Karnataka High Court
The State Through vs Mallikarjun S/O Sabayya Kantaganore ... on 8 March, 2022
Author: K. Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
R
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3585/2013
C/w
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3607/2013
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3585/2013
Between:
Hanmanth S/o Lachmayya Balichakra
Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o: Varakanalli, Tq & Dist: Yadgiri
... Appellant
(By Sri Kedar M. Desai &
Sri Mahantesh H. Desai, Advocates)
And:
1. Mallikarjun S/o Sabayya Kantaganore
Age: 27 years, Occ: Agriculture
2. Madhu @ Madappa S/o Nagappa Balichakra
Age: 19 years, Occ: Agriculture
Both R/o. Warknalli, Tq & Dist: Yadgir
2
3. The State through Yadgir PS
Represented by Addl. S.P.P
High Court of Karnataka
Circuit Bench at Gulbarga
... Respondents
(By Sri V.S.Patil & Sri Ganesh Naik, Advocates for R1;
Sri R.S.Lagali, Advocate for R2;
Sri Prakash Yeli, Addl. SPP for R3)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to grant leave to appeal against the judgment & order of
acquittal passed by the learned Presiding officer Sessions Judge
Yadgir in S.C. No.81/2012 dated: 22.04.2013, the
respondent/accused of the offences punishable under Sections
366(A), 365, 376, 114 R/w 34 of IPC and to set aside the
aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal passed by the court
below by allowing this criminal appeal. Convict and sentence the
respondent/accused persons, with which they have been charged
in accordance with the law.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3607/2013
Between:
The State through
C.P.I, Yadgir
Represented by
Addl. State Public Prosecutor
Gulbarga ... Appellant
(By Sri Prakash Yeli, Addl.SPP)
And:
3
1. Mallikarjun S/o Sabayya Kantaganore
Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture
2. Madhu @ Madappa S/o Nagappa Balichakra
Age: 20 years, Occ: Agriculture
Both R/o. Warknalli, Tq: Yadgir
... Respondents
(By Sri V.S.Patil & Sri Ganesh Naik, Advocates for R1;
Sri R.S.Lagali, Advocate for R2)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 (1) and (3)
of Cr.P.C., praying to grant leave to appeal against the judgment
dated: 22.04.2013 passed by the District & Sessions Judge
Yadgir in Sessions Case No.81/2012 thereby acquitting the
respondent/accused of offences punishable under Section
366(A), 365, 376, 114 R/w 34 of IPC and to set aside the
judgment of acquittal dated: 22.04.2013 passed by the District &
Sessions Judge Yadgir in S.C. No.81/2012. Allow this appeal
thereby convicting the respondent/accused of offences
punishable under Section 366(A), 365, 376, 114 R/w 34 of IPC.
These appeals coming on for final hearing this day, K.
Somashekar J., delivered the following:
4
COMMON JUDGMENT
The Criminal Appeal No.3585/2013 and Criminal
Appeal No.3607/2013 are filed against the acquittal
judgment rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.81/2012
dated 22.04.2013, whereby the trial Court acquitted the
accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections
366A, 365, 376, 114 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC' for short).
2. Criminal Appeal No.3585/2013 is filed by the
complainant namely Hanmanth S/o Lachmayya Balichakra
seeking interference in the acquittal judgment rendered by
the trial Court.
3. Criminal Appeal No.3607/2013 is filed by the
State challenging the acquittal judgment in
S.C.No.81/2012. Both these appeals arise out of the same
judgment dated 22.04.2013 in S.C.No.81/2012 Therefore,
5
these appeals have been taken up together for common
judgment to be rendered.
4. Heard learned counsel Sri Kedar Desai for
appellant/complainant, learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.3/State and so also learned
counsel Sri Ganesh Naik for respondent No.1 respectively
and for respondent No.2. Perused the judgment of acquittal
in S.C.No.81/2012.
5. Factual matrix of the case of the prosecution are
as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that PW-1 Hanumanth
who is the father of the victim girl Lakshmi aged about 12
years, has filed a complaint before the Yadgir Rural Police.
In the complaint, it is stated that on 25.03.2012 at about
10-00 a.m. Bhimaraya S/o Ashappa CW-11, a relative of
the complainant had taken Lakshmi to their house since she
had not gone there for a long time. On 26.03.2012 at
6
about 6.00 a.m. the said Bhimaraya informed the
complainant over the phone that on the previous day at
about 10.30 p.m. the accused Mallikarjun had come to the
house on his motorcycle and knocked the door by calling
Lakshmi. He and Lakshmi went out of the house and said
Mallikarjun suddenly caught hold of the hand of Lakshmi,
forcibly got her seated on the motorcycle, and went away.
The complainant searched for his daughter, but could
not trace her. On 30.03.2012 he came to the police
station and complained Ex.P-1. The PSI of Yadgir rural
Police Station, on receiving the complaint, registered a case
in Crime No.52/2012 for the offences punishable under
Sections 366A, 114 read with Section 149 of IPC.
Accordingly, FIR has been recorded as Per Ex.P-16. After
that, criminal law was set into motion.
6. Investigating Officer has taken the case for
investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused
by securing the medical certificate and so also drew spot
7
mahazar at Ex.P-7, seizure mahazar Ex.P-8, cloth seizure
mahazar at Ex.P-9 and another spot mahazar at Ex.P-10,
FSL report at Ex.P-12 and potentiality certificate at Ex.P-15.
And laid charge is laid sheet against the accused before the
Court having jurisdiction.
7. After laying of charge sheet against the accused,
the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions by
passing a committal order by the committal Court as per
Section 209 of Cr.P.C. by following the provisions of Section
207 of Cr.P.C.
8. After committing the case to the Court of
Sessions, the case has been registered in S.C.No.81/2012.
After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence
counsel for accused, framed charges against the accused of
the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 365, 376,
114 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused did not plead
8
guilty but claimed to be tried. Accordingly, a plea of the
accused was recorded separately.
9. After framing of charges, the prosecution let in
evidence of PWs1 to 15 and produced Exs.P-1 to P-17 and
M.O.1. After the closure of evidence on the part of the
prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313
of Cr.P.C. for incriminating statements which appeared
against them in the evidence. But the accused denied the
truth of the evidence. No evidence was led under Section
233 of Cr.P.C. by the accused.
10. After hearing the arguments of both the sides,
on scrutiny of the evidence of PWs-1 to 15 and mainly the
evidence of PW-1 complainant which is at Ex.P-1 and also
the evidence of PW-3 Lakshmi, PW-4 Devamma, PW-6
Somawwa the material witnesses on the part of the
prosecution and so also the evidence of PW-7 Dr Neelamma
and PW-14 Dr Amarjeet Patil and the evidence of PW-15
9
Yashwanth the trial Court concluded the prosecution has
failed to prove the guilt of the accused doubt and
consequently rendered the acquittal judgment.
11. It is contended by Sri Mahantesh H. Desai,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the trial
court rendered the acquittal judgment without appreciating
the evidence on record which are facilitated by the
prosecution. It is further contended that accused No.1
abducted the victim girl namely, Laxmi, aged about 12
years on 25.03.2022 at around 10.00 a.m. on his
motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA/02/HE-186. It is
further contended same is established in the evidence of
P.W.2-Bhimaraya, however the trial court rendered the
acquittal judgment without appreciating the material
evidence.
12. P.W.3 who has given evidence in consonance
with the averments made in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Merely
10
because there are no external injuries found on the body of
the victim-P.W.3, it cannot be said that there is no sexual
assault on her and seeks to set aside the acquittal
judgment rendered by the trial Court.
13. In continuation of the argument advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellant, in Crl.A.No.3607/2013,
the learned counsel has taken us through the grounds
urged in this appeal and would contend that the evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 3 would unerringly point to the guilt of the
accused.
14. In his argument advanced by the learned
Additional State Public Prosecutor by referring evidence of
P.W.14 the doctor who issued the medical certificate at
Ex.P.4, he would urge that certificate indicates that the
victim was subjected to assault. According to the theory of
the prosecution, the trial Court ought to have been gone
through the evidence of P.W.14 in a proper perspective.
11
15. Lastly, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
contended that the trial Court has acquitted the accused on
the ground that the statement of the victim who is
examined as P.W.3 was aged about 16-17 years would
indicate that the accused No.1, has abducted the victim girl
from the custody of Bhimaraya. The trial court failed to
appreciate the evidence from a proper perspective. On
these grounds, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
seeks to allow the appeal and consequently convict the
accused of the offences for which charges are levelled
against the accused persons.
16. It is urged that the reasons assigned by the trial
Court while passing the judgment of acquittal are not
justifiable and sustainable, on all these premise, seeking
intervention.
17. Alleging the kidnap of the victim girl, on
30.03.2012, the complaint was lodged. After tracing the
12
victim/ P.W.3 spot mahazar at Ex.P.7 was drawn and the
motorcycle bearing KA.02.HE-186 was seized under
mahazar at Ex.P8. The aforesaid motorcycle allegedly used
by the accused was parked in front of the house of accused
No.1-Mallikarjun. On receipt of information, police
apprehended accused No.1 - Mallikarjun, and the victim-girl
who were in Warknalli and they have been brought to the
Yadgiri Police Station at around 3.30 p.m.
18. Voluntary statement of the accused is said to
have been recorded. Subsequently, the victim-girl and also
the accused No.1 - Mallikarjun was subjected to the medical
examination.
19. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1
- Mallikarjun accused 2 came to his house and forcibly got
her seated on the motorcycle and went away to Shivapur
Village. It is alleged that accused No.1 forcibly sexually
assaulted her in Shivapur village. The accused No.2 is
13
alleged to have instigated accused No.1 to commit an
offence as narrated in a theory of the prosecution.
20. PW.1 - Hanamanth who is none other than the
father of the victim-girl, has given evidence. He stated that
PW.4 - Devamma, is the sister of PW.3 - victim-girl. They
are the daughters of PW.1 - Hanamanth. Devamma is
studying Bengaluru. The second daughter - victim girl -
Lakshmi is illiterate. PW.2 - Bhimaraya took the victim-girl
to Muskoor village from her parents house. It is at around
10.00 p.m., PW.2 telephonically gives the information to
the father of the victim-girl relating to the abduction of the
victim-girl by the accused. Subsequently, victim-girl was
not traced out despite the search. Subsequently, her father
PW.1 who approached the Yadgir Police Station has filed the
complaint as per Ex.P.1. Based on the complaint, criminal
law was set into motion for the alleged offences, stated in
the F.I.R.
14
21. PW.15 - Yashwant being the Investigating Officer
in his evidence stated that on 07.04.2012, when PW.3 -
victim-girl had returned from the State protective home,
made an inquiry with her, and she revealed about sexual
assault on her. PW.15 - Yashwant stated in his evidence
that the accused No.1 had taken her to the land of his
relative situated in Shivapur village. However, in the
presence of PWs.11 and 12, Ex.P.10 - spot panchanama
has been drawn by PW.15 - Yashwant. PWs.11 and 12 who
are the panch witnesses have not supported Ex.P.10 -
fulcrum of the panchanama. Both the witnesses have
turned hostile and nothing has been elicited by the
prosecution, even though they have been subjected to
cross-examination.
22. PW.15-Yashwant who is the Investigating Officer
has stated that he drew the spot panchanama at Ex.P.10 in
the presence of PWs.11 and 12. Their evidence is of little
15
consequence in proving the guilt, but in consistence to each
other.
23. Ex.P.7 is also the spot panchanama drawn near
the house of PW.2 - Bhimaraya. who is none-other-than
uncle of PW.3 - victim-girl. But PW.15-Yashwant specifically
stated in his evidence that PW.1- Hanamanth has shown
the scene of the offence. But he has stated in his evidence
that PW.2 - Bhimaraya is a resident of Mustoor village,
whereas, Basanagaouda and Hanamanth have been secured
to draw the spot panchanama at Ex.P.7. But PW.8 -
Basanagouda has given his evidence. He has specifically
stated that he does not know the contents of Ex.P.7 - spot
panchahama. If the evidence of PW.2 - Bhimaraya is
considered it is evident that the same runs contrary to the
evidence of PW.15 - Investigating Officer it can be seen in
the evidence of prosecution.
16
24. PW.4 - Devamma, who is none other than the
sister of PW.3 - victim-girl. She is the material witness on
the part o the prosecution, but her evidence is of no
consequence to prove the prosecution case for abduction
and sexual assault on her sister.
25. PW.7 - Dr Neelamma and PW.14 - Dr Amarjeet
Patil, are also material witnesses on the part of the
prosecution, but their evidence is contrary to the evidence
of PW.15 - Yashwant, who drew the Mahazar and also
record the statement of witnesses, that too PW.2 and
PW.4.
26. As per the medical report produced, PW.3 -
victim-girl is aged about 16 to 17 years. If the accused had
abducted or sexually assaulted her, she could have resisted
such act of the accused No.1 - Mallikarjun and there would
have been some injuries, but no such injuries are noticed,
therefore the theory of the prosecution are doubtful.
17
27. PW.7 - Dr Neelamma who has been subjected to
cross-examination, has specifically stated in her evidence
that she did not notice any injuries on the victim-girl. Even
PW.7 being the Doctor has specifically stated that there is
no sign of sexual assault on the victim-girl. Thus, the
theory of prosecution in respect of forcible abduction and
sexual assault on the victim girl is highly doubtful, it cannot
be believed.
28. Evidence of PW.3 - victim-girl itself creates some
doubt that accused No.1 - Mallikarjun took her forcibly to
his relative's house at Shivapura and sexually assaulted on
her at night in his relative's house. The allegation that PW.3
- victim-girl was taken by accused No.1 - Mallikarjun to
Shivapur village and therein committed sexual assault on
her, later taken her to his relative's land and committed
sexual assault is also highly doubtful and so also, it cannot
be acceptable.
18
29. PW.3- victim-girl neither she screamed in the
house of relatives of accused - Mallikarjun at Shivapur nor
in the land of his relative. She does not even say that she
protested when she was allegedly abducted in the presence
of her uncle PW.2. She is said to be aged between 16-17,
as per the evidence of the doctor, but their evidence would
not suffice to hold that the prosecution has proved the
offence against the accused.
30. It is the case of the prosecution that she was
abducted in the presence of her uncle by accused no. 1 and
2 and taken on a motorbike. This allegation of abducting a
person aged 16-17 by two persons in the presence of a
person i.e., PW.2 who is said to be the uncle of the victim,
that too on a motorbike appears to be unbelievable. If there
is a protest by the victim and the uncle of the victim, then it
is not possible for two persons to abduct on a bike as
narrated.
19
31. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed the
Ex.P.3 - Hall Ticket of Devamma and has refused to accept
the contention that the victim was aged below 16 years at
the time of the alleged incident. The learned Sessions Judge
has also referred the evidence of the Doctor who examined
the victim and issued the medical certificate, which states
that the victim must be aged 16 to 17 years. The date of
issuance of the certificate is 30.03.2012. The alleged
incident is said to have been taken place between
25.03.2012 to 30.03.2012. The Doctor who issued the
certificate is examined as PW.14. In his evidence, he stated
that there is a possibility of plus or minus 2 years variation
in the age of the victim. This evidence of the Doctor is also
taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge for
recording acquittal Judgment.
32. The learned Sessions Judge has also noted the
lacuna on the part of the prosecution which has not made
an attempt to secure the birth certificate of the victim to
20
prove their case. Except producing the Hall Ticket of the
sister of the victim i.e. PW.4 Devamma, no other
documents are produced to establish that the victim was
below 16 years at the time of the alleged incident. In the
absence of specific evidence on record to determine the age
of the victim, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly
refused to accept the contention that the victim was below
16 years at the time of alleged incident.
33. On the other hand, in view of Ex.P.5 - the
doctor's certificate which reveals that the age of the victim
must be around 16 to 17 years, therefore the learned
Sessions Judge is of the opinion that the contention that
victim was aged below 16 years is not proved. Accordingly,
has given finding that the prosecution has failed to prove
that the victim was aged below 16 years. This finding of the
learned Sessions Judge is based on sound reasons and on
appreciation of the evidence, therefore does not call for any
interference as contended.
21
34. The Trial Court has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ajay Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in
Crimes II-1995 (1) Page 606, wherein at para No.38 it
is held as under:
"Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 -
Appellant convicted for committing rape on 15
year old girl in the godown of his shop-Mother of
the prosecutrix, as illiterate, not giving definite
age of prosecutrix - Prosecutrix, also an illiterate
failing to specify her date of birth - Parivar
Register produced by prosecution showing figure
tempered with - Medical evidence on basis of
Ossification test showing age to be 141/2 & 15
which leaves 2 years margin - Prosecution
cannot be said to have proved that prosecutrix
was below 16 years - Evidence and
circumstances indicating that prosecutrix had
passively submitted to wishes of accused - Public
hair found not matted nor seminal stains present
on external genitals and no injury found on her
22
person or on the person of accused - Conviction
is unsustainable".
35. The trial Court has relied upon the judgment in
the case of Sarooti Devi & Ors. vs. State of H.P.97.,
reported in 1998 (3) Crimes 331, wherein it is observed
that:
"Indian Penal Code, 1860--Sections 366/366A
and 376--Appellants convicted for offences
under--To establish age of prosecutrix,
prosecution examined evidence comprising
family register, opinion of Radiologist and oral
evidence--Birth register being kept in office of
CMO was not taken into possession--Adverse
inference has to be drawn-Entry in family
register did not prove actual date of birth of
prosecutrix--Radiologist opined her age ranging
between 14 and 16 year--Such opinion was not
conclusive and would not be legally sufficient to
fix age of prosecutrix--Oral evidence was not in
a way specific to fix her age--Prosecution could
not be said to have proved age of prosecutrix
was below 16 years or even below 18 years and
23
above 16 years--Evidence showing prosecutrix
was consenting party as no mark of injury was
observed on her body--Conviction was
unsustainable".
36. The trial Court has also relied upon the
judgment in the case of Mishrilal vs. the State of M.P.,
reported in 2000(4) Crimes 85, wherein it is observed
that:
"Indian Penal Code, 1860--Sections 366 and
376--Appeal against conviction for offences--
Prosecutrix was married woman more than 18
years of age--She stayed with accused for 15
days and had sexual intercourse but she did not
complain to anyone that accused had abducted
her and was having sexual intercourse with her--
Accused took her to different places with her
consent--Story of fraud committed by accused
while taking her away from village appeared
coined at a later stage--It appeared more
probable that accused took prosecutrix with her
24
consent and had sexual intercourse with her
consent--Conviction was liable to be set aside".
37. In the aforesaid reliances the Hon'ble Supreme
Couirt has extensively addressed the issue relating to the
age factors of the victim and the same has been facilitated
for consideration and accordingly the trial Court has
elaborately discussed in the impugned judgment.
38. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, consequently the Trial Court has proceeded
to acquit the accused by assigning sound reasons.
39. It was also considered by the trial Court that in
the medical certificate Ex.P.4 relating to the victim P.W.3
states that she went willingly with him i.e. accused No.1
after he called and stayed in with him the fields at Shivapur
for 2 days, but her evidence does not supported with any
independent evidence.
25
40. In the matter of appreciation of evidence of
witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses but the quality
of their evidence that is important, as there is no
requirement in law of evidence that any particular number
of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. It
is a time-honoured principle, that evidence must be
weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence
has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or
otherwise. The legal system has emphasized value provided
by each witness, rather than the multiplicity or plurality of
witnesses. It is quality and not quantity. The same has
been addressed extensively in the judgment of Laxmibai
(Dead) through LRs & Another vs. Bhagwantbuva
(Dead) through LRs & Others reported in AIR 2013 SC
1204. It is also relevant to refer to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lallu Manjhi & Anr.
v. the State of Jharkhand, reported in AIR 2003 SC
854, that the law of evidence does not require any
26
particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of
the given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a
single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony of
a single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony
into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly
unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly
unreliable. In the first two categories, there may be no
difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the
single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of
cases. The Court has to be circumspect and has to look for
corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony,
direct or circumstantial, before acting upon the testimony of
a single witness. This is the concept of Section 134 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The same has been
appreciated by the trial Court and conclude that the
prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the
accused to convict them for the offences relating to the
27
abduction of P.W.3 Laxmi and so also under instigation of
the co-accused to abduct her.
41. The offence relating to sexual assault has not
been proved by the prosecution. The evidence let in do not
inspire confidence regarding the ingredients of each of the
offences and the prosecution has not been able to prove the
guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence.
Therefore, held that the prosecution has failed to prove
independently each one of the ingredients of the offence,
levelled against the accused.
42. At a cursory glance of the entire evidence of the
prosecution and mainly the evidence of P.W.3 and her
evidence does not inspire, but creates some doubt. When
doubt arise in the mind of the Court, the benefit of the
doubt is to be confined to the accused alone. It was
extensively addressed in the case of Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda vs. the State of Maharashtra reported in (1984)
28
4 SCC 116, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
extensively addressed the issue of circumstantial evidence
and also benefit of the doubt in detail.
43. In para 163, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under:
"We then pass on to another important point
which seems to have been completely missed by the
High Court. It is well settled that where on the
evidence two possibilities are available or open, one
which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other
which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly
entitled to the benefit of the doubt. In Kali Ram v.
State of Himachal Pradesh,(l) this Court made the
following observations:
Another golden thread that runs through the web of
the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if
two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the
case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the
other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to
the accused should be adopted This principle has
special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the
29
accused is sought to be established by circumstantial
evidence."
44. In the instant case, P.W.3 Laxmi who is a victim
girl is examined by the prosecution, and her evidence runs
contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4. Whereas in
the instant case, the prosecution did not facilitate
worthwhile evidence to secure the conviction. Therefore,
the trial Court has rightly rendered the acquittal judgment
by assigning justifiable reasons. Therefore, it does not
arise to call for any interference in the acquittal judgment
rendered by the trial Court. Hence, we proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
I. The appeal preferred by the appellant/complainant in Criminal Appeal No.3585/2013 and also the appeal preferred by the State in Criminal Appeal No.3607/2013 are hereby rejected. 30 II. Consequently, the judgment rendered by the District and Sessions Judge, Yadgir in S.C.No.81/2012 dated 22.04.2013 is hereby confirmed.
III. Bail bonds, if any, executed by the accused persons, shall stand cancelled.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE swk/BL/KJJ/RSP