Karnataka High Court
C Krishnappa vs State By Cbi on 4 April, 2014
Equivalent citations: 2015 (1) AKR 286
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.583/2012
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.586/2012
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.587/2012
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.583/2012
BETWEEN:
C. KRISHNAPPA
S/O CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.3, IV CROSS
DVG ROAD, RAMAKRISHNAPPA LAYOUT,
RMV II STAGE
NAGASHETTYHALLI
BANGALORE-560 094.
AND PRESENTLY WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT
OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MALENADU DIVISION
HASSAN UNDER MYSORE CENTRAL EXCISE
COMMISSIONERATE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KIRAN. S. JAVALI, ADV., AND
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR K, ADV.,)
AND:
STATE BY CBI
C/O. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CBI, BELLARY ROAD
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENT
2
(BY SRI. P.M. NAWAZ, ADV., FOR SRI. C.H. JADHAV,
SENIOR ADV.,)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CHARGE SHEET IN SPL. C.C. NO.137/11 BEFORE THE
XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J. & SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI
CASES BANGALORE, TO THE EXTENT OF THE
PETITIONER.
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.586/2012
BETWEEN:
M/S VACUUM TECHNIQUES PVT., LTD.,
NO.2/13, I STAGE, I PHASE
PEENYA INDUTRIAL AREA
BANGALORE-560 058.
REP. BY SRI RANGA RAO
MANAGING DIRECTOR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KIRAN. S. JAVALI, ADV., AND
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR K, ADV.,)
AND:
STATE BY CBI
C/O. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CBI, BELLARY ROAD
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P.M. NAWAZ, ADV., FOR SRI. C.H.. JADHAV,
SENIOR ADV.,)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN SPL. C.C. NO.137/11 ON
THE FILE OF XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J. SPECIAL
3
JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE AS UNSUSTAINABLE
AT LAW.
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.587/2012
BETWEEN:
A. SAIBABU
S/O VENKATESHWARLU
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
C/O. M/S VACUUM TECHNIQUES PVT. LTD.,
NO.2/13, I STAGE, I PHASE
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA
BANGALORE-560 058.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KIRAN. S. JAVALI, ADV., AND
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR K, ADV.,)
AND:
STATE BY CBI
C/O. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CBI, BELLARY ROAD
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P.M. NAWAZ, ADV., FOR SRI. C.H. JADHAV,
SENIOR ADV.,)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN SPL. C.C. NO.137/11 ON
THE FILE OF XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE,
AS UNSUSTAINABLE AT LAW.
THESE CRL.RPs. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS
4
DAY, PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR J., PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These Criminal Revision Petitions under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C are against an order dated 23.05.2012 in Spl.C.C.No.137/2011 on the file of the XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases Bangalore, whereby the Court has ordered to frame the charge against the revision petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) r/w Sections 468, 471, 420 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. Revision petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 before the Special Judge in Spl.C.C.No.137/2011. Revision petitioner-C. Krishnappa is the accused No.1 working as Superintendent of Central Excise, Bangalore. Revision petitioner Sai Babu and revision petitioner V. Ranga Rao, are accused Nos.2 and 3 5 working as Manager (Accounts) and Managing Director of M/s. Vacuum Techniques Pvt. Ltd., Peenya Bangalore. M/s Vacuum Techniques Pvt. Ltd., is a company situated at Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore, engaged in manufacture of excisable goods such as rotary vacuum pumps, vacuum furnace and vacuum measuring gauges etc.,
3. The Office of the Commissioner, Central Excise, Bangalore-III Commissionerate, received credible information that accused Nos.1 to 3 entered into criminal conspiracy in the year 2008 to cheat the Central Excise Department in the matter of availment of irregular CENVAT credit facility by accused No.3 company and thereby caused a loss to the tune of Rs.16.20 lakhs to the Central Excise Department. Upon receipt of credible information, the Central Excise Department appointed an Audit Party consisting of accused No.1-C.Krishnappa, Superintendent of Central Excise-I, Smt. Doreta, Superintendent of Central Excise- II and Sri. K. Prakash the Excise Inspector to undertake 6 audit of the unit M/s Vacuum Techniques Pvt. Ltd.,. During the audit, the members Smt. Doreta and K. Prakash noticed 111 invoices on which CENVAT credit has been availed by the company which was irregular. But the accused No.1 submitted a audit report stating that only 23 invoices were found irregular by suppressing the true facts. Thereby, it has caused loss to the Department to the tune of Rs.16,20,721/- in respect of 88 invoices out of 111. As such, a crime came to registered by the CBI in NO.RC.11(A)/2010- BLR on 30.07.2010 against all the three accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 120(B) r/w Section 420 of IPC and section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. During the course of investigation, the CBI recorded the statement of the accused Nos.1 to 3 apart from statement of 17 other witnesses. The CBI collected various documents and after obtaining an order of sanction to prosecute accused No.1 being a public servant, filed a charge- sheet against all the three accused persons before the 7 Special Judge in Spl.C.C.No.137/2011. The accused appeared before the Court. The CBI and the counsel for the accused were heard by the Special Judge before framing the charge. After hearing the CBI and the defence counsel and upon perusal of entire material placed on record, by impugned order, the Court has ordered to frame charge against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 120(B) r/w Sections 468, 471, 420 of IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. Questioning the legality and correctness of order of framing of charge passed by the Special Judge, the accused Nos.1 to 3 have preferred these three separate revision petitions.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondent-CBI. Perused the records.
8
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that there is no requirement under law that the input stock should be declared to the Central Excise Department before shifting the industrial unit form one premises to another premises in order to obtain CENVAT credit facility. Due to lack of knowledge regarding the provision of law, the CBI filed charge- sheet against the petitioners holding that the company availed the CENVAT credit facility on 111 invoices even though the stock in respect of which was not available in the old factory premises in contravention of Rules 10(1) and 10(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It is further submitted that in respect of the very same charge, an adjudication proceedings were initiated by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise Department against the accused, wherein it is held by the Commissioner of Central Excise that benefit of the CENVAT credit cannot be denied to the company in respect of the impugned 111 numbers of input invoices and consequently, the imposition of penalty under 9 Section 11AC does not arise. Further, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2011 Crl.L.J. 1747 (Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal & Anr.), learned counsel submitted that when the finding is already given in adjudication proceedings by the Commissioner of Central Excise in an appeal filed by the accused and accused No.1 has been totally exonerated, continuation of criminal proceedings against them for the very same charge would be an abuse of process of Court. Hence, learned counsel sought to allow the revision petitions, set aside the impugned order and discharge the revision petitioners.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-CBI would submit that the Special Judge upon perusal of the material placed on record by the CBI and after hearing both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, held that there is a primafacie material to proceed against all the three accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 120(B) r/w Sections 468, 471, 420 of IPC and under 10 Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and thereby the Special Judge ordered to frame charge against them. The learned counsel also submitted that exoneration of the petitioners in the adjudication proceedings is not a ground to drop the criminal proceedings and hence, he sought for dismissal of the revision petitions.
8. In view of the submission made by both the learned counsel and upon consideration of the entire material placed on record and the impugned order passed by the Special Judge, the point that arises for my consideration is as under:
"Whether the impugned order of
framing charge against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 by the
Special Judge calls for my interference?"
9. The record discloses that M/s Vacuum Techniques Pvt. Ltd., is a private limited company dealing in manufacture of excisable goods such as Vacuum Measuring Gauge, Vacuum Oven, Vacuum 11 Furnace, Rotary Vacuum pumps, Vacuum Chamber etc., The company is the holder of excise registration No. AAACV4788RXM002. During the year 2008, the company wanted to shift their manufacturing unit from No.433, 4th Phase, 4th Main, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore to No.2/13, 1st Stage, 1st Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore. It is the case of the CBI that the accused Nos.2 and 3 with the help of accused No.1 have fraudulently availed irregular CENVAT credit in respect of 111 invoices as against the permission obtained in respect of 6 invoices from the old premises to new premises. After receipt of credible information, an Audit Party consisting of three members including accused No.1 was appointed to undertake the audit of the entire unit. On verification of the invoices, the members of the Audit Party found 111 invoices on which irregular CENVAT credit facility was obtained. But the accused No.1 by suppressing the true facts submitted a report in respect of only 23 invoices in order to help the company at the behest of accused 12 Nos.2 and 3 and thereby accused Nos.1 to 3 have caused loss to the tune of Rs.16,20,721/- to the Central Excise Department. So, the case came to be registered against all the three accused persons by the CBI and upon investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against all of them before Special Judge.
10. Simultaneously, a show-cause notice was issued to accused by the Additional Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III, Commissionerate, Adjudicating Authority, as to why action should not be taken against them. They gave reply denying the allegations made against them. An enquiry was held against the accused by the Additional Commissioner. During the enquiry, the accused were heard. Their statement also came to be recorded and upon consideration of entire material placed before the Additional Commissioner on 23.09.2010, the Additional Commissioner passed an order, which reads as under:
13
i. I demand the differential Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.10,45,208/- (Rupees Ten lakhs Forty five thousand Two hundred eight only) (duty Rs.10,45,857/- Ed. Cess Rs. 20,897/- Shed Rs.10,453/-) and order recovery from the Noticee - M/s. Vacuum Techniques Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore under proviso to sub section (1) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944; read with Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. ii. I also demand and confirm the amount of duty of Rs.5,10,476/- (duty Rs.4,96,517/- Ed. Cess Rs.9,310/- Shed Rs.4,649/-) under proviso to Sec.11A read with Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 and appropriate the same which has already been paid by the assessee along with Interest of Rs.68,105/-.
iii. I drop the demand involving duty of Rs.5,75,513/- in respect of 30 invoices (as detailed in Annexure-P of written submissions) on which credit has been taken in the old factory itself before transferring to the new factory.
Accordingly the balance duty of Cenvat Credit ineligible has been worked out and demanded as at Sl. No.(i) above after 14 deducting the credit involved for Rs.5,75,513/- at Sl. No.(iii) as above and Rs.5,10,476/- already reversed by the assessee and appropriate as shown at Sl. No.(ii) above.
iv. I demand and confirm amount of Rs.4,433/- being the Cenvat credit availed twice in respect of invoice No.7080090 dated 30.09.2007 and appropriate the same which has been already been paid by the assessee along with the interest of Rs.411/-.
v. I demand the Central Excise duty of Rs.27,56,747/- (duty Rs.27,02,693/- Ed Cess Rs.54,054/- and Shed Rs.27,027/-) under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act 1944 from M/s.
Vacuum Techniques Pvt, Bangalore.
vi. I demand the interest at appropriate rate from them under the provisions of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
vii. I impose penalty amounting to Rs.10,45,208/- (rupees Ten lakh Forty Five thousand and Two hundred and Eight only) equivalent to the duty and cess amounts demand at (i) above on 15 M/s.Vacuum Techniques Pvt Ltd., under Section 11AC abid.
viii. I impose equal penalty of Rs.27,56,747/-
under the provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 in respect of the duty demanded as at (v) above on M/s.
Vacuum Techniques Pvt Ltd., under
Section 11AC abid.
However, in the event the duty and
interest thereon is paid within 30 days from the date of communication of the order, the penalty shall be 25% of the duty subject to it being paid within the said period of 30 days.
ix. I also impose a penalty of Rs.5,00,000/-
under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002 on Shri.Y.Rangarao, Managing Director of M/s. Vacuum Techniques Pvt Ltd., Bangalore.
x. I also impose a penalty of Rs.3,00,000/-
under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002 on Shri.A.Saibabu, Manager Accounts of M/s. Vacuum Techniques Pvt Ltd., Bangalore.
11. Thus, the Additional Commissioner the Adjudicating Authority found them guilty and thereby 16 accused were ordered to pay the Central Excise duty and penalty. Against the order of Additional Commissioner, they preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority i.e., Commissioner (appeals-II). The moot point for consideration before the Appellate Authority was whether the company fraudulently availed CENVAT credit on the strength of 111 invoices without declaring input stocks to the department before transferring the unit from old premises to new premises. The Appellate authority has considered this aspect in para 24 of its order which reads as under:
"24. Thus, from the decisions given by the Hon'ble Tribunal being upheld by the Hon'ble High Court and maintained by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that not only the CENVAT credit attributable only to the inputs as such or under process can be transferred to the new unit but also the CENVAT credit attributable to the inputs already consumed in the old unit can also be transferred to the new unit. Therefore this being the legal position of the provisions of Rule 10 of the CCR 2004, the Department proceeding on the 17 premise that the inputs in respect of the impugned 111 number of invoices were not available physically with them at the time of shifting their factory premises and therefore the Appellants are not eligible for the credit in respect of 111 number of invoices, as alleged in the SCN issued and confirmation of the same by the Original Adjudicating authority in the impugned Order is unfounded and is contrary to the provisions of Rule 10 of CCR 2004 and is not sustainable in Law. Further, the CENVAT credit attributable to these 111 number of invoices amounting to Rs.21,31,197/- has not figured in the amount of CENVAT credit sought to be transferred in the Declaration filed by the Appellants and the permission given by JAC of E-2 Division, if this be the case, the question of transfer of stock of inputs as such or in process, in respect of these 111 number of invoices does not arise at all in terms of Rule 10(3) of CCR 2004. On this count also the Original Adjudicating authority's finding does not hold any water."18
12. Rule 10 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 provides for Transfer of CENVAT credit. It reads as under:
"RULE 10. Transfer of CENVAT credit.-
(1) If a manufacturer of the final products shifts his factory to another site or the factory is transferred on account of change in ownership or on account of sale, merger, amalgamation, lease or transfer of the factory to a joint venture with the specific provision for transfer of liabilities of such factory, then, the manufacturer shall be allowed to transfer the CENVAT credit lying unutilized in his accounts to such transferred, sold, merged, leased or amalgamated factory.
(2) If a provider of output service shifts or transfers his business on account of change in ownership or on account of sale, merger, amalgamation, lease or transfer of the business to a joint venture with the specific provision for transfer of liabilities of such business, then, the provider of output service shall be allowed to transfer the CENVAT credit lying unutilized in his accounts to such transferred, sold, merged, leased or amalgamated business.19
(3) The transfer of the CENVAT credit under sub-rules (1) and (2) shall be allowed only if the stock of inputs as such or in process, or the capital goods is also transferred along with the factory or business premises to the new site or ownership and the inputs, or capital goods, on which credit has been availed of are duly accounted for to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or, as the case may be, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise.
13. It has been observed by the Appellate Authority in para 25 of its order that the department having accepted the fact that the inputs in respect of 111 number of invoices were received and were accounted in the GRN Register, maintained in the old unit, and that the same were utilized in the manufacture of final products in their old unit, there is no justification in invoking the provisions of Rule 10(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in view of the facts and circumstances of the case that the inputs held by the company were consumed in the old unit itself for 20 the manufacture of final products. Thus, the Appellate Authority has come to the conclusion that from the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, no case has been made out against the appellants (accused) that the inputs have been disposed of by the appellants in contravention of the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and thereby, they have caused loss of revenue to the Government Exchequer. It is further observed that the department has admitted that the inputs received in the old unit in fact had been duly accounted for and have been utilized in the manufacture of their final products. Only because the company has not shifted the inputs to the new premises at the time of shifting the manufacturing unit in respect of 111 invoices, it cannot be said that the company has fraudulently availed CENVAT Credit facility on the strength of those invoices. If that is the case, as observed by the Appellate Authority, then there is nothing as against accused No.1 the Superintendent of Excise-I to show that he conspired with the accused 21 Nos.2 and 3 and the company fraudulently availed CENVAT credit on the strength of 111 invoices. In that case, framing of charges against accused No.1 will serve no purpose. It appears, because of lack of knowledge regarding the provision of law, the CBI filed charge- sheet as against the accused. Needless to say that in the criminal proceedings, the burden is heavy and the charges are to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. When the Appellate authority of the Central Excise Department itself has come to the conclusion on merits that there is no contravention of the provisions of Rule 10 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, filing of charge-sheet against the accused No.1 on the ground that there is violation of Rule 10(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is not sustainable. It is for this reason, the appellate Authority has modified the order passed by the Original Adjudicating Authority exonerating accused No.1. The operative portion of the order passed by the Appellate Authority reads as under:
22
"I modify the impugned Order-in-Original No.05/2010 dated 23/27.09.2010, passed by the Original adjudicating authority read with the corrigendum issued to the impugned Order dated 18.10.2010, as follows:
i. I set aside the demand of the
differential Central Excise Duty
amounting to Rs.10,45,208/- as
demanded by the Original Adjudicating Authority, at Sl.No.i of the order, under proviso to Section 11 A (1) of the Act and the order for recovery of the same from the appellants.
ii. I also set aside the demand Central
Excise Duty of Rs.5,10,476/- as
demanded by the Original Adjudicating Authority, at Sl.No.ii of his order, under proviso to Section 11 A r/w Rule 14 of the CCR 2004 and in consequence, the payment of the applicable interest of Rs.68,105/- does not arise.
Accordingly, I set aside the order for appropriation of the demanded amount and the applicable interest, paid by the appellants.
iii. In consequence to my order at Sl.No.1, above, the question of imposition of 23 equal penalty amounting to Rs.10,45,208/- under the provisions of Section 11 Assistant Commissioner of the Act, does not sustain and accordingly, I set aside the imposition of penalty as ordered by the Original Adjudicating Authority at Sl.No.vii of his order.
iv. Accordingly, I allow the appeal filed by the appellants (Company) to the extent as ordered above with consequential relief.
v. I uphold the demand and confirmation of Rs.4,433/- being the CENVAT credit availed twice in respect of invoice No.7080090 dated 30.09.2007 and the appropriation of the same, paid by the appellants alongwith the applicable interest of Rs.411/- as ordered by the Original Adjudicating Authority at Sl.No.iv of his order. Further, I impose equal penalty of Rs.4,433/- U/s 11 AC of the Act and allow the application filed by the Department to this extent.
vi. I also uphold the demand of Rs.17,75,834/- under the proviso to Section 11 A(1) of the Act and applicable 24 interest U/s 11 AB of the Act., from the appellants, in respect of the non inclusion of the value of the imported items in the value of the Vacuum Furnaces cleared as such by them to their customer, as demanded by the Original Adjudicating Authority at Sl.No.v & vi of his order.
vii. I also uphold the imposition of equal penalty of Rs.17,75,834/- U/s 11 AC of the Act on the appellants, as imposed by the Original Adjudicating Authority at Sl.No.vii of his order.
viii. Accordingly, I reject the appeal filed by the appellants to the extent as ordered by me at Sl.No.vi and vii above.
ix. However, after taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case holistically and the partial upholding of the impugned Order supra and partially allowing of the appeals filed by the appellants, I reduce the imposition of penalty U/r 26 of CER 2002 on the Managing Director of the appellate company to Rs.2.5 lakhs and on the Manager Accounts of the appellate company to Rs.1.5 lakhs.25
x. In terms of my findings supra, I reject the Application filed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III Commissionerate, (allotted with appeal No.04/2011 by this office) in respect of imposition of equal penalty in terms of Section 11 AC of the Act, equal to duty of Rs.5,10,476/- demanded under proviso to Section 11 A of the Act."
14. Thus, from the perusal of the entire material placed on record by the CBI and the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, there remains nothing to continue the prosecution against the accused No.1 Superintendent of Excise-I. The ratio laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2011 Crl.L.J. 1747 (Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal & Anr.) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners is aptly applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The ratio reads as under:
"Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (46 of 1973), Ss, 51, 56 - Adjudication and prosecution for contravention of Act - Are 26 independent proceedings - Prosecution can be launched even before decision in adjudication proceedings - Finding in adjudication proceedings - Not binding in prosecution - However, if both proceedings are initiated on same facts - And exoneration of accused in adjudication proceedings is on merits - Continuance of prosecution would be abuse of process of Court".
15. But, so far as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the Appellate Authority found irregularity committed by accused Nos.2 and 3 and thereby imposed a fine of Rs.2.5 lakhs to accused No.3 Managing Director of the company and Rs.1.5 lakhs to the accused No.2 Manager (Accounts). So, there is a material to frame charge against accused Nos.2 and 3. Hence, I pass the following order.
Crl.R.P.No.583/2012 is allowed.
Crl.R.P.Nos.586/2012 and 587/2012 are dismissed.
27
Consequently, the order as to the framing of charge against revision petitioner C. Krishnappa/accused No.1 is hereby set aside while confirming the order of framing of charge against accused Nos.2 and 3.
Sd/-
JUDGE PMR