Chattisgarh High Court
Love Kumar Baghel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 January, 2024
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on 02.01.2024
Judgment delivered on 11.01.2024
CRA No. 1606 of 2023
Love Kumar Baghel, s/o Shatrughan Baghel, aged about 26 years, r/o
Marangpuri, Gudripara Police chowki, Banskot, PS Vishrampur,
Distt.Kondagaon(CG)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through PS Vishrampur District-Kondagaon
---- Respondent
(Cause-title taken from the CIS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Shri Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Vikram Sharma, Dy GA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
CAV Judgment
Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.04.2022, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Special Court, POCSO (Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012), Kondagaon, District-Kondagaon, in Special POCSO Case No.24 of 2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections and sentences as under:
Conviction Sentence Under Section 376(3) of the IPC RI for 20 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional SI for one month Under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional SI for one month Cra 1606 of 2023 2 Under Section 6 of the POCSO Act RI for 20 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional SI for one month.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.03.2022, father of the prosecutrix/victim (PW1) has lodged a missing report to the Police Station Vishrampuri, district-Kondagaon to the effect that he is residing at Udid gaon, Sheetalapara, PS-Vishrampuri, along with his family. Prosecutrix/victim is his elder daughter, aged bout 15 years four months. On 17.03.2022, at about 7 pm, she went out from his house without informing to anyone and had not returned till 10 pm in the night. Her whereabouts were searched in the village and nearby places, but she could not be traced out. When she could not be found even after asking her relatives' house, he raised a suspicion that someone must have allured his daughter and therefore, he is lodging the report. The Police has registered the offence under Section 363 of the IPC against unknown persons vide Ex.P9, and started investigation.
3. Spot Map was prepared by the Police vide Ex.P10. On 30.03.2022, the prosecutrix/victim was recovered and she was being taken by her father to the Police Station and 'Dastayabi Panchnama' (Ex.P2) was prepared; statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC on 30.03.2022. She was sent for her medical examination to the District Hospital, Kondagaon, where Dr Chandrakala Thakur (PW5) has examined the prosecutrix/victim and gave her report vide Ex.P20, in which she opined that prosecutrix had undergone an act of sexual intercourse and for confirmation of semen, samples have been collected, Cra 1606 of 2023 3 sealed, packed and handed over the same to the Police Constable for FSL analysis. During the examination, the doctor has not noticed any external or internal injuries over the body of prosecutrix. Vide Ex.P22 the School Admission and Discharge Register was seized from the Primary School, Sheetalapara, Udid gaon with respect to the date of birth of the prosecutrix/victim and after retaining the attested true copy of the same, it was returned back to the School, and the attested true copy of the Register is Ex.P21. According to the School Register, date of birth of the prosecutrix mentioned as 01.11.2007. Progress Card of the prosecutrix of Class-V was seized by the Police vide Article-A1. On 31.02.2022, appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement has been recorded vide Ex.P15, based on which, Hero Honda Activa was seized vide Ex.P26A. Undergarments of the appellant were also seized vide Ex.P16. Appellant was arrested on 31.02.2022 and he too was sent for his medical examination to the Community Health Centre, Vishrampur, where Dr Durga Das (PW10) has examined him and gave his report vide Ex.P24. He opined that patient is able to perform sexual intercourse. Seized undergarments of the appellant as well as the prosecutrix, vaginal smear slide, and vaginal swab were sent for the FSL examination vide Ex.P26 and received FSL report vide Ex.P30.
4. Statement of the witnesses have been recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections366, 376(2)(n), 506, and 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
Cra 1606 of 2023 4
5. Learned trial Court has framed charges against the appellant under Sections 363, 366A, 506, 376(3), 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Appellant abjured his guilt, pleaded innocence and claimed trial.
6. In order to establish the charges against the appellant, prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statement of the appellant has been recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, in which he pleaded innocense and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the offence.
7. After appreciation of the evidence available on record, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in Paragraph-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal by the appellant.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. No offence has been made out against the appellant as alleged, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. There is no cogent and clinching evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix that on the date of incident, she was less than 18 years of age and was minor. In absence of examination of author of School Admission and Discharge Register, same cannot be taken into consideration for determination of her age. School Admission and Discharge Register is very weak type of evidence. No any Kotwari Register or ossification report has been produced by the prosecutrix to determine the actual age of prosecutrix ie on the date of incident, she was below 18 years of age. It is further argued that statement of the prosecutrix, her parents, and the Head Master of the Cra 1606 of 2023 5 School, in which she was studying, are not reliable as they are contradictory and inconclusive. Learned counsel further argued that prosecutrix herself went along with the appellant and no alarm has been raised by her while she was travelling with the appellant from one place to another and also while staying with the appellant she has not raised any alarm or made any complaint to any person of nearby place and therefore, she being the consenting party, in the alleged offence, the conviction of the appellant is erroneous and the appellant is entitled for his acquittal.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that the prosecutrix has proved the fact that she was minor, less than 18 years of age on the date of incident on the basis of School Admission and Discharge Register, which is an admissible piece of evidence, and proved by the Head Master of the School, Halral Netam (PW6). Prosecutrix was abducted by the appellant and kept with him, away from the lawful guardianship of her parents for a considerable time and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her. There is no illegality or infirmity in the findings of learned Court below and the impugned judgment needs no interference.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, with utmost circumference.
11. In order to consider the age of the prosecutrix, prosecution has relied upon the School Admission and Discharge Register (for short, 'the Cra 1606 of 2023 6 Register') (Ex.P21), which was proved by Harlal Netam (PW6), In-charge Head Master of the School working since 2010, in which the victim was studying. He appeared along with the original Register. The Police asked him for the Register with respect to the date of birth of the prosecutrix, which has been given to the Police. The Register is Ex.P21 and its seizure memo is Ex.P22. Attested true copy of the same is Ex.P21C. According the Register, date of birth of the prosecutrix is 01.11.2007. The entry was made in the Register by the ex In-charge Head Master, Asaduram. In the cross examination, this witness admitted that he was unable to tell that on what basis the date of birth of the prosecutrix was entered in the Register. He further admits that date of birth of the prosecutrix mentioned in the Register is true or false, he could not tell. Admittedly, this witness is not the author of the Register and he is not in a position to tell as to on what basis the date of birth of the prosecutrix is mentioned in the Register. There is no any Kotwari Register or Birth Certificate produced by the prosecution or by mentioning the same in the Register.
12. PW1, prosecutrix though stated in her deposition that her date of birth is 01.11.2007, but she has not stated as to on what basis she is saying this fact. PW2, mother of the prosecutrix stated in her deposition that at the time when the prosecutrix left the house, she was about 15 years of age. In her cross-examination, although she denied the age of her daughter is more than 16 years, but she has not stated any date of birth of the prosecutrix, and only approximate age of her daughter was given by PW2, mother of the prosecutrix. PW3, father of the prosecutrix Cra 1606 of 2023 7 stated in his deposition that presently, age of his daughter is 15 years five months. He too has not stated any date of birth of his daughter. He stated that Police has seized progress report of Class-V from him. Mother and father of the prosecutrix have not stated anything in their deposition that they have got entered the date of birth of the prosecutrix in the School Register at the time of her admission in the school and whether there is any document in support of date of birth of the prosecutrix or not.
13. Except the copy of School Admission and Discharge Register Ex.P21 and the progress report of the prosecutrix of Class-V (Article A1), there is no other evidence available on record, so as to hold the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 01.11.2007 which is correctly recorded in the said school register. The basis on which the entry of date of birth of prosecutrix has been made in the Register has not been described accurately in the register, there is no any Kotwari Register or ossification report produced by the prosecution.
14. In the matter of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs State of UP and Others reported in 2006 (5) SCC 584 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed the following in Para 26:
In Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit [(1988 Supp. SCC 604], this Court held:
"To render a document admissible under Section 35, three conditions must be satisfied, firstly, entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record; secondly, it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or relevant fact; and thirdly, it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, or any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. An entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Act but the entry regarding Cra 1606 of 2023 8 the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded." (emphasis supplied)
15. In case of Alamelu and Another Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, reported in 2011 (2) SCC 385, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the transfer certificate which is issued by government school and is duly signed by the Headmaster would be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act 1872. However, the admissibility of such a document would be of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the prosecutrix in the absence of any material on the basis of which the age was recorded.
16. In paragraphs 40, and 48 of its judgment in Alamelu (Supra), the Supreme Court has observed as under :
"40. Undoubtedly, the transfer certificate, Ex.P16 indicates that the girl's date of birth was 15th June, 1977. Therefore, even according to the aforesaid certificate, she would be above 16 years of age (16 years 1 month and 16 days) on the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 31st July, 1993. The transfer certificate has been issued by a Government School and has been duly signed by the Headmaster. Therefore, it would be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the admissibility of such a document would be of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the girl in the absence of the material on the basis of which the age was recorded.........
48. We may further notice that even with reference to Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, a public document has to be tested by applying the same standard in civil as well as criminal proceedings. In this context, it would be appropriate to notice the observations made by this Court in the case of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of U.P. held as follows:-
"The age of a person as recorded in the school register or otherwise may be used for various purposes, namely, for obtaining admission; for obtaining an appointment; for contesting election; registration of Cra 1606 of 2023 9 marriage; obtaining a separate unit under the ceiling laws; and even for the purpose of litigating before a civil forum e.g. necessity of being represented in a court of law by a guardian or where a suit is filed on the ground that the plaintiff being a minor he was not appropriately represented therein or any transaction made on his behalf was void as he was a minor. A court of law for the purpose of determining the age of a (2006) 5 SCC 584 party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same standard. No different standard can be applied in case of an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or similar offence where the victim or the prosecutrix although might have consented with the accused, if on the basis of the entries made in the register maintained by the school, a judgment of conviction is recorded, the accused would be deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be convicted."
17. In case of Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2022 (8) SCC 602, while considering various judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 33 as under :
"33. What emerges on a cumulative consideration of the aforesaid catena of judgments is as follows:
33.2.2. If an application is filed before the Court claiming juvenility, the provision of sub-section (2) of section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 would have to be applied or read along with sub-section (2) of section 9 so as to seek evidence for the purpose of recording a finding stating the age of the person as nearly as may be.
XXXX XXXX XXX 33.3. That when a claim for juvenility is raised, the burden is on the person raising the claim to satisfy the Court to discharge the initial burden. However, the documents mentioned in Rule 12(3)(a)(i), (ii), and
(iii) of the JJ Rules 2007 made under the JJ Act, 2000 or sub-section (2) of section 94 of JJ Act, 2015, shall be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the Court. On the basis of the aforesaid documents a presumption of juvenility may be raised.
Cra 1606 of 2023 10 33.4. The said presumption is however not conclusive proof of the age of juvenility and the same may be rebutted by contra evidence let in by the opposite side.
33.5. That the procedure of an inquiry by a Court is not the same thing as declaring the age of the person as a juvenile sought before the JJ Board when the case is pending for trial before the concerned criminal court. In case of an inquiry, the Court records a prima facie conclusion but when there is a determination of age as per sub-section (2) of section 94 of 2015 Act, a declaration is made on the basis of evidence. Also the age recorded by the JJ Board shall be deemed to be the true age of the person brought before it. Thus, the standard of proof in an inquiry is different from that required in a proceeding where the determination and declaration of the age of a person has to be made on the basis of evidence scrutinised and accepted only if worthy of such acceptance.
33.6. That it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an abstract formula to determine the age of a person. It has to be on the basis of the material on record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties in each case.
33.7 This Court has observed that a hypertechnical approach should not be adopted when evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he was a juvenile.
33.8. If two views are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. This is in order to ensure that the benefit of the JJ Act, 2015 is made applicable to the juvenile in conflict with law. At the same time, the Court should ensure that the JJ Act, 2015 is not misused by persons to escape punishment after having committed serious offences. 33.9. That when the determination of age is on the basis of evidence such as school records, it is necessary that the same would have to be considered as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, inasmuch as any public or official document maintained in the discharge of official duty would have greater credibility than private documents. 33.10. Any document which is in consonance with public documents, such as matriculation certificate, could be accepted by the Court or the JJ Board provided such public document is credible and authentic as per Cra 1606 of 2023 11 the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act viz., section 35 and other provisions.
33.11. Ossification Test cannot be the sole criterion for age determination and a mechanical view regarding the age of a person cannot be adopted solely on the basis of medical opinion by radiological examination. Such evidence is not conclusive evidence but only a very useful guiding factor to be considered in the absence of documents mentioned in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015."
18. Recently, in case of P. Yuvaprakash Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, reported in 2023 (SCC Online) SC 846, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 14 to 17 as under :
"14. Section 94 (2)(iii) of the JJ Act clearly indicates that the date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation or equivalent certificate by the concerned examination board has to be firstly preferred in the absence of which the birth certificate issued by the Corporation or Municipal Authority or Panchayat and it is only thereafter in the absence of these such documents the age is to be determined through "an ossification test" or "any other latest medical age determination test" conducted on the orders of the concerned authority, i.e. Committee or Board or Court. In the present case, concededly, only a transfer certificate and not the date of birth certificate or matriculation or equivalent certificate was considered. Ex. C1, i.e., the school transfer certificate showed the date of birth of the victim as 11.07.1997. Significantly, the transfer certificate was produced not by the prosecution but instead by the court summoned witness, i.e., CW-1. The burden is always upon the prosecution to establish what it alleges; therefore, the prosecution could not have been fallen back upon a document which it had never relied upon. Furthermore, DW-3, the concerned Revenue Official (Deputy Tahsildar) had stated on oath that the records for the year 1997 in respect to the births and deaths were missing. Since it did not answer to the description of any class of documents mentioned in Section 94(2)(i) as it was a mere transfer certificate, Ex C-1 could not have been relied upon to hold that M was below 18 years at the time of commission of the offence.
15. In a recent decision, in Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. this court outlined the procedure to be followed in cases where age determination is required. The court was dealing with Rule 12 of the Cra 1606 of 2023 12 erstwhile Juvenile Justice Rules (which is in pari materia) with Section 94 of the JJ Act, and held as follows:
"20. Rule 12 of the JJ Rules, 2007 deals with the procedure to be followed in determination of age. The juvenility of a person in conflict with law had to be decided prima facie on the basis of physical appearance, or documents, if available. But an inquiry into the determination of age by the Court or the JJ Board was by seeking evidence by obtaining: (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. Only in the absence of either (i), (ii) and (iii) above, the medical opinion could be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board to declare the age of the juvenile or child. It was also provided that while determination was being made, benefit could be given to the child or juvenile by considering the age on lower side within the margin of one year."
16. Speaking about provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, especially the various options in Section 94 (2) of the JJ Act, this court held in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors that:
"Clause (i) of Section 94 (2) places the date of birth certificate from the school and the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the 2021 (12) SCR 502 [2019] 9 SCR 735 concerned examination board in the same category (namely (i) above). In the absence thereof category (ii) provides for obtaining the birth certificate of the corporation, municipal authority or panchayat. It is only in the absence of (i) and (ii) that age determination by means of medical analysis is provided. Section 94(2)(a)(i) indicates a significant change over the provisions which were contained in Rule 12(3)(a) of the Rules of 2007 made under the Act of 2000. Under Rule 12(3)(a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificate was given precedence and it was only in the event of the certificate not being available that the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, could be obtained. In Section 94(2)(i) both the date of birth certificate from the school as well as the matriculation or equivalent certificate are placed in the same category.
Cra 1606 of 2023 13
17. In Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain Vs. State of West Bengal, this court, through a three-judge bench, held that the burden of proving that someone is a juvenile (or below the prescribed age) is upon the person claiming it. Further, in that decision, the court indicated the hierarchy of documents that would be accepted in order of preference."
19. Reverting to the facts of the present case, on due consideration of the prosecution evidence, we find that no clinching and legally admissible evidence has been brought by the prosecution to prove the fact that prosecutrix was minor on the date of incident. Despite that the trial court in the impugned judgment, has held her minor. Hence, we set aside the finding given by the trial Court that on the date of incident, prosecutrix/victim was minor and below the age of 18 years, as the same has not been proved by the prosecution by leading clinching and cogent evidence.
20. So far as the issue of forceable intercourse of the appellant with the prosecutrix is concerned, we have carefully perused the statement of the prosecutrix, as well as the witnesses. PW1, prosecutrix stated in her deposition that she knew the appellant because of the reason that he is the brother of her friend. On the day of Holi festival, she went to her friend's house without informing anyone and since she went out from her house without intimating her family members, her father lodged missing report to the Police Station. She stated that during her stay in the house of her friend, appellant made physical relationship with her. She resided there for about a week and thereafter, returned back to her parents' house. Her father took her to the Police Station Vishrampur, from where she was sent for her medical examination. She denied to give her Cra 1606 of 2023 14 statement under Section 164 CrPC and said that the Police has not enquired anything from her. After declaring her hostile witness, she stated that she has not given the statement to the Police that the appellant took her on his motorcycle after giving the assurance of marriage. She also denied her being taken to the Judicial Magistrate for recording her evidence. In her statement, she has not stated that while staying in the house of her friend, when the appellant has committed forceful sexual intercourse with her, she made complaint to her friend or her family members with respect to the act of the appellant or the persons of adjoining houses. The question arises here as to why she has not return back immediately from her friend's house when the first incident of forceful sexual intercourse was committed by the appellant and why she has not informed her parents about the incident. The physical relationship with the appellant was continued up to a week and till then, she stayed there in her friend's house, without raising any alarm, or making any complaint to anybody.
21. PW2 mother of prosecutrix has stated in her evidence that after one week of the incident, father of prosecutrix lodged report to the Police and the prosecutrix returned back to her house and she was taken to the Police Station. She was declared hostile and thereafter, she said that she did not know that the appellant has taken the prosecutrix along lwith him after giving her assurance of marriage or nor. She denied the act of forceful sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix by the appellant. She also denied giving any statement to the Police.
Cra 1606 of 2023 15
22. PW3, father of the prosecutrix stated in his evidence that when he could not find the prosecutrix in his house, he lodged the report to the Police and after about a week, prosecutrix returned back to the house. She could not narrate any thing to him about the incident. This witness has also declared hostile and after declaring him to be hostile, he denied that the prosecutrix has informed him about the incident and he also denied from giving any statement to the Police. In his cross-examination also he stated that prosecutrix has not narrated any incident to him.
23. PW5, Dr Chandrakala Thakur, who had examined the prosecutrix on 31.03.2023 has not noticed any external or internal injury over the body of prosecutrix.
24. Other witnesses PW4 Krishlal Netam, PW8 Nepal, and PW9 Kawdu Ram, are the witnesses of certain seizure and other Panchnama, and helped in the investigation. PW7 Smt Narmada Markam, lady Constable, PW11 Preetam Thakur, Constable, PW13 Smt Sunita Uikey, Asst SI, and Ravi Shankar Dhruv Inspector, and also PW15 Naresh Kumar Sahu Assistant Sub-Inspector, have completed the investigation in part deposed whatever they have conducted their part of investigation.
25. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that prosecutrix is a consenting party in the act of making physical relationship with the appellant. Had she been forcefully subjected to the act of sexual intercourse, certainly, she might have raised alarm or made complaint to ther friends or family members of to the members or to the persons of adjoining houses and she must have returned back immediately from her Cra 1606 of 2023 16 friend's house to her parents' house and inform them about the incident, but she could not do so. No injuries were found on the body of prosecutrix either external or internal. Also in the FSL report, the vaginal slide of the prosecutrix was found to be positive. In the present case, facts and circumference of the case, the prosecutrix was engaged in consensual physical relationship with the appellant.
26. Considering the entire evidence available on record, particularly the evidence with regard to the age of the prosecutrix and her conduct, we are of the opinion that prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age at the time of incident, and she is a consenting party in making physical relationship with the appellant. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)
(n), 376(3) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act would not be made out against the appellant.
27. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and order of sentence of the appellant punishable under Sections 376(2)
(n), 376(3), and Section 6 of the POCSO Act are set aside. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 31.03.2022, therefore, the appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
28. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the CrPC, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in terms of Form-45 prescribed in the CrPC of sum of Rs.25,000/- with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Cra 1606 of 2023 17 Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant, on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
29. The lower court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
padma