19. Mr. Jethmalani having concluded his argument on behalf of Manu Sharma,left the remaining arguments to be concluded by Pt. R.K. Naseem, learnedAdvocate who addressed arguments on the importance of Tata Safari at QutubColonnade and thereafter its recovery from Noida. Counsel stressed that thevehicle was not present at the Qutub Colonnade in the first instance and therecovery of this vehicle from Noida was a 'plant'. He contended that theownership is not in dispute. He also did not dispute that Sidhartha Vashishta @Manu Sharma is a director of the Company, but went on to contend that thevehicle in question was allotted to Harvinder Chopra which has been amply provedby the statement of PW-25, Manoj Kumar, as also PW-26, Balbir Singh. He alsocontended that the vehicle was not being used by Sidhartha Vashisht @ ManuSharma which is evident from the deposition of PW-44, Shankar Mukhia, and PW-98,Babu Lal. In view of the above, counsel contended that there is no evidence onrecord to show that Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma was either using thevehicle or was in possession thereof on the night of the occurrence.