Kerala High Court
G.V.Sudarshan vs Superintendent Of Police on 13 March, 2019
Author: P.Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940
CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 46/2011 of SPECIAL COURT
(SPE/CBI), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
G.V.SUDARSHAN
ASST.DIRECTOR (DESIGN), CHIEF ENGINEER(NAVAL
WORKS)KATARIBAGH NAVAL BASE P.O,
KOCHI- 682 004.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.G.HARIHARAN
SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI, KOCHI
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,SPECIAL POLICE
ESTABLISHMENT,KERALA BRANCH KATHRIKADAVU,
KOCHI-682 017.
2 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
MINISTER OF DEFENCE, SENA BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 011.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, C.B.I.
SRI.SATHEESH M.KUMAR, CGC
SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI C.B.I.
SRI.SATHEESH M.KUMAR CGC
SRI SASTHAMANGALAM S AJITH KUMAR-SC CBI
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.11.2018, THE COURT ON 13.3.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015
2
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("the P.C Act" for short) in C.C No.46/2011 of the Special Court (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram. He was the Garrison Engineer of the Pangode Unit of the Army at Thiruvananthapuram during September 2003 to February, 2004. At about 12.30 p.m on 19.2.2004, the Cochin unit of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) received a secret information that an amount of ₹2 lakhs was being carried by the accused being the money received by him as bribe from different contractors. On the basis of the said information, the accused was intercepted on his way to Bangalore by the CBI officials and a CBI officer seized an amount of ₹2,06,100/- from him. The fact of seizure was intimated to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Cochin and on the basis of the seizure, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Cochin registered the present crime against the accused. After investigation, the CBI submitted final report in CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 3 court against the accused under Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(a) & (d)) of the P.C Act on the allegation of habitual acceptance of illegal gratification from different contractors under the Army Unit for awarding different contracts and also for prompt sanctioning of the amount due under different contracts to the different contractors.
2. The accused appeared before the learned trial Judge and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(a) & (d) of the P.C Act. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses and proved Exts.P1 to P249 documents in the trial court. The MO1 to MO5 series properties were also identified during trial. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and projected a defence of total denial. He claimed that the amount seized from his possession by the CBI officials is his own money which was being taken by him to his house for treatment and domestic purposes. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.
3. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 4 court found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of ₹2 lakhs under Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(a) of the Act. No separate sentence was imposed under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act. The amount seized from the possession of the accused was ordered to be confiscated. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 2.5.2015 of the trial court, the accused has come up in appeal.
4. The main prosecution allegation against the accused is one of habitual acceptance of illegal gratification from different contractors and others during his tenure as Garrison Engineer of the Pangode Unit of the Army, at Thiruvananthapuram. An amount of ₹2,06,100/- was seized from the possession of the accused by the CBI officials on 19.2.2004 on the basis of secret reliable information. As the accused could not account for the possession of this much amount in transit, it was seized and he was arrested on suspicion that it was bribe money received by him accepted from different persons. The different instances of CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 5 acceptance of illegal gratification alleged against the accused are as follows:
(a) In October, 2003, the accused
accepted ₹2000/- and in December, 2003, he
accepted another amount of ₹2,000/- from one
S.R Chandran, partner of M/s.S.R Chandran & Company for awarding three contract works for ₹8,52,650/-, ₹4,01,356/- and ₹1,29,330/- respectively.
(b) The accused demanded and accepted an amount of ₹4000/- as bribe in February, 2004 from one Sadanandan Pillai, a contractor for awarding two contracts for ₹3,60,345/- and ₹1,90,535/- respectively.
(c) The accused demanded and accepted
₹20,000/- as bribe on 19.2.2004 at his
office from one T.Ashok Kumar, Proprietor of
M/s. Ashok Electricals, Thiruvananthapuram
for awarding four contracts for ₹3,80,398/-, ₹7,82,626/-, ₹2,95,396/- and ₹6,01,445/- respectively.
(d) The accused accepted an amount of ₹1,200/- as bribe in February, 2004 at his office from one Lambodharan, a contractor for awarding four contract works for ₹3,15,900/-, ₹2,89,997/-, ₹1,19,250/- and CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 6 ₹2,02,900/- respectively.
(e) The accused demanded and accepted
₹5000/- and ₹15,000/- on 7.2.2004 and
19.2.2004 respectively at his office and at his house from one T.S.Sasidharan Thampi of M/s.Keerthi Constructions for awarding seven contract works and also for sanctioning payment under some other work contracts.
(f) The accused demanded and accepted 2% of the contract amount from the contractor S.Velappan Nair of M/s.Archana Transports in connection with the work contract for ₹2,59,507/-.
(g) The accused demanded and accepted
₹9,000/- and ₹25,000/- respectively in
December 2003 and in February, 2004 at his office from one T.V.A Murugan, an approved contractor through his Agent Lawrence for awarding five contract works for ₹4,04,670/-, ₹97,250/-, ₹5,90,810/- and ₹9,19,994/- respectively, and also for sanctioning payment of ₹2 lakhs under a contract.
(h) The accused accepted and demanded ₹1500/- as illegal gratification in January, 2004 at his office from one R.Ramachandran Nair, Proprietor of M/s.Shilpa Engineers and Contractors for issuing eight supply orders CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 7 for the supply of different materials for a total amount of ₹40,230/-.
(i) The accused accepted ₹200/- as
illegal gratification in December, 2003 at
his office from one S.R.Chandran for
awarding four supply orders for a total
amount of ₹3,328/-.
(j) The accused demanded and accepted
₹350/- in November 2003 at his office from one Lambodharan of M/s.United Freezers for awarding supply orders for ₹11,454/-/.
(k) The accused demanded and accepted
₹1500/- in December, 2003 and January, 2004
at his office from one P.T.Bennykutty,
Proprietor of M/s.Evershine Traders for
issuing nine supply orders and also for
passing the bills.
(l) The accused accepted ₹300/- as bribe
in December, 2003 from Shri.M.P.Arumugham,
Proprietor of M/s.General Appliances for
issuing four supply orders.
5. Thus the persons from whom the accused
allegedly accepted illegal gratification are:
a. S.R Chandran
b. N.Sadanandan Pillai
c. T.Ashok Kumar
d. B.Lambodharan
CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015
8
e. T.S.Sasidharan Thampi
f. S.Velappan Nair
g. T.V.A Murugan
h. R.Ramachandran Nair
i. P.T.Bennykutty; and
j. M.P.Arumugham.
6. All these persons except P.T.Bennykutty were
examined by the prosecution. Of course, it is true
that an amount of ₹2,06,100/- was seized from the
possession of the accused. The accused would claim
that it is his own money and it is not the money
received from anybody as bribe or illegal
gratification. The accused was not a Class IV or
Class III employee at the time of incident. He was a
Garrison Engineer attached to the Pangode Unit of the
Army. If such a person is found carrying ₹2 lakhs,
nothing can be immediately doubted. This is not a
case where the public servant was trapped while
accepting illegal gratification. So the crucial point
is whether any of the different persons alleged to
have made payment of bribe to the accused has
CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015
9
supported the prosecution. Though the prosecution
examined all the persons except one, who had made
payment of money to the accused as bribe, according to the prosecution, all of them, except one turned hostile.
7. PW1 is the only person who partly supported the prosecution. The Contractors and Supply Agents N.Sadanandan Pillai (PW16), T.Ashok Kumar (PW2), B.Lambodharan (PW4), P.S.Sasidharan Thampi (PW7), Velappan Nair (PW6), T.V.A Murugan (PW18), R.Ramachandran Nair (PW10) and M.B.Arumugham (PW5) turned fully hostile to the prosecution during trial. They did not in any manner support the prosecution. All of them disowned the statements given to the Investigating officer. Then what remains is only the evidence of PW1, who also in fact made an attempt to help the accused, but when cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, he divulged some important aspects. The trial court found against the accused on the basis of the evidence given by PW1 and PW19. Now let me see whether the evidence given by PW1 and PW19 CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 10 against the accused is acceptable.
8. The Construction Contractors and the Supply Contractors who had paid bribe to the accused, according to the prosecution were examined as PW1, PW2, PW4, PW6, PW7, PW10, PW16 and PW18. Of them, only PW1 partly supported the prosecution case, and all the others turned hostile. PW19 was a Supervisor under PW18. He is the person who paid an amount of ₹25,000/- to the accused as bribe as instructed by PW18 and on behalf of PW18. He fully supported the prosecution, but PW18 turned hostile.
9. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the accused was the Garrison Engineer of the Military Engineering Service,(MES) Pangode, and he was the authority to accept and approve contracts for various works and also to sanction payment of amount to the building contractors and supply contractors. The official status of the accused is proved by PW3, PW8, PW9, PW11 and PW25. They include the Office Superintendent, the Assistant Garrison Engineer and also a Clerk of the Military Engineering Service (MES) CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 11 Pangode. They also proved Exts.P118 to P120. The documents and the evidence of the above witnesses will prove that the accused was the Garrison Engineer of the MES at the relevant time and he was the competent authority to accept and approve various building contracts and supply contracts on behalf of the MES.
10. What actually led to the prosecution is in fact the seizure of a huge amount of ₹2,06,100/- from the possession of the accused. The accused was intercepted on his way to Bangalore by the CBI Inspector on the basis of a secret reliable information that bribe money accepted by him from various contractors was being carried by him in a brief case. When the CBI Inspector questioned him about the huge amount contained in the brief case, the accused could not account for the possession of that huge amount, and on suspicion that it was the bribe money accepted from different persons, he was taken into custody and the crime was registered. The arrest of the accused was recorded officially only after a preliminary enquiry to test the veracity of the complaint of habitual CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 12 acceptance of bribe by the accused from different persons. The fact of arrest of the accused and the seizure of huge amount from his possession is proved by PW17 and PW20. The evidence given by the CBI Superintendent is that on getting secret reliable information, it was passed on to the CBI Inspector who immediately acted upon the information and intercepted the accused. Of course, the accused has no dispute practically regarding the seizure of huge amount from his possession. One defence projected by him during trial is that it is the money raised by him from his own sources including salary to meet the surgery expenses of his wife. There is nothing to probabilise such a defence. He also projected another defence that it was the money raised by him to purchase air tickets for some journey. To probabilise this also there is nothing.
11. Of course, it is true that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be strictly applied in this case because to apply the presumption, there must be direct to prove acceptance. However, CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 13 possession of unaccounted money will constitute a supporting material.
12. Of course, it is true that many of the material witnesses who had made payment of bribe to the accused, according to the prosecution, turned hostile, and they did not in any manner support the prosecution. The specific portions in the statements given by them under Section 161 Cr.P.C to the Investigating Officer were proved through him. It is probable that these witnesses had given statements in support of the prosecution during investigation, though they disowned the statements and turned against the prosecution during trial, just to help the accused.
13. PW1 is the prime witness relied on by the prosecution to prove payment of illegal gratification to the accused on many occasions. He had undertaken some works under the MES and he has also proved the files relating to such works. Of course, it stands proved by documents that the other witnesses who practically turned hostile to the prosecution had also undertaken so many works under the MES including CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 14 construction works and supply of materials. The prosecution case is that the accused had habitually accepted illegal gratification from different construction contractors and supply contractors. PW1 is only one among them. He had undertaken three works, and the prosecution case is that for all the three works he had made payment of bribe to the accused at the time of approval of the contract and also for sanctioning payment to him on completion of the works. One such work was undertaken by him for an amount of 8.52 lakhs, the other was for 4.01356 lakhs and the third was for 1.29330 lakhs. His evidence shows that all these works were properly carried out by him and he had also received payment from the MES on completion of the works. He stated that all the works were approved by the accused as Garrison Engineer and he was the authority to approve the works, to examine the works and also to sanction payment. When asked by the learned Public Prosecutor whether the accused had demanded anything or told anything to him at the time of acceptance of the CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 15 contract, PW1 answered in the negative. When questioned further, he stated like this.
"Bill process ആയ ശശേഷഷ contract തുകയുടടെ 2% അശദ്ദേഹഷ ആവശേശ്യടപ്പെടഷ ഞഞാൻ 1% ശമേ ടകഞാടക. Bill കകിട്ടുശമഞാൾ ആണണ ടകഞാടക്കുക. അശദ്ദേഹഷ ആവശേശ്യടപ്പെടഷ ഞഞാൻ ടകഞാടക്കുഷ."
[After processing the bill for payment, he would demand 2% of the contract amount as bribe, but I would pay only 1%. I would make payment only after getting the amount. Though he would demand 2%, I would pay only 1%.]
14. The above statement was made by PW1 before he was declared hostile by the prosecution. When the witness denied and disowned the specific instances of payment on further examination regarding the details of the payment made by him and also the mode of payment, the witness was declared hostile and the prosecution was permitted to put leading questions to the witness by the trial court. During the cross-examination made by the learned Public Prosecutor, the witness denied the statements made by him under Section 161 Cr.P.C, and those portions were specifically proved through the CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 16 Investigating officer later. When cross-examined vigorously on material aspects by the learned Public prosecutor, PW1 stated like this at one stage:
Bill പഞാസഞാകകിയ ശശേഷഷ ഒരു ശേതമേഞാനഷ ടകഞാടക്കുഷ. അതണ എത്രയഞാണണ എനണ പറയഞാൻ പറകില. മൂനണ Bill കൾ ഉണഞായകിരുന.
സുദർശേൻ സഞാർ ലലീവണ കഴകിഞണ വനശപ്പെഞാൾ എടന വലീണഷ വകിളകിചണ പപസ ആവശേശ്യടപ്പെട്ടു. ഞഞാൻ അശദ്ദേഹതകിനണ 2000/- രൂപ office - ൽ ടകഞാണശപഞായകി ടകഞാടത. അശദ്ദേഹഷ ലലീവണ കഴകിഞണ വന ഉടെടന ആണണ എനണ അശനന്വേഷണ ഉശദശ്യഞാഗസ്ഥനണ ടമേഞാഴകി ടകഞാടശതഞാ ? ടമേഞാഴകി ടകഞാടത." {After the bill payment is sanctioned, I would pay 1% of the amount, but I cannot say what exactly is the amount paid to him. There were three such instances of sanctioning bills. After the accused rejoined duty on expiry of the leave, he called me and demanded some more amount. On such demand, I had paid him ₹2000/-. I had stated to the Police that such payment was made by me after the accused rejoined duty on expiry of the leave availed by him].
15. The above statement made by the witness when cross-examined by the prosecution will definitely show CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 17 that on three occasions he had made payment of bribe to the accused at the rate of 1% of the contract amount on sanctioning payment by him, and even thereafter, he had made payment of ₹2000/- to the accused on demand. He also proved the Ext.P4 statement of accounts showing a credit of ₹1,06,380/- to his account and he stated that the amount of ₹2000/- was paid by him after he accepted the said amount from the MES through the Ext.P4 account. Thus, the witness has explained the payment of ₹2000/- by him on the fourth occasion or after the payment of bribe on three occasions at the rate of 1% of the contract amount. When questioned further, on the payment of ₹2000/- the witness stated like this.
"ഞഞാൻ ഒരു പഞാവശേശ്യഷ മേഞാത്രശമേ അശങ്ങേർകണ 2000/- രൂപ ടകഞാടതകിട്ടുള. "
[I had paid ₹2000/- to the accused only once). This is the payment made by him after the other three payments at the rate of 1% of the contract amount. Thus, practically PW1 has admitted payment of illegal gratification to the accused on four occasions. Some CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 18 documents were proved through the witness, relating to the works undertaken by him. These are not material because what the court requires is evidence regarding the payment of bribe or illegal gratification to the accused.
16. As stated above, PW1 has admitted payment of illegal gratification to the accused on four occasions, though he made an attempt to help the accused by disowning some earlier statements given by him. Even before being declared hostile, the witness stated about payment of bribe at the rate of 1% of the contract amount to the accused, though 2% was demanded by him. His evidence shows that for every work, the accused would demand payment at the rate of 2% of the contract amount, but he would pay only at the rate of 1%. Being not satisfied with the amount paid by PW1, he was called by the accused after the expiry of his leave and he demanded more amount. It was then, PW1 paid another amount of ₹2000/-.
17. I find that the evidence given by PW1, regarding payment of illegal gratification to the CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 19 accused on four occasions is acceptable, and his evidence cannot be simply brushed aside in toto for the simple reason that he was declared hostile to the prosecution or that he was cross-examined by the prosecutor with the leave of the court. The law on the point is well settled that when a witness is declared hostile, his evidence cannot be totally rejected and the court can accept his evidence, if that evidence contains anything and acceptable to the court, proving any part of the prosecution to the satisfaction of the court. Here is a witness who made a futile attempt to help the accused during trial. When asked about the various instances of such payment tactfully, he had to divulge the truth regarding such payments and he explained the occasions where he made payment of illegal gratification. I find that this evidence given by PW1, proving payment of bribe amount to the accused on four occasions, is well acceptable and this evidence will prove the prosecution case.
18. It is true that PW18 who had made payment of bribe to the accused on many occasions, according to CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 20 the prosecution, turned hostile. But PW19 has fully supported the prosecution. PW19 was the supervisor of PW18, and he had supervised so many works undertaken by PW18 under the MES. The evidence of PW19 is that on one occasion he had made payment of ₹25000/- to the accused as instructed by PW18 and on his behalf. PW18 has no case that PW19 had never worked under him as Supervisor. The defence could not bring out anything to discredit the evidence of PW19 that he had worked for sometime as Supervisor under PW18. Though PW18 would disown his earlier statements that he had payment of bribe to the accused through his Supervisor for sanctioning various payments for the works done by him, his Supervisor stated that on behalf of PW18, and as instructed by him, he had once paid an amount of ₹25000/- to the accused. The defence could not bring out anything to discredit the evidence of PW19.
19. The evidence given by PW19 convincingly proves that on behalf of PW18, he had made payment of ₹25000/- to the accused as illegal gratification. This evidence will have to be appreciated along with the CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 21 evidence given by PW1 that he had made payment on four occasions to the accused. There is nothing to show that there was any flaw or irregularity or illegality in the investigation conducted by the CBI official in this case. The accused was given opportunity to explain the possession of huge amount before his arrest was recorded, and during investigation also, the accused could not account for the possession of that huge amount. It is here the prosecution allegation assumes importance that the huge amount found in the possession of the accused is the amount accepted by him from different contractors. On such a finding, the trial court ordered confiscation of such amount also. There is nothing to show that any sort of hardship or prejudice was caused to the accused in the process of seizure of the huge amount from him in suspicious circumstances. The criminal misconduct meant under Section 13(1)(a) of the P.C Act is habitual acceptance of illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward as is mentioned under Section 7 of the Act. The evidence of PW19 is that he had paid CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 22 an amount of ₹25,000/- to the accused as instructed by PW18. The evidence of PW1 is that on four occasions he had made payment of bribe to the accused. Though the accused demanded 2% of the contract amount, he paid only 1% of the amount. Being not satisfied with the payment, PW1 was called by the accused to his office, and when he demanded money again, ₹2000/- was also paid by him to the accused. This definite evidence given by PW1 stands not discredited in the cross-examination made by the learned defence counsel. Though PW1 made an attempt to disown his earlier versions implicating the accused, he stated so many things against the accused when cross-examined by the prosecution. He has no explanation for such payments, that it was other than as illegal gratification. The defence has no explanation why or in what circumstance the accused happened to receive amount on different occasions from PW1. The accused has also no explanation how or in what circumstance he accepted ₹25,000/- from PW19. Payment and acceptance of money otherwise than as legal remuneration is well proved by the evidence of CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 23 PW1 and PW19.
20. That the accused obtained pecuniary advantage otherwise than in public interest while holding his office as a public servant is a misconduct as defined under Section 13 (1) (d) of the P.C Act also. Though the offence proved against the accused constitutes criminal misconduct as defined under Section 13 (1) (a) and 13 (1) (d) of the P.C Act, the trial court imposed sentence only under Section 13 (1) (a) of the P.C Act. The defence has no case that any of the functions including detection or investigation was done by any incompetent official. The defence has no case that any illegality was committed by any CBI official in the process of detection or in the process of investigation. The instances where the accused accepted bribe from different contractors is not one or two, but many. This will definitely constitute criminal misconduct of acceptance of illegal gratification habitually as defined under Section 13(1)(a) of the P.C Act. Thus, I find that the accused was rightly found guilty and convicted by the trial CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 24 court.
21. Now the question of sentence. The jail sentence imposed by the trial court is simple imprisonment for three years and the amount of fine imposed is ₹2 lakhs. The huge amount seized from the possession of the accused is ordered to be confiscated. Section 16 of the P.C Act provides that where a sentence of fine is imposed under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the P.C Act, the court shall take into consideration the amount or the value of the property, if any, which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence. The Section also provides that the courts shall also take into consideration the pecuniary resources or property for which the accused is unable to account satisfactorily. When the amount seized from the possession of the accused is ordered to be confiscated, and when the amount received by him as bribe must be around ₹50,000/-, I feel it appropriate to reduce the amount of fine to ₹50,000/- and the default sentence also can be reduced proportionately. On a consideration of the various aspects including the CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 25 lapse of 15 years since the date of detection, I feel that simple imprisonment for one year, as the minimum, would be the adequate sentence in this case. As on the date of detection, the minimum sentence provided for the offence was imprisonment for one year. The accused has already lost his job, and he has already been suffering the inevitable consequences of the offence committed by him. In such a situation, a harsh or vigorous sentence need not be imposed.
In the result, the conviction against the appellant under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) & (d) of the P.C Act in C.C No.46/2011 of the court below is confirmed and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. However, the substantive sentence imposed by the trial court will stand modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for one year and the fine sentence imposed by the trial court is reduced to ₹50,000/-. Accordingly, the default sentence will also stand reduced to simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant will surrender before trial court, within four weeks from this date, to serve out the modified sentence and to CRL.A.No. 470 of 2015 26 make payment of the fine amount voluntarily, on failure of which, steps shall be taken by the trial court to enforce the modified sentence and realise the amount of fine, or enforce the default sentence.
Sd/-
P.UBAID
ma /True copy/ JUDGE
P.S to Judge