Delhi District Court
A Criminal Complaint Addressed To The ... vs . on 9 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
SPECIAL COURT (ELECTRICITY), EAST DISTT.,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC No : 241/16
FIR No: 134/09
P.S. NAND NAGRI, DELHI
U/S 135 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003
STATE
(THROUGH: M/S B.S.E.S. YAMUNA POWER LIMITED)
VS.
Sh. Vindesh Kumar Shukla,
S/o Sh. Krishan Shukla,
R/o D194, School Block,
Nathu Colony, Delhi110093.
........... Accused
DATE OF INSTITUTION OF THE CASE : 01.09.2010
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT WAS RESERVED: 06.04.2018
DATE OF PASSING OF JUDGMENT : 09.04.2018
JUDGMENT
1. A Criminal Complaint addressed to the Station House Officer, Nand Nagri Police Station, Delhi was filed by Sh. N.P. Singh, the then Manager (Enforcement)/Authorized Officer of BSES YPL company (in short to be called as Complainant Company hereinafter) against accused namely Vindesh Kumar Shukla, resident of D194, School Block, Nathu Colony, Delhi93 1/22 for the offence punishable u/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short called as Act hereinafter) for an offence of electricity theft.
(A) FACTS :
2. The main allegations made in the said complaint were to the effect, inter alia, that on 18.11.2008 at about 12 : 55 p.m, an inspection was carried out by the joint team of BSES YPL comprising of Sh. N.P. Singh (Asstt. Manager), Sh. Sanjeev Kumar (GET), Sh. Pati Ram (Tr. Lineman), Sh. Arun Chaudhary (Tr. Lineman) and Sh. Faiyaz Asif (lineman) at the premises i.e. D194, School Block, Nathu Colony, Delhi93 (in short called as inspected premises) in the presence of the consumer/accused at site where three phase whole current meter bearing no. 27096673 was found installed at site. Both the meter box plastic seals found missing and all the meter seals found tampered and refixed. The whole meter body including ultrasonic strips found opened and refixed with adhesive as recorded in the video at site at the time of inspection. Meter was segregated at site in front of RC/user and joint team found the illegal remote control device connected over the PCB of meter to manipulate the recorded consumption.
3. It has been further alleged in the Complaint that a total connected load of 21.312 KW/NX/DT (in short KW) was checked & assessed during the course of said inspection which was being illegally used for commercial purpose by the accused 2/22 through artificial means not authorized by the complainant company. It has been further alleged that the inspection report and load report were prepared at the spot. It has been further alleged that the necessary videography of the inspected premises showing irregularities were also conducted at site by Sh. Arun, photographer of M/s Arora Photo Studio. It has been further alleged that as per MLCC Department report & MMG/MLCC clarification it was came to the knowledge that the meter bearing no. 27096673 was a fake meter which was installed at site illegally. It has been further alleged that as per direction of HOD(Enf.) BYPL regarding CRN no. 1260129285 and as per mail of Sh. Rajinder Kachroo dated 20.11.2008, it was clarified that the aforesaid meter was fake. It has been further alleged that as per direction of HOD(Enf.) the service cable alongwith 3 phase current meter bering no. 17052965 which was installed at site on 18.11.2008, was removed and seized at site on 24.11.2008 by the concerned authorised officer. It has been further alleged that the occupant/user of the inspected premises were found committing direct theft of electricity at the time of inspection by using electricity illegally from the system of the Complainant Company. Hence, the present Complaint dt. 04.05.2009 was filed against the accused for initiating legal action as per law including the determination of civil liability against him as per the provision of Section 154(5) of the Act. Upon the said complaint, the present FIR No.134/09 for offence punishable U/Sec.135 of Act was registered on 04.05.2009 3/22 against the present accused Vindesh Kumar Shukla.
(B) INVESTIGATION :
4. After registration of FIR, investigation was conducted. During investigation, it was found that accused was the user of electricity in the inspected premises. During the investigation, it was found that total connected load of the premises was found running through illegal means not authorised by the complainant company. During further investigation, he recorded the statement of the witnesses and formally arrested the accused. After completion of investigation, present chargesheet U/Sec.173 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C) was filed against the accused i.e. Vindesh Kumar Shukla.
(C) NOTICE :
5. Accused was summoned and after compliance of provision U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C, on 17.07.2013 a notice of accusation as per the provisions of section 251 of Cr.P.C. was framed against the accused Vindesh Shukla by the Ld. Predecessor Court for the offence punishable u/s 135 of the Electricity Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(D) PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :
6. In support of its case, the Prosecution has examined 4 witnesses in order to substantiate the allegations : 4/22 (1) ASI Dal Chand, Duty Officer as PW1, who got FIR of the present case registered and has tendered carbon copy of FIR during his examinationinchief as Ex.PW 1/A and also made the endorsement on the original rukka Ex. PW1/B which bears his signatures at point A. (2) Retired SI Chander Pal as PW2, who was the IO of the present case and deposed that the investigation of the present case was assigned to him for investigation.
He has further deposed that the case was already registered vide Ex. PW1/A and endorsement of the SHO was there on the complaint of authorised officer of BSES YPL vide Ex. PW2/A. He has further deposed that on the same day, he had inspected the site and prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW2/B. He has further deposed that Sh. R.P. Sharma handed over the case property of the case in three plastic bags which were all sealed and he seized the same vide memo Ex. PW2/C. He has further deposed that he had examined the witnesses and recorded their statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. It has been further deposed by him that he had formally arrested the accused Vindesh Shukla on 25.05.2009 vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/D and his personal search was also got conducted vide Ex.PW2/E (inadvertently mentioned as Ex. PW7/E). This witness was cross examined by ld. Defence counsel for accused at length. (3) Sh. Netra Pal Singh, DGM of BSES YPL as PW3 5/22 deposed in his examination in chief that on 18.11.2008 at about 12.55 pm, an inspection was conducted by the inspection team comprising of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar (GET), Sh. Patiram and Sh. Arun Chaudhary (both lineman), and videographer at the inspected premises. He has further deposed that one electricity meter no. 27096673 was found installed at the site and electricity was running through the said meter. He has further deposed that on physical checking, they found that all meter seals found tampered and refixed and body found opened. He has further deposed that the tampered seals were shown to the accused present at site at the time of inspection and thereafter they segregated the meter and found that one remote circuit was connected inside the meter with PCB. He has further deposed that they demanded the accused for paid or unpaid bills but accused failed to show any documents in respect of the same and they confirmed from their office about the said meter and found that said meter was not installed by the department and hence it was a fake meter. He has also relied upon documents i.e. Inspection Report as Ex.PW3/A, meter detail report as Ex. PW3/B, connected Load Report as Ex.PW3/C, Seizure memo as Ex.PW3/D and CD containing videography as Ex.PW 3/E. He has further deposed that on 24.11.2008 as per the direction Ex. PW3/G issued by HOD Sh. Rajendra 6/22 Kachroo, the new meter and service cable were removed from the site and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/F. He has further deposed that on 04.05.2009, he had filed a complaint Ex. PW2/I before SHO PS Nand Nagri for registration of FIR against the accused. He has also identified the accused and case property i.e. two core black colour wire of size 2x25 mm sq. having length of 10 meter; one electricity three phase meter bearing no. 17052965 and the carbon copy of the seizure memo dt. 24.11.2008 Ex. PW3/F; one meter bearing no. 27096673 alongwith one carbon copy of seizure memo Ex. PW3/D as Ex.P1 to Ex. P3. This witness was cross examined at length by ld. Defence counsel.
(4) Sh. Patiram, lineman of BSES YPL was examined as PW4 and he deposed that on 18.11.2008 at about 12.55 pm, an inspection was conducted by the inspection team comprising of Sh. N.P. Singh, (AM) Sh. Sanjeev Kumar (GET), Sh. Arun Chaudhary (lineman), videographer and himself at the inspected premises. He has further deposed that accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity by installing a fake meter bearing no. 27096673. He has further deposed that the seal of the said meter was found in open condition containing a device i.e. remote control/electronic device. He has further deposed that thereafter the 7/22 meter was removed and seized with the seal of N.P. Singh at the instructions of team leader. He has also identified the case property as Ex.P1 to Ex. P3. This witness was cross examined by ld. Defence counsel for accused.
7. No other witness was produced or examined on behalf of the prosecution's side. Hence, on 09.01.2018 as per their oral submission, P.E was closed and matter was fixed for recording of Statement of the accused U/sec.281 r/w Sec.313 Cr.P.C.
(E) STATEMENT OF ACCUSED :
8. On 22.01.2018, statement of the accused U/sec.281 r/w Sec.313 Cr.P.C was recorded explaining all the incriminating evidence against him on record which he denied as false & incorrect. Accused has asserted in his statement that he was present at his house when the BSES officials visited his house on the date of inspection. However he has denied that he was indulged in direct theft of electricity on that day. He has further asserted that the seized meter was installed there. However he has denied that seized meter was tampered or was fake meter. He has further asserted that he is innocent and the meter was installed at his premises by the officials of the complainant company and in this regard he has already placed the documents on record showing the installation of meter at inspected 8/22 premises. He has further asserted that he was paying the regular bill as and when bill was being received by him. He has further asserted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
9. Accused though preferred to lead defence evidence but he failed to lead any defence evidence. Thereafter matter was fixed for final arguments.
(F) FINAL ARGUMENTS & RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW :
10. I have heard final arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. I have also gone through the record as well as contents of CD and written submission filed on behalf of complainant.
11. Before going through the facts of the present case, it would be relevant to reproduce the relevant provisions of Electricity Act for ready reference :
Section 135 Theft of electricity - (1) Whoever, dishonestly, (a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee; or
(b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or 9/22 otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or
(c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity,
(d)uses electricity through a tampered meter;or
(e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized, so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both;
Provided that in a case where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted us :-
(i) does not exceed 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction the fine imposed shall not be less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity;
(ii) exceeds 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction, the sentence shall be imprisonment for a term not less than six months, but which may extend to five 10/22 years and with fine not less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity.
Provided further that in the event of second and subsequent conviction of a person where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use exceeds 10 kilowatt, such person shall also be debarred from getting any supply of electricity for a period which shall not be less than three months but may extend to two years and shall also be debarred from getting supply of electricity for that period from any other source or generating station;
Provided also that if it is provided that any artificial means or means not authorised by the Board or licensee or supplier, as the case may be, exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of the electricity by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumer.
12. Thus, from the aforesaid provision of law, it is clear that the Complainant Company is required to prove as under :
a) That there was theft/abstraction of electricity illegally by tampering the meter or by illegally tapping from a source not validly authorised to the accused.
b) That it was being done by the accused/consumer in the inspected premises.
11/2213. The law is well settled that in case the aforesaid ingredients are proved, there is presumption in Proviso III of Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 which is reproduced for ready reference : "Provided also that if it is proved that any artificial means or means not authorised by the Board or licensee or supplier, as the case may be, exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumer".
(G) FINDINGS :
14. In the present case, from the evidence available on the record, it is clear that the raid was conducted at the premises bearing B194, School Block Nathu Colony, Delhi - 110 093 on 18.11.2008 by raiding team comprising of witnesses PW3 Sh. Netra Pal Singh, PW4 Sh. Patiram as well as Sh. Arun Chaudhary alongwith videographer. It has been proved on record in the testimony of PW3 and PW4 that at the time of inspection, it was found that there was one electricity meter no. 27096673 which was found installed at inspected premises and electricity was running through the said meter. It has been further proved that on physical inspection of the said meter it was found that all meter seals were tampered and refixed and body found opened and after showing the same to the accused, meter was segregated and one remote circuit was found 12/22 connected inside the meter with PCB. It has been further proved that accused was asked to produce the paid or unpaid bills of the meter but he failed to show any documents. It has been further proved that the genuiness of the said meter was verified from the complainant office and it was found that the said meter was not installed by the complainant company but it was a fake meter.
15. It has been further proved in the testimony of PW3 and PW4 that the inspection report Ex. PW3/A, meter detailed report Ex. PW3/B and load report Ex. PW3/C were prepared at site. It has been further proved that accused signed the meter details report Ex. PW3/B. It has been further proved that total connected load was found to be 21.312 KW which was being used for commercial purposes through the fake meter.
16. It has been further proved that the said meter was seized by PW3 vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/D in the presence of accused after meter was removed. It has been further proved that entire proceeding was videographed vide CD Ex.PW3/E. It has been further proved by PW3 that on 24.11.2008 the new meter installed after the first inspection was also removed from the site vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/F on the written direction Ex. PW3/G. He has proved his complaint dt. 04.05.2009 Ex. PW2/I alongwith the show cause notice given on 18.11.2008 to the accused as Ex. PW3/H. Both witnesses have correctly identified the case property as Ex. P1 to Ex. P3 as well as 13/22 accused.
17. It has been argued on behalf of accused that meter in question was installed by the complainant company which was allegedly declared to be a fake meter. However no rebuttal evidence in the defence of the accused has been led to prove that the meter in question was installed by the officials of the complainant company. As a matter of fact the accused earlier has filed a civil suit bearing no. 239/08 alongwith documents and certified copy of the ordersheet, plaint, WS, replication and the annexed documents etc. have been exhibited as Ex. PW1/D1. Perusal of the said record reveals that the said suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff/accused herein vide order dated 01.05.2010. Thus, even in the earlier suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff has failed to prove that the meter in question was installed at the inspected premises by the officials of the complainant company. Even the plaintiff (and the accused herein) in the said suit has admitted the raid of the present case on 18.11.2008. Perusal of the record i.e. PW1/D1 reveals that the last payment qua the meter in question of regular bill was paid on 09.05.2008 and as per accused the meter in question was changed by the officials of the complainant company on 05.05.2008. Thus, from the own record of the accused, it is clear that since the month of May 2008, there was no regular bill being received. It is also clear that after the inspection on 18.11.2008, the accused approached to the office of complainant 14/22 company on 19.11.2008 and obtained a detailed bill showing the dues of Rs. 10,926.67/ with the arrears of Rs. 9705.68/ (total of Rs. 20630/). This conduct of the accused shows that he was well aware that there was no regular bill being generated. Further, the bill dated 19.11.2008 annexed with the record shows that it was in respect to the original meter installed by the complainant company and not in respect to the fake meter which was found installed at the premises of accused at the time of inspection. Moreover in his plaint itself, it has been mentioned that the fake meter declared by the complainant company was not the fake meter but was belonging to the complainant company for Laxmi Nagar Zone and this information was delivered to the accused herein by some of the officials of the complainant company. This itself shows that it was the accused who was in hand and glove with some unwanted persons and since the installation of the fake meter, he never made any complaint to the complainant company for not receiving the regular bill which corroborates that it was the accused who in connivance with unwanted persons in place of the original meter, installed the fake meter. Had it not been so, the accused must have approached to the complainant company for receiving the regular electricity bills after the alleged change of meter on 05.05.2008 when as per his own documents, there was regular bill for about Rs. 6000/ to 15000/ per month being paid by him prior to the installation of fake meter.
18. The arguments that witnesses of complainant 15/22 company have admitted that the meter change report dated 05.05.2008 appears to be of the complainant company is of no help to the accused as the witnesses are neither the author of the documents nor they are alleged to have changed the meter of the accused on 05.05.2008.
19. Further even if for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that meter of the accused was changed by the officials of the complainant company, there is no explanation on behalf of the accused as to how all the meter seals were found tampered and refixed, body found opened or when the meter was segregated in the presence of accused, one remote circuit was found connected inside the meter with PCB. The witness PW3 has categorically proved these facts in his testimony. He has also proved that on demand of electricity bill on the spot, the accused did not produce any electricity bill of the meter found installed at the time of inspection. Even the last bill dated 19.11.2008 makes it clear that it was not in respect of the fake meter. Perusal of the CD Ex. PW3/E makes it clear that the fake meter was segregated in the presence of the accused and it was found containing circuit inside the meter for direct electricity theft. Thus, in these circumstances, the argument of the accused that no lab report has been filed on record or that there is no recovery of any external device to prove the tampering in the meter are meritless. When the meter itself was found in its physical verification to be tampered with, the issue of sending 16/22 the meter to the lab for its testing becomes irrelevant as it is the practice only in case of suspected theft. Moreover when it was a fake meter, the question of sending the meter for lab testing to detect tampering in it was having no meaning.
20. Nothing has come out in the crossexamination of any of the witnesses or there is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimonies of PW1 to PW4 as their testimony remained unrebutted and unshakened despite lenghty crossexamination conducted on behalf of the accused. Thus, from the above testimonies of PWs, it is proved that at the inspected premises, there was electricity theft since the month of May 2008 by installing the fake meter by the accused who was tenant in the inspected premises and even the fake meter was found tampered by remote circuit connected inside the fake meter with PCB.
21. Thus, the ProvisoIII U/Sec.135 of Electricity Act, 2003 comes into operation and now it is for the accused to prove contrary that he was not involved in electricity theft in any manner being the consumer of the electricity.
22. The law on the point of rebuttal is well settled. Rebuttal of presumption is to be established from a "prudent men's test" making the court to believe the existence of defence of the accused. In other words, the accused is not supposed to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt under the law and if 17/22 any law shift the burden on the accused to rebut the presumption, the extent of onus to be discharged by him, which has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banjerjee" cited as 2001(6) SCC 16 in Para 20 as follows : "Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the court in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard or reason ability being that of the "prudent man".
23. No rebuttal evidence has been led in defence. Thus, in view of the aforesaid case law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme court, it can be safely held that accused has failed to rebutt the presumption arising against him under the ProvisoIII of the Electricity Act that he was involved in the direct theft of electricity on the date of inspection at the inspected premises when it has been proved on record that accused was very much present at the inspected premises and was doing the commercial/industrial activity without having any valid licence/source of electricity to consume it since May 2008.
24. There is nothing on record to suggest that there was any enmity between accused and officials of Complainant Company or he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
18/22Moreover, it has been categorically held in judgment titled as "Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Ashwani Kumar" in Civil Appeal No.3505/07 alongwith Civil Appeal No.,3506/07, decided on 08.07.2010, reported in 2010(7) SCC 569, which is reproduced for ready reference : "The report prepared by the Officer of the Electricity Board is an act done in discharge of their duties and could not be straight away reflected or disbelieve unless and until there was definite and cogent material on record to arrive at such a finding. It has been further observed in the said judgement that the inspection report is a document prepared in exercise of its official duty by the officers of the corporation. Once an act is done in accordance with law, the presumption is in favour of such act or document and not against the same. Thus, there was specific onus upon the consumer to rebut by leading proper and cogent evidence that the report prepared by the officers was not correct"
25. It is well settled principle of law that the onus to prove the false implication is on the person/accused who pleads false implication. In the present case, no cogent evidence has been brought on record by the accused that he was falsely implicated. The accused has taken a vague plea that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. During the evidence, the accused was duly identified by the witnesses. Even accused himself has admitted the inspection of the inspected premises in his presence and though he had denied that the fake meter was 19/22 not recording the consumption of unit but has failed to prove it.
26. It is to be noted that even living in the premises in question or to be present at the time of inspection with regard to theft of electricity is not necessary because of the very nature of the electricity as a substance. The presence of the accused at the spot at the time of commission of offence may be necessary like the offence of pickpocketing but for the theft of electricity, fixation or use of certain devices may be sufficient to continue the theft of electricity without the accused being personally present there and electricity as a stolen material is consumed simultaneously. Electricity is not a tangible object and therefore, even recovery of the case property may not be necessary like other cases where the case property like jewellery, cash, motor vehicle etc. may be recovered. Thus, even the defence like absence of the accused and non recovery of case property do not appeal in case of theft of electricity.
27. Further from the statement of the accused recorded U/sec.281 r/w Sec.313 Cr.P.C, it is clear that it is the accused in whose name meter was installed at the inspected premises at the time of inspection which was found removed and in place of the original meter, fake meter was found installed and though accused has stated that he will summon the record pertaining to fake meter but no such defence evidence was led. Thus, he has failed to rebutt the presumption arising against him.
20/2228. There is no dispute regarding registration of FIR Ex.PW1/A.
29. Thus, in the light of aforesaid discussion, the defence raised on behalf of the accused appears to be without any substance.
(H) CONCLUSION :
30. From the aforesaid discussion, it clearly appears that prosecution has established from the cogent evidence that an inspection was carried out on 18.11.2008 at the premises No. D 194, School Block, Nathu Colony, Delhi - 110 093 and that the said premises belongs to the accused; that there was electricity supply through fake meter which was got installed by the accused in connivance with his known persons on 05.05.2008 and there is nothing on record to suggest that the said fake meter installed in the name of present accused was showing any consumption of unit and the load was connected from the said fake meter. Had it been so, the best way for the accused was to prove bills. But he failed to do so. Thus, the State has been able to prove that there was direct theft of electricity by the present accused Vindesh Shukla at the time of inspection in the inspected premises.
31. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it has been 21/22 proved on record that it was the accused who was directly involved in the electricity theft for running the industrial activity for a connected load of 21.312 KW and this fact has been proved beyond any resonable doubt from the testimony of PW2 and PW3 coupled with the seizure of illegal and fake meter from the inspected premises no. D194, School Block, Nathu Colony, Delhi
- 110 093 as well as the CD placed on record and this theft was being done by the accused from 05.05.2008 as per his own admission of installation of the meter in question. Accordingly, the accused Vindesh Shukla is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable u/sec 135 of the Electricity Act and is also held liable for the civil liabilities for using electricity illegally for industrial purposes under section 154(5) of the Electricity Act since 05.05.2008.
Main file be consigned to record room after due compliance as per rules.
Ahlmad to prepare the misc. file for the purposes of arguments on sentence.
Be put up for arguments on sentence on 13.04.2018. Copy of judgment be given to the convict free of costs.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 09th APRIL, 2018 Digitally signed by DEVENDRA (DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA) DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA KUMAR ASJ/ SPECIAL ELECTRICITY COURT Location: Karkardooma Court SHARMA EAST DISTT./ KKD COURTS/DELHI Date: 2018.04.09 16:08:44 +0530 (Total 22 no. of pages) (One Spare copy is attached) 22/22 23/22