Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sachin vs Honble The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh ... on 4 November, 2025
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:55452
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE
BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE
BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 4th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 26421 of 2023
SACHIN
Versus
HON'BLE THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SEAT OF JABALPUR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri A.Rajeshwar Rao - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shreyas Pandit - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble ble Shri Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Chief Justice
1. Petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Sehore; whereby the District and Sessions Judge Sehore rejected the candidature of the petitioner for being appointed to the post of Assistant Grade Grade-III III on the ground of concealment of the involvement in a criminal case.
2. An advertisement was published by the High court on 12.11.2021 seeking applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Assista Grade-III.
2NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:55452 Petitioner submitted the application, however, in the application form the petitioner, to the query as to whether he had been involved in any criminal proceedings either before the Police or before a Court and whether the same were pending or disposed of, he had answered in the "Negative Negative".
3. Petitioner thereafter participated in the Preliminary Examination, Mains Examination as also in the interview and cleared all of them. However, at the time of fi filling up of the verification form, petitioner disclosed that he had been involved in an FIR under sections 294, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal C Code,, which was registered on account of an incident that took place in the Coaching Institute where petitioner had gone for taking coaching.. He was prevented from attending the classes as he was not carrying a physical copy of the identity card, which led to an altercation and cross FIRs were registered both against the students and the staff of the coaching institute. Subsequently, the dispu disputes were compromised and the criminal cases were compounded and petitioner was acquitted.
4. Onn being made aware of the said involvement through the verification form, the District and Sessions Judge passed the impugned order dated 05.10.2023 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of concealment of the required information in the application form. The sole reason for rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is the non-disclosure non of involvement in the criminal case in the application form.
5. It is not in dispute that in the affidavit submitted by the petitioner at the time of verification petitioner has disclosed about the registration of an FIR and the subsequent proceedings thereon. FIR was registered in the year 3 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:55452 2016 and petitioner was acquitted on 12.11.2016 pursuant to a compromise between the parties.
6. The question is as to whether every non-disclosure or concealment of involvement in a criminal case is an absolute bar to appointment or it is open to the appointing authority to take into account the nature of incident, the extent of involvement involvement, the result of the proceedings and the nature of job and then en to take a holistic view and determine as to whether the candidate is suitable or unsuitable for appointment?
7. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 5 SCC 264;
264 wherein the Supreme Court ourt has held as under ::-
"22. The law on this issue is settled by a three three-Judge Judge Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 :
(2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] . Paras 34, 35, 36 and 38, which sets out the conclusions, are ex extracted hereinbelow : (SCC pp. 506-508) "34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects.
35. Suppression of "material" information presupposes that what is suppressed that "matters" not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consid consideration eration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases.4
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:55452
36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher po post st would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature ooff duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.
***** ***** *****
38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them asfar as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summari summarise our conclusion thus:
38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.
38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the Government Orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where con conviction viction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:
38.4.1. In a case trivial in natur naturee in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact oor false information by condoning the lapse.5
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:55452 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving nvolving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may taktakee appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.
38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of sup suppression pression or submitting false information in verification form.
38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information 6 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:55452 not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.
him."
(emphasis supplied)
23. As would be clear fr from Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] , it has been clearly laid down that though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment, he or she has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily. The exercise of power has to be in a reasonable manner with objectivity and having due regard to the facts. In short, the ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria after due consideration of all relevant aspe aspects.
24. Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 :
(2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] also noticed the judgment in Commr. of Police v. Sandeep Kumar [Commr. of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 426 : (2011) 1 SCC (L& (L&S) S) 734] . In Sandeep Kumar [Commr. of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 426 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 734] , this Court set out the story of the character "
"Jean Valjean" in Victor Hugo'ss novel Les Miserables, where the character was branded as a thief for stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family. It also discussed the classic judgment of Lord Denning in Morris v. Crown Office [Morris v. Crown Office, (1970) 2 QB 114 : (1970) 2 WLR 792 (CA)] and concluded as follows : (Sandeep K Kumar umar case [Commr. of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 426 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 734] , SCC pp. 646646-47, 47, paras 10-12) 10 "10. ... In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning.
11. As already observed above, youth often commits indiscretions, which are often condoned.
12. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was 7 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:55452 not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter.
matter."
25. Thereafter, in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union ion of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] dealing with Sandeep Kumar [Commr. of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 426 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 734] , this Court observed as under : (Avtar Singh case [Avtar Singh v. Union nion of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] , SCC p. 500, para 24) "24. ... This Court has observed that suppression related to a case when the age of Sandeep Kumar was about 20 years. He was young and at such age people often commit indiscret indiscretions ions and such indiscretions may often be condoned. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him a criminal all his life. In Morris v. Crown Office [Morris v. Crown Office, (1970) 2 QB 114 : (1970) 2 WLR 792 (CA)] , the observati observations ons made were that young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no violence, dishonesty or vice in them. They were trying to preserve the Welsh language. Though they have done wrong but we must show mercy on them and they were permitted to go back to ttheirheir studies, to their parents and continue the good course.
course."
26. In Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. [Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., (2011) 14 SCC 709 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 773] , another case noticed and discussed in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016)
016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] arising out of near identical facts and construing a similar clause in the verification form, this Court, while granting relief, held as follows : (Ram Kumar case [Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., (2011) 14 SCC 709 : (20 (2013)
13) 2 SCC (L&S) 773] , SCC pp. 711-13, 711 paras 9, 12-14 14 and 17)
17)"
" 9. We have carefully read the Government Order dated 2828-4 4-1958 on the subject "Verification Verification of the character and antecedents of government servants before their first appointment appointment" and it is stated in the Government Order that the Governor has been pleased to lay down the following instructions in supersession of all the previous orders:
'The The rule regarding character of candidate for appointment under the State Government shall continue to be as follows:
The character of a candidate for direct appointment must be such as to render him suitable in all respects for employment in the 8 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:55452 service or post to which he is to be appointed. It would be the duty of the appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point.' ***** ***** *****
12. On a reading of the order dated 18 18-7-2002 2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate it would show that the sole witness examined before the court, PW 1, Mr Akhilesh Kumar, had deposed before the court that on 2-12-2000 2000 at 4.00 p.m. children were quarrelling and at that time the appellant, Shailendra and Ajay Kumar amongst other neighbours had reached there and someone from the crowd hurled abuses and in the scuffle Akhilesh Kumar got injured when he fell and hi hiss head hit a brick platform and that he was not beaten by the accused persons by any sharp weapon. In the absence of any other witness against the appellant, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 323 323/34/504IPC.
/34/504IPC. On these facts, it was not at all possible for the appointing authority to take a view that the appellant was not suitable for appointment to the post of a police constable.
13. The order dated 18 18-7-2002 2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rate had been sent along with the report dated 15 15-1-2007 of Jaswant Nagar Police Station to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, but it appears from the order dated 88--8-2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, that he has not gone into the question as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to service or to the post of constable in which he was appointed and he has only held that the selection of the appellant was illegal and irregular because he did not furnish in hi hiss affidavit in the pro forma of verification roll that a criminal case has been registered against him.
14. As has been stated in the instructions in the Government Order dated 28-44-1958, 1958, it was the duty of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, as the appointing authority, to satisfy himself on the point as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of a constable, with reference to the nature of suppression and nature of the criminal case. Instead of considering whether ththee appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of male constable, the appointing authority has mechanically held that his selection was irregular and illegal because the appellant had furnished an affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the time oof recruitment.
9
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:55452
***** ***** *****
17. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the order [Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. Writ-A A No. 40674 of 2007, order dated 30--8-2007 2007 (All)] of the learned Single Judge and the impugned order [Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., 2009 SCC OnLine All 2622] of the Division Bench and allow the writ petition of the appellant and quash the order dated 88-8-2007 2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. The appellant will be taken back in service within a period of two months from today but he will not be entitled to any back wages for the period he has remained out of service. There shall be no order as to costs."
costs.
(emphasis in original)
27. More recently in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India [Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 317] , involving appointment to the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force and setting aside the order of discharge due to alleged suppression in the verification form, this Court, after noticing Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] held as under : (Pawan Kumar case [Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 317] , SCC paras 11, 13 & 20) "11. This cannot be disputed that the candidate who intends to participate te in the selection process is always required to furnish correct information relating to his character and antecedents in the verification/attestation form before and after induction into service. It is also equally true that the person who has suppressed the material information or has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised by the competent aut authority hority in a reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case on hand. It goes without saying that the yardstick/standard which has to be applied with regard to adjudging suitability of the incumbent always depends upon the nature re of post, nature of duties, effect of suppression over suitability to be considered by the authority on due diligence of various aspects but no hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard.
***** ***** *****
13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless 10 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:55452 of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and kkeeping eeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What has been noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of mater material/false ial/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.
***** ***** *****
20. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 17-11-20152015 [Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14648] and the order of discharge dated 24 24-4-2015 and dated 23-12--2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the ppost ost of Constable on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to Employment Notice No. 1/2011 dated 27 27-2-2011.
2011. We make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force and at the same time he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits, etc. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of one month from today. No costs.""
28. In Mohd. Imran v. State of Maharashtra [Mohd. Imran v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 17 SCC 696] , no doubt, a case where a candidate made the disclosure of criminal case, this Court speaking through Navin Sinha, J. made the following telling observation which reson resonates ates with the hard realities of everyday existence : (SCC p. 698, para 5) "5. Employment opportunities are a scarce commodity in our country.
Every advertisement invites a large number of aspirants for limited number of vacancies. But that may not suffice to invoke sympathy for grant of relief where the credentials of the candidate may raise serious questions regarding suitability, irrespective of eligibility. Undoubtedly, judicial service is very different from other services and the yardstick of suitabil suitability ity that may apply to other services, 11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:55452 may not be the same for a judicial service. But there cannot be any mechanical or rhetorical incantation of moral turpitude, to deny appointment in judicial service simpliciter. Much will depend on the facts of a case. Every individual deserves an opportunity to improve, learn from the past and move ahead in life by self- self improvement. To make past conduct, irrespective of all considerations, an albatross around the neck of the candidate, may not always constitute justice justice.. Much will, however depend on the fact situation of a case.
case."
29. We have also kept in mind the recent judgment of this Court in Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India [Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, (2023) 7 SCC 536 : (2023) 2 SCC (L&S) 43] and the broad principles set out by this Court in para 93, especially, paras 93.1, 93.3 and 93.7. Even the broad principles set out therein recognise that each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public employer concerned and the Court is obliged to eexamine xamine whether the procedure of enquiry adopted by the authority concerned was fair and reasonable. Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] in para 38.2 has held that while passing the order of cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. Further, in para 38.4.3 of Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S)) 425] the principle that, in case of suppression or false information of involvement of criminal case, where acquittal has already been recorded, the employer can still consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents and may take appropriate decis decision ion as to the continuance of the employee.
30. We have read and understood the broad principles laid down in Satish Chandra Yadav [Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, (2023) 7 SCC 536 : (2023) 2 SCC (L&S) 43] with the following crucial paragraph in Avtar tar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] : (SCC pp. 506 506-507, para 35) "35. Suppression of "material" information presupposes that what is suppressed that "matters" not every technical or trivial matter. The employer oyer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in 12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:55452 reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases."
8. After considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments,, the Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh(supra), further held as under ::-
"32. The nature of the office, the timing and nature of the criminal case;
the overall consideration of the judgment of acquittal; the nature of the query in the application/verification form; the contents of the character verification reports; the socio socio-economic economic strata of the individual applying; the other antecedents of the candidate;
candida the
nature of consideration and the contents of the
cancellation/termination order are some of the crucial aspects which should enter the judicial verdict in adjudging suitability and in determining the nature of relief to be ordered.
***** ***** *****
34. On the facts of the case and in the backdrop of the special circumstances set out hereinabove, where does the non non-disclosure disclosure of the unfortunate criminal case, (which too ended in acquittal), stand in the scheme of things? In our opinion on the pe peculiar culiar facts of the case, we do not think it can be deemed fatal for the appellant. Broad-brushing brushing every non non-disclosure disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities obtaining in ththis is great, vast and diverse country.
Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and the court will have to take a holistic view, based on objective criteria, with the avai available lable precedents serving as a guide.
It can never be a one size fits all scenario."
9. The Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra)has has held that the nature of the office, the timing and nature of the criminal case; the overall consideration of the judgment of acquittal; the nature of the query in the application/verification form; the contents of the character verification reports; the socio socio-economic ic strata of the individual applying; the other antecedents of the candidate; the nature of consideration 13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:55452 and the contents of the cancellation/termination order are some of the crucial aspects which should enter the judicial verdict in adjudging suitability suitabilit and in determining the nature of relief to be ordered. Further, the non-disclosure non of the criminal case which ended in acquittal cannot in all circumstances be deemed to be fatal. Broad Broad-brushing every non-disclosure disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse country. Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and the court will have to take a holistic view, view based on objective criteria, with the available precedents serving as a guide. It can never be a one size fits all scenario.
10. In the instant case, Petitioner was involved in an altercation on a trivial issue, which led to registration of cross FIRs, which were subsequently compounded and petitioner was acquitted. The altercation happened when he had gone to attend coaching classes. The FIR was registered and compounded in the year 2016 and the application for was filled in the year 2021. The offence was no nott an offence involving moral turpitude. There here is no allegation that apart from the above case, petitioner was involved in any other litigation prior or post the said date. There is also no other material to affect his antecedents antecedents. In our opinion the candidature candid of the Petitioner could not have been rejected simplicitor because of non- disclosure of the involvement in the Fir. A holistic view should have been taken by the District and Sessions Judge in considering as to whether the candidature of the petition petitioner was suitable or his candidature liable to be rejected?
14NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:55452
11. Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.10.2023 is set aside, the matter is remitted to the District and Sessions Judge Judge,, Sehore to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the law laid d down by the Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar Vs Vs.. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra). Decision be taken by the District and Sessions Judge within a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of the order.
12. Petition etition is accordingly allowed in the above terms.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
TG /-
TRUPTI GUNJAL
2025.11.07
15:28:08 +05'30'