Kerala High Court
Chalam Sheikh vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1942
CRL.A.No.122 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 305/2015 DATED 26-12-2018 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
CRIME NO.6/2015 OF North Paravur Excise Range Office , Ernakulam
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
CHALAM SHEIKH
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.SULTHAN SHEIKH, DIKKUMPUR DESOM, ANTHERKOTTA
VILLAGE, HOGAL BERIA POLICE STATION LIMIT, NADIA
DISTRICT, WEST BENGAL.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE
SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL)
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE CIRCLE
OFFICE, NORTH PARAVUR, THROUGH THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
SRI SANTHOSH PETER-SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20-05-2020, THE COURT ON 26-05-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.No.122/2019
2
"CR"
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
************************
Crl.A.No.122 of 2019
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2020
JUDGMENT
Migrant labourers are now treated as "guest workers" by the State Government. The appellant is one among them. Challenge in this appeal is directed against the verdict of guilty and conviction and the sentence imposed on him by the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. The prosecution case is that, on 07.01.2015, at about 08.20 hours, at the side of the road near the K.S.R.T.C bus station at North Paravur, the Excise Inspector (PW3), North Paravur found the appellant having in his possession 1.500 kilograms of ganja.
Crl.A.No.122/20193
3. The appellant/accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and marked Exts.P1 to P15 documents and MO1 to MO3 material objects. On the side of the accused, DW1 and DW2 were examined and Ext.D1 document was marked.
4. The trial court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act and convicted him thereunder. The trial court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. This appeal is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of the trial court.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the records.
6. Out of the six witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW3 is the Excise Inspector who detected the offence. PW1 is the Assistant Excise Inspector who was in the excise party led by PW3. PW2 is the independent witness examined by the Crl.A.No.122/2019 4 prosecution to prove the occurrence. PW4 is the Village Officer who prepared the site plan. PW5 is the Excise Circle Inspector who had reached the scene of the occurrence at the request of PW3 to witness the search. PW6 is the Excise Circle Inspector who conducted the investigation of the case and filed complaint against the accused in the court.
7. PW3 has given evidence to the following effect. On 07.01.2015, while conducting patrol duty with excise party, he reached in front of the K.S.R.T.C bus station. He saw the accused standing there with a bag in his right hand. On seeing the excise party, the accused got nervous and he tried to retreat. PW3 intercepted him, got the bag from his hand and examined it in the presence of witnesses. There was a plastic kit inside the bag. PW3 opened and inspected its contents. It contained ganja. The accused talked in Hindi. With the help of Civil Excise Officer Pradeep Kumar who knew Hindi, PW3 appraised the accused that he had the right to get the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate for the purpose of searching his body. He gave notice to the accused stating so but the accused told him that it was not Crl.A.No.122/2019 5 necessary and he could search him. However, PW3 contacted his superior officer, the Excise Circle Inspector (PW5) and requested for his presence. PW5 reached the spot at 09.00 hours. PW3 then conducted search of the body of the accused but no contraband material was found. He then weighed the ganja and it was found having the weight of 1.5000 kilograms. He took two samples from the ganja, weighing 25 grams each, in two plastic covers and wrapped them in brown paper and sealed them and affixed labels containing the signature of himself and the witnesses and the accused on them. He also packed and sealed the remaining ganja and seized it and the samples as per Ext.P1 mahazar and arrested the accused. PW3 identified the ganja and the accused in the court.
8. PW1 Assistant Excise Inspector has also given evidence regarding the seizure of ganja from the possession of the appellant/accused. His evidence corroborates the testimony of PW3 in material particulars of the occurrence. PW5 Excise Circle Inspector has given evidence as to what happened at the spot after he reached there at the request of PW3.
Crl.A.No.122/20196
9. This is a rare case in which the independent witness has supported the prosecution case. PW2, the independent witness, identified his signature in Ext.P1 mahazar. He deposed before the court that, on 07.01.2015, while he was waiting for bus, he saw ganja being seized from the possession of the person who was standing in the dock.
10. PW3 has sworn to the entire incident in necessary details. His evidence, with regard to the seizure of ganja from the possession of the accused, is corroborated by the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and to a certain extent by the testimony of PW5. The recitals in Ext.P1 mahazar, the contemporaneous document prepared by PW3 at the spot of the occurrence, also corroborate his testimony regaring the occurrence. There is no striking improbability or material contradiction or discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 to PW3 regarding the seizure of ganja from the possession of the accused.
11. Ext.P14 is the certificate of examination received in respect of the samples sent from the court for chemical analysis. It shows that the samples which were forwarded to the Crl.A.No.122/2019 7 laboratory through the court were ganja.
12. The plea made by the accused, during the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, is of total denial of the incident. DW2 was examined by the accused to prove that he was arrested from the place Mavinchuvadu. DW2 has deposed that he was working in a shop at the place Mavinchuvadu and that the accused used to come to the shop for purchasing articles. He gave a positive answer to the leading question put to him, whether he had seen the excise officers taking away the accused from Mavinchuvadu.
13. Not even a suggestion was made to PW3 in the cross examination that the accused was arrested or apprehended by the excise party from the place Mavinchuvadu. It is stated in Ext.P5 arrest memo prepared by PW3 that the accused was arrested at 09.50 hours on 07.01.2015 near the K.S.R.T.C bus stand at North Paravur. Ext.P5 arrest memo bears the signature and the thumb impression of the accused. Not even a suggestion was made to PW3 in the cross examination that the accused put his signature in Ext.P5 arrest memo at the excise office or at some other place and not at the place of occurrence alleged by Crl.A.No.122/2019 8 the prosecution. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the accused has not raised any plea that the excise officers took him away from the place Mavinchuvadu. In these circumstances, the evidence of DW2 that the excise officers apprehended the accused from the place Mavinchuvadu, cannot be accepted as reliable and trustworthy.
14. DW1 was the Station Master of the K.S.R.T.C bus station in North Paravur. He was examined by the accused only to create a doubt regarding the scene of occurrence. Rightly and fairly, learned counsel for the appellant has not raised any contention based on the testimony of DW1.
15. There is no whisper of an allegation that PW3 had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant in a serious crime of this nature. There is nothing to show that the excise officers had any axe to grind against the appellant to falsely implicate him in the case. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no sufficient ground to find that the excise officers have fabricated the case against the appellant. There is no sufficient ground to disbelieve Crl.A.No.122/2019 9 the evidence of PW3, which also stands corroborated by the testimony of PW1 and PW2, regarding the seizure of ganja from the possession of the appellant.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant has also raised the following contentions to challenge the conviction entered against the appellant by the trial court. (1) There was no proper compliance with the requirement of the provisions contained under Section 50(1) of the Act. (2) There was no compliance with the requirement under Section 52A of the Act. (3) The accused/appellant is a native of West Bengal. He only knows Bengali language. The entire documents were prepared by the detecting officer in Malayalam and it has caused prejudice to the accused. The excise official, who had allegedly translated the contents of the documents to the accused, was not examined by the prosecution and it is fatal to the prosecution case. (4) The confession statement of the accused in Malayalam was admitted in evidence and taken into consideration by the trial court.
17. PW3 was an excise officer in the rank of Excise Inspector. He is an empowered officer by virtue of the notification Crl.A.No.122/2019 10 issued by the Government of Kerala as G.O.(MS) No.146/90/TD dated 22.10.1990 under Section 41(2) of the Act by which all police officers in the police department of and above the rank of Sub Inspector of Police and all officers of the Excise Department of and above the rank of Excise Inspectors have been empowered to act under Section 42 of the Act (See Sasi v. State of Kerala : 2001 (3) KLT 396).
18. Section 50(1) of the Act mandates that an empowered officer should necessarily inform the suspect about his legal right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. But, this is a case in which the provision contained in Section 50(1) of the Act has no application.
19. In the instant case, PW3 had at first inspected the contents of the bag held by the accused. The ganja was found in the plastic kit inside the bag. It was thereafter PW3 conducted search of the body of the accused in the presence of PW5. No contraband material was found or seized on conducting search of the body of the accused.
Crl.A.No.122/201911
20. Section 50 of the Act applies in case of personal search of a person. It does not extend to search of a vehicle or a container or a bag, or premises. In case, the recovery of the contraband substance is made from a container being carried by the individual, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act would not be attracted. A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, under no circumstances, can be treated as body of a human being. It is not possible to include these articles within the ambit of the word "person" occurring in Section 50 of the Act. The provisions of Section 50 of the Act will come into play only in the case of personal search of the accused and not of some baggage like a bag, article or container which the accused may be carrying (See Rajendra v. State of M.P : AIR 2004 SC 1103, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar : AIR 2005 SC 2265, State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram : AIR 2005 SC 3816, Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab: AIR 2011 SC 964, Ram Swaroop v. State : AIR 2013 SC 2068 and Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab : AIR 2015 SC 2488).
Crl.A.No.122/201912
21. In the instant case, the ganja was seized on conducting search of the bag held by the accused. No contraband article was seized on conducting search of the person or body of the accused.
22. The question arises whether Section 50 of the Act would be attracted to a case where search of the body of the accused as well as the bag or a container held by him was conducted. In State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh : AIR 2019 SC 5298, the Apex Court has held as follows:
"In the instant case, the personal search of the accused did not result in recovery of any contraband. Even if there was any such recovery, the same could not be relied upon for want of compliance of the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. But the search of the vehicle and recovery of contraband pursuant thereto having stood proved, merely because there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act as far as "personal search" was concerned, no benefit can be extended so as to invalidate the effect of recovery from the search of the vehicle. ..... Since in the present matter, seven bags of poppy husk each weighing 34 kgs were found from the vehicle which was being driven by Crl.A.No.122/2019 13 accused- Baljinder Singh with the other accused accompanying him, their presence and possession of the contraband material stood completely established".
23. Of course, in Sk.Raju alias Abdul Haque alias Jagga v. State of West Bengal: AIR 2018 SC 4255, it has been held that as soon as the search of a person takes place, the requirement of mandatory compliance with Section 50 of the Act would be attracted, irrespective of whether contraband is recovered from the person of the detainee or not. Baljinder Singh (supra) does not refer to the earlier decision in Raju alias Abdul Haque (supra). But, very recently, in Than Kunwar v. State of Haryana: MANU/SC/0242/2020, the Apex Court has taken note of the divergent views in Baljinder Singh (supra) and Raju alias Abdul Haque (supra). After making a reference to the decision of the Constitution Bench in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh : (1999) 6 SCC 172, in Than Kunwar (supra) it has been held as follows:
"As already noticed, we are not oblivious of the observation which has been made in the other three Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Sk. Raju Crl.A.No.122/2019 14 (supra), which it appears, was not brought to the notice to the Bench which decided the case later in Baljinder Singh (supra). We notice however that the later decision draws inspiration from the Constitution Bench decision in Baldev Singh (supra).
We also notice that this is not a case where anything was recovered on the alleged personal search. The recovery was effected from the bag for which it is settled law that compliance with Section 50 of the Act is not required".
24. In the instant case also no contraband substance was recovered on conducting search of the body of the appellant. Therefore, this Court is inclined to follow the decisions in Baljinder Singh (supra) and Than Kunwar (supra) and hold that the provisions contained in Section 50 of the Act do not apply to the facts of the case.
25. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that samples should have been taken in the presence of the Magistrate as provided under Section 52A of the Act and non- compliance with this provision has caused prejudice to the accused.
Crl.A.No.122/201915
26. Section 52A of the Act provides for drawing samples of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in the presence of the Magistrate. It also provides that any list of samples so drawn and certified by the Magistrate shall be treated as primary evidence in respect of the offence.
27. In Union of India v. Mohanlal : (2016) 3 SCC 379, the Supreme Court has held as follows:
"In other words, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes place in the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This is so especially when according to Section 52A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with sub- section (2) and (3) of Section 52A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure".
28. What is the effect of not drawing samples in the presence of the Magistrate but at the spot of the occurrence Crl.A.No.122/2019 16 itself? The purpose of the provisions contained in Section 52A of the Act has to the kept in mind in answering this question.
29. In Pavithran v. State of Kerala : 2018 (1) KHC 399 : 2018 (1) KLT 517, after taking note of the decision in Mohanlal (supra), this Court has held as follows:
"Clearly the intention behind enacting Section 52A was to ensure that the contraband substance which was seized by the detecting officer be prevented from being pilfered, or substituted and to prevent its re-circulation. The drug can be disposed of under the supervision of a Magistrate and if the Magistrate follows the mandate of Section 52A, then the certificate issued by him is per se admissible in evidence and it is not necessary for the police or the investigating agency to produce the bulk seized material which is the case property before the Court. In other words, the contraband materials can be destroyed or disposed of in an appropriate manner at the pre-trial stage itself. ...... The very purpose of Section 52A is to ensure that the contraband substance is disposed of under the supervision of a Magistrate and if the Magistrate follows the mandate under Section 52A, then the certificate issued by him is per se admissible in evidence and it is not necessary for the police or the investigating agency Crl.A.No.122/2019 17 to produce the bulk seized material which is the case property before the Court. In case Section 52A is not complied with and the seized material is not destroyed, then it is the duty of the prosecution to produce the same before the trial court during the stage of trial".
30. In the instant case, the samples taken at the spot of the occurrence and the residue were produced before the Magistrate on 07.01.2015, the date of the occurrence itself. They were produced before the Sessions Court on 08.01.2015 as per the direction of the Magistrate. As per the direction of the Sessions Court, the residue was entrusted at the godown concerned on 09.01.2015. Ext. P9 godown receipt reveals this fact. The residue was subsequently produced before the trial court during the trial and tendered in evidence as MO3. The samples were forwarded to the laboratory for analysis on 08.01.2015 from the Sessions Court as per Ext.P10 forwarding note. Ext.P14 chemical analysis report shows that the seals on the samples were intact when they were received in the laboratory. In these circumstances, I find that no prejudice was caused to the accused by drawing the samples at the spot of the occurrence itself.
Crl.A.No.122/201918
31. The appellant/accused is a native of West Bengal. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant knew only Bengali and the preparation of the documents in Malayalam at the time of seizure has caused prejudice to him.
32. The evidence of PW3 and Ext.P1 mahazar show that communication between the accused and the excise officials at the time of the occurrence was made in Hindi, with the assistance of the excise official Pradeep Kumar, who was in the excise party led by PW3. PW3 has given evidence that the accused talked in Hindi. No suggestion was made to PW3 that the accused is a person who does not know Hindi. The documents which were prepared in Malayalam at the time of the occurrence, which could have caused prejudice to the accused, are the notice given to the accused informing him of his right under Section 50(1) of the Act and the consent letter for body search allegedly given by him. Since it is found that Section 50(1) of the Act has no application to the facts of the case, preparation of the aforesaid documents in Malayalam and non-examination of Pradeep Kumar as a witness by the prosecution, have not Crl.A.No.122/2019 19 resulted in any prejudice to the accused.
33. The questions to be answered by the accused during the examination under Section 313 of the Code were prepared by the learned Sessions Judge in Malayalam. It is stated in the judgment of the trial court that the questions were translated to the language of the accused by M.G. Pradeep Kumar, the excise official to whom reference was made earlier. M.G.Pradeep Kumar has only put his signature below the statement of the accused recorded by the trial judge. He has not made any endorsement that he has truly and correctly translated the questions put to the accused by the court and the answers given by the accused. Even the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not made any proper endorsement in this regard. What is endorsed by him reads as follows: "313 recorded with the help of translator Pradeep Kumar M.G, Civil Excise Officer, Excise Circle Office, North Paravur".
34. Section 281(2) of the Code provides that, whenever the accused is examined by a Court of Session, the whole of such examination, including every question put to him and every Crl.A.No.122/2019 20 answer given by him, shall be recorded in full by the presiding Judge or under his direction and superintendence by an officer of the Court appointed in this behalf. Section 281(3) of the Code states that the record shall, if practicable, be in the language in which the accused is examined, or if that is not practicable in the language of the Court. Section 281(4) of the Code states that such record shall be shown or read to the accused, or, if he does not understand the language in which it is written, shall be interpreted to him in a language in which he understands.
35. In Dasan v. State of Kerala : 1986 KLT 598, a Division Bench of this Court has held that there is no illegality or impropriety in preparing the questions under Section 313 of the Code in English and the presiding Judge translating and explaining those questions in Malayalam to an accused who only knows Malayalam. It has been held that there is no irregularity or illegality in translating English questions into Malayalam. At the same time, the Division Bench also held that it is always desirable that Judges and Magistrates certify under their signature that questions were translated and explained to the Crl.A.No.122/2019 21 accused who understood the same and gave answers all of which are truly and correctly recorded but the omission to do so could only be an irregularity.
36. It is ideal and proper and always desirable to prepare the questions to be put to the accused in a language in which the accused is well versed. However, as in the present case, when the accused is a person who hails from another part of the country, it may not be possible to prepare the questions in the language which he knows. In such cases, the questions have to be prepared in Malayalam or English and an interpreter or translator has to be appointed by the court to interpret or translate the questions put to the accused and the answers given by him. What is essential is that the accused shall clearly understand the questions put to him so that he could give proper answers. It is also necessary that the record shall clearly indicate the procedure adopted by the court. As held in Dasan (supra), the Magistrate or the Judge shall certify at the bottom of the record of examination that the questions were translated or interpreted and explained to the accused in the language of the Crl.A.No.122/2019 22 accused. It would also be ideal and desirable that the interpreter or translator shall, instead of simply putting his signature in the record of examination of the accused, make an endorsement that he has truly and correctly interpreted or translated the questions and the answers.
37. In the instant case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded that examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was conducted with the assistance of Pradeep Kumar. Though it does not constitute a full and proper certification regarding the procedure adopted by the court, since the questions had been translated and explained to the accused in Hindi which is a language known to him and since the accused had not raised any grievance that he did not understand the nature and the implication of the questions put to him, I do not find any reason to hold that he has suffered any prejudice. The accused has signed the statement under Section 313 of the Code in his own hand. Had he been prejudiced in any manner, he would not have done so. He had defended the case against him through a lawyer of his own choice and the counsel would have Crl.A.No.122/2019 23 raised objection that the accused was unable to understand the proceedings. No such grievance was raised before the trial court.
38. At this juncture, another aspect requires to be mentioned. Mr.Pradeep Kumar, who was appointed as translator by the trial court, was a member of the excise party led by PW3 who had detected the offence. He had played an active role in the preparation of documents at the spot of the occurrence. He had also assisted the investigating officer to record the confession statement of the accused. He was a witness cited by the prosecution to prove the occurrence.
39. Section 281(4) of the Code contemplates appointment of an interpreter for the purpose of conveying the accused the nature and implication of the questions put to him during the examination under Section 313 of the Code. But, when the services of an interpreter or translator are required by the court, it is always better to avoid appointment of a person who has participated in the incident in question or who had an active role in the investigation of the case (See Ah Soi v. King Emperor :
AIR 1926 Cal.922). Attempt shall be made by the court to Crl.A.No.122/2019 24 secure the services of a neutral person as interpreter or translator. If somebody else is available, it is better a person who is a witness in the case is not appointed as interpreter or translator.
40. In the instant case, since the accused or his counsel had not raised any objection before the trial court to the appointment of Mr.Pradeep Kumar as interpreter or translator and since I have found that the accused has not suffered any prejudice, no question of remanding the case to the trial court for conducting a fresh examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code arises.
41. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court admitted in evidence the confession statement obtained from the accused as Ext.P15. This contention is based on a misconception of facts. Ext.P15 is the order of the Deputy Excise Commissioner appointing PW6 as the investigating officer in the case. It is not the confession statement given by the accused to the investigating officer. The trial court has not acted upon or referred to any confession statement to find the accused guilty. Crl.A.No.122/2019 25
42. Conscious possession of the ganja by the appellant stands established by the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Conviction entered against the appellant by the trial court under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act is only to be confirmed.
43. The trial court has sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the sentence imposed on the accused by the trial court is harsh and excessive.
44. While considering the sentence to be imposed on the accused, the trial court was influenced by the fact that the accused was a person involved in several cases of this nature. However, all those cases referred to in the judgment of the trial court are cases registered against him subsequent to the present case. The truth of the allegation against him in those cases is yet to be established. As far as the present case is concerned, the accused is a first offender. The quantity of ganja seized from his possession is 1.500 kilograms and it is at the lower level of the Crl.A.No.122/2019 26 intermediate quantity prescribed. Considering these aspects, I find that the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused by the trial court can be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months. There is no sufficient ground to interfere with the sentence of fine imposed on the accused by the trial court. But, it is only proper to modify the default sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
45. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part and it is ordered as follows:
(1) Conviction of the appellant/accused by the trial court under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act is confirmed.
(2) The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial court is modified and reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of eighteen (18) months.
(3) The sentence of fine of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial court is confirmed. In modification of the order passed by the Crl.A.No.122/2019 27 trial court, it is directed that the appellant/accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months only in default of payment of fine.
(4) The accused/appellant is entitled to the benefit of set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C against the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by this Court.
(sd/-) R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE jsr True Copy PS to Judge