned trial Court has not
properly appreciated the evidence of the
official witnesses and has wrongly
discarded their version on the ground that
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:03 :::CIS

( 2026:HHC:49133 )
10
PW-4 Sohan Lal and PW-14 Krishan Gopal
have not supported the prosecution case
qua the recovery of the contrabant.
High Court of H.P.
 That the learned trial Court has wrongly
held that there is non compliance of
Section 42 and 50 of the ND & PS Act. In
fact, Section 42 of the Act has been
complied with and keeping in view the
facts and circumstances of the case,
section 50 of the Act was not applicable as
from the search of the Van, Opium
weighing 1 Kg. 50 Grams was recovered.
Therefore, the impugned judgment is bad
in the eyes of law and deserves to be set
aside.
5. Therefore, on aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that
the present appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment of
acquittal be set aside.
6. We have heard learned Senior Additional
Advocate General for the appellant-State, learned senior
counsel for the accused and have also carefully gone through
the records as well as the findings recorded by the learned
trial Court while passing the impugned judgment dated
28.02.2015.
7. Mr. I.N. Mehta, learned Senior Additional
Advocate General, has strenuously argued that the findings
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:03 :::CIS

( 2026:HHC:49133 )
11
rendered by the learned trial Court are unsustainable, since,
High Court of H.P.
oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution was
not well appreciated. Although, independent witnesses of
search, recovery and seizure namely Krishan Gopal Thakur
(PW14), Sohan Lal (PW4) and Surender Thakur (PW9) have
denied the prosecution case on material aspects,
nevertheless, official witnesses ASI Manjeet Kumar, examined
as PW13 and SI Keshav Singh examined as PW15 have
supported the prosecution case against the accused qua
recovery of 1 Kg. 50 Grams ‘Opium’. Therefore, charge
against the accused stands proved on the basis of statements
of official witnesses and the documentary evidence brought
on record. Hence, the findings of acquittal rendered by the
learned trial Court are unsustainable and liable to be set
aside.
8. Per contra, Mr. Manoj Pathak, learned senior
counsel for the accused defended the judgment of the
acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and submitted
that there is no material and evidence on record whereby the
accused can be convicted for the commission of offence
punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:03 :::CIS

( 2026:HHC:49133 )
12
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He further argued that
High Court of H.P.
the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation
failed to adhere to comply with the mandatory provisions
under Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985. The entire trial stands vitiated,
therefore, the judgment of acquittal dated 28.02.2015,
passed by the learned trial Court warrants no interference.
9. Perusal of the record evidently shows that the
learned Trial Court, on considering and evaluating the
material and evidence, found material discrepancies in the
prosecution evidence and accordingly acquitted the accused.
10. Since, the present appeal has been filed against
the judgment of acquittal, therefore, the scope of powers of
the Appellate Court in the case of an appeal against acquittal
needs to be considered before embarking upon the factual
matrix.
11. The scope of the powers of the Appellate Court in
case of an appeal against acquittal has been elaborately dealt
with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Muralidhar alias Gidda &
another vs. State of Karnatka reported in (2014) 5 SCC
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:03 :::CIS

( 2026:HHC:49133 )
13
730 . and Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar & another,
High Court of H.P.
(2022) 3 SCC 471 .
12. Similarly in H.D. Sundara & others vs. State of
Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has observed that the appellate court cannot overturn
acquittal only on the ground that after reappreciating
evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was
established beyond a reasonable doubt.
13. It is more than settled that the powers of
Appellate Court while hearing the appeals against the
acquittal are not unbridled. There is a clear caveat that in
case the view arrived at by the trial Court is a possible one
borne from the material on record, the same cannot be
viewed differently, even if, there is a possibility of any other
view. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jafarudheen and
others vs. State of Kerala (2022) 8 SCC 440 , wherein it has
been held as under:
“Scope of Appeal filed against the Acquittal:
25. While dealing with an appeal against
acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the
Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:03 :::CIS

( 2026:HHC:49133 )
14
Court's view can be termed as a possible one,
particularly when evidence on record has been
analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal
adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour
of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to
be relatively slow in reversing the order of the
Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the
presumption in favour of the accused does not get
weakened but only strengthened. Such a double
presumption that enures in favour of the accused
has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on
the accepted legal parameters.”
High Court of H.P.
14. The present appeal has been filed against a
judgment of acquittal. It was laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 176: (2025) 5 SCC 433 that the
Court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal if it is
patently perverse, is based on misreading/omission to
consider the material evidence and reached at a conclusion
which no reasonable person could have reached. It was
observed at page 440:
“12. It could thus be seen that it is a settled
legal position that the interference with the
finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial
judge would be warranted by the High Court only
if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent
perversity; that the same is based on a
misreading/omission to consider material
evidence on record; and that no two reasonable
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:03 :::CIS

( 2026:HHC:49133 )
15
views are possible and only the view consistent
with the guilt of the accused is possible from the
evidence available on record .”
High Court of H.P.
15. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarized to
the effect that in exceptional cases where there are
compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is
found to be perverse, the Appellate Court can interfere with
the order of acquittal. Further, if two views were possible on
the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellant Court
should not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the
Trial Court, merely, because the Appellate Court could have
arrived at a different conclusion than that of the Trial Court.
16. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never
shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable
evidence. In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence that more serious the offence, the stricter the
degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is
required to convict the accused.
17. The careful perusal of the record reveals that it is
a case, where the Police party had prior information
regarding transportation of the contraband, either ‘Opium’ or
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:03 :::CIS

( 2026:HHC:49133 )
16
‘Cannabis’, by the accused in Maruti Van No.HP-02-6339.
High Court of H.P.
The fact regarding prior information having been conveyed to
SI Keshav Singh (PW15), Investigating Officer, State CID
Crime Branch, Shimla, can be inferred after going through
the copy of Rapat No.7 dated 08.02.2009 (Ext.PW8/A) that
pursuant to the receipt of credible information in this regard,
the Police party headed by Sub Inspector Keshav Singh
(PW15) Investigating Officer along with other Police officials
immediately left towards Village Anji. Considering the
aforesaid evidence, it was incumbent upon the SI Keshav
Singh (PW15), being Investigating Officer, to comply with the
provisions under Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. However, there is no
separate document (memo) on record, whereby, it can be
inferred that he recorded the ‘reasons of belief’ before
proceeding towards the spot and conveyed to his superior
officers in accordance with the said mandatory provisions.
18. Dwelling into the question of compliance of
Section 42 of NDPS, Act 1985 reference can be made to the
judgment of the constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:03 :::CIS

( 2026:HHC:49133 )
17
Court in Karnail Singh Versus State of Haryana (2009) 8
High Court of H.P.
SCC 539 .
19. It is well elaborated judgment on the statutory
requirement of writing down and conveying information to
the superior/supervisory officer prior to entry, search and
seizure as per Section 42(1) and Section 42(2) of the NDPS,
Act 1985 requiring a literal and substantial compliance.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Rashid
Ibrahim Mansuri versus State of Gujarat (2000) 2 SCC
513 and Sajan Abraham versus State of Kerala (2001) 6
SCC 692, observed that while total non-compliance with
requirements of sub sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 is
impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory
explanation about the delay could be acceptable compliance
of statutory requirement under Sections 42(1) and 42(2) of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
21. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh vs.
State of Haryana (2013) 2 SCC 212 , followed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Karnail Singh case (supra), in State of
Rajasthan vs. Jograj Singh @ Hansa (2016) 11 SCC 687
and in Rajender Singh vs. State of Haryana (2011 INSC
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:03 :::CIS

( 2026:HHC:49133 )
18
551) held that non compliance of Section 42(2) of Narcotic
High Court of H.P.
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 vitiates trial
and is impermissible.
22. Having considered the ratio of law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgments referred supra, it
appears that the Investigating Officer failed to comply with
the mandatory provision under section 42 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
23. Now coming to the recovery of the alleged
contraband from the Maruti Van No.HP-02-6339.
24. It is the case of the prosecution that the
contraband was recovered from the Thermos Bottle, kept
beneath the rear seat of the Maruti Van No.HP-02-6339. In
this regard, the search, recovery and seizure memo
Ext.PW4/A, rukka Ext.PW15/A can be referred. As per the
prosecution case, the recovery of contraband was effected in
presence of independent witnesses Krishan Gopal (PW14),
Sohan Lal (PW4), Ramesh Kumar and Amit Thakur (PW3).
Apart from this, the Police during the course of proceedings,
procured Weighing Scale from Surender Thakur (PW9) Shop
Keeper. However, all the witnesses referred herein above have
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:03 :::CIS

( 2026:HHC:49133 )
19
completely denied the prosecution case qua conducting
High Court of H.P.
search of Maruti Van No.HP-02-6339 in their presence,
recovery of the contraband therefrom and the seizure
formalities so conducted by the Police, as reflected in the
memo Ext.PW4/A. Therefore, the independent witnesses
associated by the Investigating Officer during the course of
investigation have completely failed to support the factum of
recovery of contraband from the vehicle of the Accused.
25. It is further evident that the Police party headed
by SI Keshav Singh (PW15) left to the spot under the
supervision of Ms. Babita Rana, Dy. S.P., State CID, Shimla.
Although, as per the prosecution, she remained on the spot
throughout the proceedings, however, her presence is
nowhere reflected in any of the documents prepared by the
Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Also,
the aforesaid officer was not examined by the prosecution in
order to lend support to the case of prosecution.
26. The careful perusal of the evidence of the official
witnesses i.e. SI Keshav Singh, examined as PW15 and ASI
Manjeet Kumar, examined as PW13, there are material
contradictions regarding the preparation of documents as
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:03 :::CIS

( 2026:HHC:49133 )
20
well as the personal search offered by the Police officials
High Court of H.P.
before effecting the contraband.
27. Although, the official witnesses have come
forward supporting the prosecution case, however, their
version cannot be relied upon due to non supporting of the
prosecution case by the independent witnesses. Furthermore,
the investigation was not carried out by the Investigating
Officer in compliance to the mandatory and directory
provisions under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985. Therefore, the case of the prosecution
becomes vulnerable and cannot be relied upon.
28. The learned Trial Court after having considered
the aforesaid aspects rightly acquitted the accused since the
prosecution case suffers from material infirmities,
contradictions and omissions, which are insufficient for
securing conviction of the accused.
29. In view of the above, the present appeal fails and
it is dismissed.
30. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the accused is directed to furnish
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:03 :::CIS

( 2026:HHC:49133 )
21
bail bonds in the sum of 25,000/- with one surety in the ₹
High Court of H.P.
like amount to the satisfaction of learned Registrar (Judicial)
within four weeks, which shall be effective for six months
with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition
being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the
respondent on receipt of notice(s) thereof, shall appear before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
31. A copy of this judgment along with the record of
the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
32. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of, so also
the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
(Bhupesh Sharma)
Judge
th
6 November , 2026
(Sanjeev)
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:03 :::CIS