Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Navjeet Singh Sobti vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 29 September, 2016
Author: R. K. Bag
Bench: R. K. Bag
Form No. J(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
Hon'ble Justice R. K. Bag.
CRR N0.3363 of 2014
Navjeet Singh Sobti
V.
Central Bureau of Investigation
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhrajit Mitra,
Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee,
Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee,
Mr. Amit Agarwalla,
Mr. Anirudha Agarwalla,
Ms. Farnaz Nazim,
For the CBI : Mr. Asraf Ali,
Heard on : 24.08.2016
Judgement on : 29.09.2016
R. K. Bag, J.
The petitioner, Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of M/s Almondz Global Securities Ltd., previously known as M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. has preferred this revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated August 11, 2014 passed by Learned Judge, Special C.B.I. Court No.2, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta in connection with Special (CBI) Case No.38 of 2011 corresponding to Special Case No.33 of 2008, by which Learned Judge of the court below framed charge against the petitioner under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The backdrop of the present revisional application is as follows: The opposite party, Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as C.B.I.) registered first information report bearing no.RC0102007A0030 on August 14, 2007 against one Ram Krishna Ganguly, Senior Accounts Officer, Kolkata Port Trust on the allegation that surplus funds of Non-Contributory Provident Fund of Kolkata Port Trust to the tune of Rs.18 crore were invested with Housing and Urban Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as HUDCO) through M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. in violation of guidelines of Government of India and without approval of the Board of Trustees of Kolkata Port Trust. The Vigilance Department of Kolkata Port Trust made an inquiry and confirmed that the said investment was made by Ram Krishna Ganguly, the then Senior Accounts Officer of Kolkata Port Trust by manipulating endorsement on the application form for investment of fund and by writing a separate letter to the HUDCO through broker, M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. and thereby he obtained undue gain by favouring M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. to earn commission to the tune of Rs.18 lakh. It is alleged that some other persons are also involved in conspiracy with Ram Krishna Ganguly in committing forgery and cheating for the purpose of assisting and aiding M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. to make wrongful gain as broker for investment of fund by Kolkata Port Trust with HUDCO.
3. The C.B.I. investigated the criminal case and submitted chargesheet against Ram Krishna Ganguly, Senior Accounts Officer, Kolkata Port Trust and M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. on the allegation of committing offence punishable under Sections 420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The C.B.I. also carried out further investigation and submitted supplementary Chargesheet under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecution of the petitioner as the Managing Director of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. for the offence punishable under Sections 120B/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. The chargesheet submitted by the C.B.I. indicates that Kolkata Port Trust Non-Contributory Provident Fund is managed by the Board of Trustees consisting of the Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Financial Adviser, and the Chief Accounts Officer of Kolkata Port Trust. The funds lying in Non-Contributory Provident Fund are managed by Senior Accounts Officer, subject to the control of the Trustees as per provisions of the Kolkata Port Trust Non-Contributory Provident Fund Regulations of 1988. Ram Krishna Ganguly, the then Senior Accounts Officer of Provident Fund Section was responsible for the management of surplus funds lying in Kolkata Port Trust Non- Contributory Provident Fund during the year 2004. There are guidelines and circulars of Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of India for investment of surplus funds lying in the Non- Contributory Provident Fund of Kolkata Port Trust by making direct investment in promissory notes, debentures, stocks and securities of the Central Government, and not through any broker.
5. On May 27, 2004 Ram Krishna Ganguly initiated a note for investment of Rs.10 crore lying surplus in Non-Contributory Provident Fund of Kolkata Port Trust in public deposit scheme of HUDCO for fetching a return of 6% per annum. The proposal was approved by the Board of Trustees. Accordingly, cheque bearing no.390353 dated May 28, 2004 was issued in favour of HUDCO along with an application dated May 28, 2004 for investment of Rs.10 crore directly with HUDCO for a period of 36 months. The HUDCO appointed a number of brokers including M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. for mobilisation of deposits under their public deposit schemes for the year 2004. The authorised brokers were paid commission on the deposits in case of mobilisation of institutional deposits of more than Rs.one crore. One Arpita Dey, Business Executive of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. was liasoning with the officials of Finance Department of Kolkata Port Trust for deposit mobilisation. While Ram Krishna Ganguly handed over the cheque and the letter for investment of Rs.10 crore with HUDCO through Arpita Dey, she asked Ram Krishna Ganguly to make an endorsement on the application form to indicate that the investment is being made through M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. and Ram Krishna Ganguly did so on the original application to be submitted to HUDCO without obtaining approval from the Board of Trustees and without making the same endorsement on the copy of the application kept in the office. It is revealed during investigation that the investment was made through M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. by making an endorsement of the name of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. on the top of deposit application form, whereas the copy of the application form kept in the office bears endorsement that the investment is being made directly with HUDCO. Arpita Dey got the cheque of Rs.10 crore along with application form for deposit of the said amount with HUDCO and invested the same with HUDCO and obtained the fixed deposit receipt issued in the name of Kolkata Port Trust Non-Contributory Provident Fund, which was handed over to the Finance Department of Kolkata Port Trust and thereby 1% commission on Rs.10 crore was collected by M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. The cheque of Rs.9,48,750/- was issued in favour of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. by HUDCO after deduction of TDS and the said cheque was encashed and credited to the bank account maintained by M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. at HDFC Bank, Asaf Ali Branch, New Delhi.
6. Similarly, on September 15, 2004, Ram Krishna Ganguly initiated another note for investment of Rs.8 crore lying surplus in Kolkata Port Trust Non-Contributory Provident Fund for investment in public deposit scheme of HUDCO for fetching a return of 6 % per annum on the said amount. The Board of Trustees approved the recommendation for investment of Rs.8 crore in public deposit scheme of HUDCO for a period of 36 months. Ram Krishna Ganguly handed over to Arpita Dey of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. the cheque of Rs.8 crore issued in favour of HUDCO along with an application dated October 11, 2004 addressed to HUDCO for investment. It is alleged that the seal of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. was affixed on the original application form on two places which was submitted to HUDCO for issuance of fixed deposit receipt, while the copy of the application form kept in the office indicates that the investment is being made directly with HUDCO. Arpita Dey of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. deposited the cheque and the application form with HUDCO and collected the fixed deposit receipt which was handed over to the officer of the Finance Department of Kolkata Port Trust. M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. received commission @ 1% on the deposit amount. M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. also collected fund from West Bengal State Electricity Board to the tune of Rs.13 crore and deposited the same with HUDCO and received commission of Rs.21 lakh on the entire amount of investment. The HUDCO issued cheque of Rs.19,90,220/- in favour of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. after deduction of TDS on total amount of Rs.21 lakh and the said cheque was encashed and credited to the bank account of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. maintained at Standard & Chartered Bank, New Delhi. The first chargesheet was submitted against Ram Krishna Ganguly and M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. for making wrongful gain by illegal and corrupt means and by making conspiracy with each other.
7. During further investigation of the case by C.B.I., it is disclosed that Ram Krishna Ganguly abused his official position for making undue favour to M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. to earn commission of Rs.18 lakh from the investment of funds of Non-Contributory Provident Fund of Kolkata Port Trust with HUDCO. The present petitioner was the Managing Director of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. during the period of the transaction from May 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004. He was managing the affairs of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. and he was solely authorised to operate the bank account of the company individually, while other Directors were authorised to operate the bank account jointly. The supplementary chargesheet was filed against the present petitioner as he was solely responsible for running and managing the affairs of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. during the period when Ram Krishna Ganguly permitted M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. to earn commission of Rs.18 lakh by practising fraud and committing cheating and making conspiracy with the officers of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. The C.B.I., thus, filed supplementary chargesheet against the present petitioner, along with Ram Krishna Ganguly and M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. on the allegation of committing offence punishable under Sections 420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On August 11, 2014 the trial court framed charge against the present petitioner under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the prayer of the petitioner for discharge from the criminal case was turned down by the trial court. The said order is under challenge in this revision at the instance of the petitioner.
8. Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends that the petitioner was the Managing Director of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. and in that capacity he was authorised to operate the bank account of the said company individually, while other Directors could have operated the bank account of the said company jointly. He further contends that M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. was appointed as broker by HUDCO for mobilisation of institutional deposit for their public deposit schemes for the year 2004. According to Mr. Mitra, the C.B.I. has not collected any material to indicate that the petitioner was involved in any conspiracy in mobilisation of fund of HUDCO from Kolkata Port Trust through M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. What transpires from the supplementary chargesheet and other documents supplied to the petitioner under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that one Arpita Dey was liasoning with the officers of Finance Department of Kolkata Port Trust for investment of surplus funds of Non-Contributory Provident Fund of Kolkata Port Trust with HUDCO through M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. as broker. The application forms for investment of Rs.18 crore by Kolkata Port Trust with HUDCO along with two cheques of Rs.10 crore and Rs.8 crore respectively issued in favour of HUDCO by Kolkata Port Trust were handed over to Arpita Dey by Ram Krishna Ganguly, Senior Accounts Officer of Kolkata Port Trust with specific endorsement to invest the funds through M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. Mr. Mitra argues that even if there is any criminal liability on the part of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. the petitioner being the Managing Director of the said company cannot be prosecuted on wrong application of the principle of "alter ego". Mr. Mitra has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in "Sunil Bharti Mittal V. Central Bureau of Investigation" reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609 in support of his above contention. According to Mr. Mitra, no offence is made out against the petitioner and as such the continuation of criminal prosecution by framing charge against the petitioner under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code is an abuse of the process of the court.
9. Mr. Asraf Ali, Learned Counsel representing C.B.I. has referred to various statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to impress upon the court that the petitioner had knowledge about the income of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. through commission from HUDCO for mobilisation of fund from Kolkata Port Trust. Mr. Ali has pointed out from the materials available in the case diary that the petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. and he used to look after the management and day-to-day affairs of the said company and he used to operate the bank account of the said company individually, while other Directors or the officials of the said company used to operate the bank account jointly. According to Mr. Ali, the petitioner being the "alter ego" of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. is liable to be prosecuted along with the said company for the offence of cheating and criminal conspiracy. Mr. Ali has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in "Sunil Bharti Mittal V. Central Bureau of Investigation" reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609, "Iridium India Telecom Ltd. V. Motorola Incorporated and others" reported in (2011) 1 C.Cr.LR (SC) 12 and "Suman Sood V. State of Rajasthan" reported in (2007) 5 SCC 634 in support of his above contention. According to Mr. Ali, the trial court has rightly framed the charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
10. The question which calls for determination of the court is whether the C.B.I. collected sufficient materials during further investigation of the case for prosecuting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The chargesheet submitted by C.B.I. indicates that the Board of Trustees approved the proposal of Ram Krishna Ganguly, Senior Accounts Officer of Kolkata Port Trust for investment of surplus funds to the tune of Rs.18 crore directly with HUDCO for a period of 36 months for fetching a return of 6% per annum. Ram Krishna Ganguly being entrusted with the duty to manage surplus funds lying in Non-Contributory Provident Fund of Kolkata Port Trust, invested Rs.18 crore in public deposit scheme of HUDCO through M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. which was engaged as broker by HUDCO in 2004. This investment was made by Ram Krishna Ganguly in violation of the approval obtained from the Board of Trustees of Kolkata Port Trust. The materials collected by C.B.I. during investigation of the criminal case indicate that Ram Krishna Ganguly made an endorsement on the original application forms submitted to HUDCO to the effect that the investment is being made through M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. and the cheques were handed over accordingly to Arpita Dey, Business Executive of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. The office copy of the application forms for investment of funds with HUDCO indicates that the funds were invested directly with HUDCO and not through any broker like M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. The materials collected by C.B.I. go to show that M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. was engaged as broker by HUDCO for mobilisation of funds for the public deposit schemes on payment of 1% commission for mobilisation of institutional deposits exceeding Rs.1 crore. One Arpita Dey, Business Executive of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. was liasoning with the officials of Finance Department of Kolkata Port Trust in general and with Ram Krishna Ganguly in particular for collection of funds from Kolkata Port Trust for investment in public deposit schemes of HUDCO. The commission of Rs.18 lakh received by M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. after deduction of TDS is established from two cheques issued in favour of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. by HUDCO and for encashment of those cheques through the bank account of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. The C.B.I. collected materials to establish that the present petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. and he is the sole authority to operate the bank account of the said company individually, while other Directors of the said company can operate the bank account jointly. On the basis of the above evidence the C.B.I. submitted supplementary chargesheet against the present petitioner for prosecution under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
11. On perusal of the materials available in the case diary, I find how Ram Krishna Ganguly forged the endorsement of engaging M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. on two application forms for deposit of funds in public deposit schemes of HUDCO by Kolkata Port Trust. It appears from the statements of Nirmal Kumar Ghosh, Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, Kolkata Port Trust, Arpita Dey, Assistant Vice-President of M/s Almondz Global Securities Ltd., Patras Munda, Vigilance Officer, Kolkata Port Trust, J. B. Sarkar, Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Kolkata Port Trust, Prabir Chakraborty, Officer, Internal Services, Standard & Chartered Bank, Subba Rao, Deputy Chief Manager HUDCO, V. T. Subramanian, Chief Officer, Regional Office Kolkata, HUDCO and Dr. Tulsi John attached to HUDCO how Ram Krishna Ganguly aided and abetted M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. for mobilising institutional funds for HUDCO in order to earn commission to the tune of Rs.18 lakh. However, statement of Rajiv Lochan Jha, Secretary, M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. and statement of Tejprakash Shani, Registrar of Companies at New Delhi go to establish that the petitioner was the Managing Director of Allianz Securities Ltd. from May, 2004 to February, 2005. Similarly, various minutes of meeting of Board of Directors of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. and the statements of Amit Kurich, Assistant Manager (Internal Servicing), Standard & Chartered Bank and statement of Nishit Jagmohan, Manager (Operational) HDFC Bank and statement of Arindam Biswas, Senior Vice-President & Regional Head, East, M/s Almondz Global Securities Ltd. indicate that the petitioner could operate bank account of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. individually, while other Directors could operate the bank account of the said company jointly. There is no iota of evidence to indicate that the petitioner had knowledge about the forgery committed by Ram Krishna Ganguly in making endorsement of name of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. in two application forms submitted by Kolkata Port Trust to HUDCO for investment of Rs.18 crore in public deposit schemes of HUDCO for a period of 36 months. The argument advanced by Learned Counsel for C.B.I. that the petitioner being the "alter ego" of the company, M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. is liable to be prosecuted along with the company for the offence committed by the company cannot be accepted, as the principle is sought to be applied in reverse direction.
12. In "Iridium India Telecom Ltd. V. Motorola Incorporated and others"
reported in (2011) 1 C.Cr.LR (S.C.) 12 the question which fell for consideration is whether a company could be prosecuted for an offence which requires mens rea and the Supreme Court discussed this aspect at length by taking into consideration the law that prevailed in America and England. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in "Iridium India Telecom Ltd. (supra) is that the criminal intent of "alter ego" of the company/body corporate i.e. person or group of persons that guide the business of the company, would be imputed to the company/corporation. In the instant case, the trial court has proceeded against the petitioner by framing charge under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code along with M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. on the premise that the petitioner is the "alter ego" of the said company. In other words, the trial court has attributed criminal liability to the petitioner solely on the ground that he is the "alter ego" of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. being its Managing Director, when there are no materials to ascribe any incriminating role to the petitioner in committing either cheating or criminal conspiracy. So, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of "Iridium India Telecom Ltd." (supra) and as such the ratio of the said report cannot be made applicable in the facts of the present case.
13. The Supreme Court has clarified in unambiguous term how the principle of "alter ego" is applicable for attributing criminal liability to the company in "Sunil Bharti Mittal V. Central Bureau of Investigation" reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609. In this case the special Magistrate invoked the principle of "alter ego" for issuing summons against Sunil Bharti Mittal without recording his satisfaction by describing the role played by Sunil Bharti Mittal for bringing him within the ambit of criminal law. The reasons for issuing summons was that Sunil Bharti Mittal and other persons were in control of affairs of their respective companies and they represented the directing mind and will of their respective companies and thereby they were described as "alter ego" of their respective companies. By setting aside the order of issuance of summons the Supreme Court has laid down that the criminal intent of "alter ego" of the company would be imputed to the company/corporation. The legal proposition, laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph 40 of the judgment is that if the person or group of persons who control the affairs of the company commits an offence with a criminal intent, their criminality can be imputed to the company as they are "alter ego" of the company. This principle was wrongly applied by Learned Special Magistrate for issuing summons against the Director of the company. The circumstances when the Director or person in-charge of the affairs of the company can be prosecuted, when the company is an accused person are enumerated by the Supreme Court in paragraph 42, 43, 44 of the said judgment, which are as follows:
"42. No doubt, a corporate entity is an artificial person which acts through its officers, Directors, Managing Director, Chairman, etc. If such a company commits an offence involving mens rea, it would normally be the intent and action of that individual who would act on behalf of the company. It would be more so, when the criminal act is that of conspiracy. However, at the same time, it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides so.
43. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a company can be made an accused, along with the company, if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent. Second situation in which he can be implicated is in those cases where the statutory regime itself attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability, by specifically incorporating such a provision.
44. When the company is the offender, vicarious liability of the Directors cannot be imputed automatically, in the absence of any statutory provision to this effect. One such example is Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ......"
14. In the present case Mr. Ali has prayed for application of the principle of "alter ego" to prosecute the present petitioner along with M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. as the present petitioner was the Managing Director of the said company and was authorised to operate the bank accounts of the said company individually. In my view the C.B.I. has prayed for application of the principle of "alter ego" in an exactly reverse scenario, because the acts of the company cannot be attributed and imputed to the petitioner. The proposition sought to be applied by the trial court for prosecuting the petitioner as the Managing Director of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. will run contrary to the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence. There is no principle of vicarious liability applicable to the offences punishable under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. Nor is there any shred of evidence collected by C.B.I for attributing criminal liability to the petitioner as the Managing Director of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. So, the ratio of "Sunil Bharti Mittal" (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case where the petitioner being the Managing Director of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. is sought to be prosecuted on the principle of "alter ego" of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd, which according to the Supreme Court, is not permissible under the law.
15. In "Suman Sood V. State of Rajasthan" reported in (2007) 5 SCC 634 the Supreme Court dealt with the offence of criminal conspiracy for ransom. In this report the Supreme Court held how far the conspirator can have knowledge about kidnapping for ransom when the conspirator lived in the same house along with the principal accused and the victim. The facts of the reported case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case where the Managing Director of a company is sought to be prosecuted on the basis of wrong application of the principle of "alter ego" of the company, in the absence of any other evidence for attributing criminal liability to the petitioner. So, the ratio of "Suman Sood"
(supra) cannot be made applicable in the facts of the present case.
16. By applying the principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in "Sunil Bharti Mittal V. Central Bureau of Investigation" reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609 in the facts of the present case I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted as the "alter ego" of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd., when the C.B.I. has failed to collect materials to indicate the involvement of the petitioner either in the conspiracy in mobilisation of institutional funds of Rs.18 crore for HUDCO to earn commission of 1% or involvement of the petitioner in committing the offence of cheating for collection of surplus funds to the tune of Rs.18 crore from Kolkata Port Trust for investment in the public deposit schemes of HUDCO through M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. The logical inference of my entire above observation is that the petitioner cannot be compelled to face the criminal trial for the offence punishable under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code by making wrong application of the principle of "alter ego" of M/s Allianz Securities Ltd. in the absence of any evidence showing involvement of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The order of framing charge against the petitioner by the trial court is, thus, liable to be set aside. The trial court is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if sufficient evidence is available against the petitioner at any stage of trial of the case. Accordingly, the order dated August 11, 2014 passed by Learned Judge, Special CBI Court No.2, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta in connection with Special (CBI) Case No.38 of 2011 corresponding to Special Case No.33 of 2008 is hereby set aside, so far as the framing of charge against the present petitioner is concerned and the petitioner is, thus, discharged from the said case. Accordingly, the revisional application is allowed.
Let a copy of this judgment and order be supplied to the Learned Judge of the Court below for favour of information and necessary action.
The urgent photostat certified copy of the judgement and order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis after compliance with all necessary formalities.
(R. K. Bag, J.)