Karnataka High Court
Arthur Nwoyle Joseph vs State Of Karnataka By on 28 August, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRL.APPEAL NO.100368/2017
BETWEEN:
ARTHUR NWOYLE JOSEPH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: ONITASHA,
NOW AT DHARWAD,
KALGHATAGI ROAD, MAILARLING NAGAR,
DHARWAD.
....APPELLANT
(BY SRI.J.S.SHETTY ASSOCIATES, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SHO, VIDYAGIRI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD-560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(By SRI.VINAYAK KULARNI, AGA)
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 374(2) OF Cr.P.C.SEEKING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS IN SPL.NDPS (CC) NO.04 OF 2013 ON
THE FILE OF COURT OF THE PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE,
DHARWAD AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 12.08.2016 AND
SENTENCE DATED 12.08.2016 MAKE IN SPL.NDPS
(CC)NO.04/2013 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF THE
PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 22(c) OF
NDPS ACT 1985 AND ACQUIT HIM FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 22(c) OF
NDPS ACT 1985 FOR WHICH APPELLANT HAS
CONVICTED BY THE COURT BELOW.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant/accused No.1 preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.08.2016 passed in 3 Spl.NDPS(C.C.) No.04/2013 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Dharwad (for short referred to as the 'trial Court') convicting accused No.1 for contravention of Section 8(c) punishable under Section 22(c) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of 1,00,000/-, in default to pay fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 2 years.
2. Heard the learned advocate Sri.J.S.Shetty for the appellant and the learned AGA Sri.Vinayak Kulkarni for respondent-State.
3. The brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution before the trial Court are that, PW1 who was working as ACP, Dharwad, received credible information about a person with Nigro origin, possessing and selling brown sugar/heroin. 4 Immediately he transmitted the said information to DCP, Dharwad over phone and also sent a report. He went to Vidyagiri police station in Dharwad at 2.00 pm and the information was entered in the station house diary. He summoned other officers and staff and secured the presence of two panchas and went to Mailarlinga Nagar and made enquiries about the Nigro, residing in the locality. He could identify a house in the occupation of Nigros and when he knocked the door, accused No.1 came and opened the door. On enquiry, accused No.1 informed that he was residing in the said house with accused No.2. PW1 informed him about the information and also introduced himself.
4. During enquiry, accused No.1 took PW1 and other panchas inside the house and produced plastic packet containing brown sugar/heroin, hidden beneath the bed. He was not holding any pass or 5 permit, to possess the same. It was informed that the accused were possessing the contraband illegally and were selling the same to the college students at Rs.4,000/- per gram. PW1 in the presence of panchas and other staff members, weighed the contraband and it was weighing 220 grams worth Rs.8,80,000/-. He collected two samples of 10 gms each and sealed the same. Bulk contraband i.e. remaining 200 gms was also seized. The seizure mahazar as per Ex.P3 was drawn at the spot. He came to Vidyagiri police station along with the mahazar, seized contraband and accused No.1 and filed complaint as per Ex.P1. Therefore it is stated that the accused who was in possession of the house in question, was possessing the contraband-brown sugar/heroin, illegally without any pass or permit, for the purpose of selling the same to the students and thereby contravened 6 Section 8(c), punishable under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act.
5. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial Court took cognizance of the matter. Accused No.1 was in judicial custody and his presence was secured before the Court. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses, got marked 16 documents and identified 7 material objects in support of its contention. Accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record but has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. However, Ex.D1 was came to be marked during cross examination of PW7. Taking into consideration all these materials on record, the trial Court proceeded to convict the accused for the above said offence.
7
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, accused No.1 has preferred this appeal on various grounds.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is illegal, perverse and the same is liable to be set aside. The trial Court has not taken into consideration the position of law and the facts of the case, but proceeded to convict the accused without any basis. He contended that it is the specific contention of the prosecution that the appellant was possessing 220 gms of brown sugar/heroin, but the FSL report marked as Ex.P14 does not suggest that the samples sent for examination, contained brown sugar/heroin. Under such circumstances, convicting accused for the 8 above charge, is nothing but perverse and resulted in miscarriage of justice.
9. He also contended that Ex.P8 is the copy of the station house diary. The original diary is not produced before the Court, but still Ex.P8 refers to the date as 31.03.2013, where as the date of occurrence as per the case made out by the prosecution was on 31.01.2013. The document itself is not proved and glaringly the said document do not refer to the matter in question.
10. Learned counsel contended that though it is contended by the prosecution that 10 gms of contraband was sent for FSL examination, PW11 deposed before the Court that the weight of the sample was 10.3644 gms, which falsifies the contention of the investigating officer that he had sent the sample that was seized under Ex.P3. He also contended that the mandatory requirement of 9 Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, was not at all complied while raiding the house and recovering the contraband. The investigation is vitiated and it has prejudiced the accused. Inspite of these serious lapses in the investigation and even though the prosecution has not proved the charge against the accused, the trial Court proceeded to convict the accused without any basis. Hence he prays for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence by allowing the appeal and to acquit accused No.1/appellant, in the interest of justice.
11. Per contra the learned AGA supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence submitted that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The procedure prescribed under Section 42 of the Act was complied with by PW1 in letter and spirit. PW1 has spoken to regarding the compliance of the 10 requirement and also produced Ex.P8 to substantiate the same.
12. Learned AGA submitted that, PW12 has clearly stated that the date mentioned in the second page of Ex.P8 as 31.03.2013, is a mistake. Moreover, if the documents is taken into consideration as a whole, the same will clarify the time and the date on the second page mentioned as 31.03.2013, is an apparent mistake. He further contended that since the contraband was seized from the house in possession of accused, compliance of Section 50 of the Act is not the requirement of law. Inspite of that, PW1 has specifically stated that he himself was a Gazetted officer, who informed the appellant/accused No.1 about the same and subsequently with his consent, held the raid. Therefore there was substantial compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act and the accused cannot seek his acquittal on these grounds. 11
13. Learned AGA further submitted that PW1 the police officer suspected that the seized contraband was brown sugar/heroin. But when the same was sent for chemical examination, it was found that the substance was not brown sugar/heroin but it was cocaine and caffeine, which is also a contraband to which the Act applies. He further submitted that the minute variations in the weight of the sample sent by the investigating officer and received by the chemical examiner, matters a little and the same will not enure to the benefit of the accused, as such difference may occur when the sample was weighted in different machines. The difference in the weight was negligible and nothing has been elicited from the prosecution witnesses during their cross examination to disbelieve their version. Under such circumstances, the prosecution is successful in proving that accused No.1 who was in possession of the house in question was 12 possessing cocaine and caffeine, without any permit or pass and thereby contravened Section 8(c), punishable under Section 22(c) of the Act. When the prosecution is successful in proving the basic requirements of offence in question, the presumption under Section 54 of the Act comes into operation and it is for the accused to rebut the same. But in the present case, accused is not successful in rebutting the presumption, therefore the trial Court was right in holding that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicting the accused for the above said offences. Hence he prays for dismissal of the appeal as devoid of merits.
14. I have gone through the documents including the trial Court records.
15. The prosecution in order to prove its contention that accused No.1 was in possession of the 13 house in question, was in illegal possession of 220 gms of the contraband without any pass or permit, examined PW1, who held the raid along with the panchas. Witness stated that he was working as ACP, Dharwad Sub Division at the time of the incident and received credible information regarding possession of the brown sugar/heroin by the inmates of the building, who are Nigros. He intimated this fact to his superior i.e. the DCP over phone and also sent written intimation. He went to Vidyagiri police station along with his staff. After securing the presence of 2 panchas and apprised them about the information he received. They reached Desai building at Kalaghatagi road at 3.15 pm. Accused No.1 came and opened the door and after enquiry, he produced the contraband which was hidden under the bed. The contraband was weighing 220 gms. He collected two samples of 10 gms each and sealed the samples and also the bulk 14 contraband under the seizure mahazar Ex.P3. Witness also spoke about the personal search of the raiding party, before seizing the articles and also about the notice issued to the accused. During cross examination, witness denied the suggestion that the documents were concocted by him. It is suggested to the witness that the appellant had not lifted the bed nor he has produced the contraband and nothing has been seized as claimed by the witness. This suggestion was flatly denied by the witness.
16. PW2 is one of the pancha to seizure mahazar Ex.P3. He has not supported the case of the prosecution and he was treated as hostile. PW3 is the other pancha to the seizure mahazar, who fully supported the case of the prosecution. Witness stated that he is the resident to Mailarlinga Nagar of Dharwad and identified the accused. He was residing in the house of one Desai as his attendant. He also 15 spoke about visiting the house of the accused along with the police for search and seizure of the contraband. During cross examination of this witness, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve his version. Witness denied the suggestion that he was tutored to depose before the Court and that he is deposing falsely in order to help the police.
17. PW4 is the other pancha who was present at the time of raid, but has not supported the case of the prosecution.
18. PWs5 and 6 are the police constables, who accompanied PW1 and spoke about visiting the house in occupation of the accused/appellant and he producing the brown sugar/heroin, which was concealed beneath the bed, in the room. Witnesses have stated that the contraband seized from the possession of the accused was weighing 220 grams. Two samples of 10 gms each were drawn and they 16 along with the bulk contraband were sealed, which are as per M.Os.1 to 3. They also spoke about the panchanama drawn at the spot. These witnesses were cross examined at length but their version is not shaken during the said cross examination.
19. PW7 is the head constable in Vidyagiri police station, who carried the FIR-Ex.P12 along with the first information to the jurisdictional Court. Witness stated that on 31.01.2013 at 8.00 pm, he received the FIR with a direction to submit before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Accordingly, he submitted the FIR to the Special Judge at 11.00 pm.
20. PW8 is the mahazar witness to Ex.P11 whereunder the mobile handset and passport were seized. He identified those articles as M.Os.4 to 7. During cross examination, it is elicited from this witness that accused No.1 had opened the door and produced two mobile handsets, one original passport 17 and a xerox copy of it. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the police.
21. PW9 is the Principal of Kittle Science College. Witness stated that as per the records maintained in his college, accused No.2 was studying in his college and he is from Kenya. As per the request made by the investigating officer, he produced copies of the passport, SSLC certificate, Certificate of birth, marks card, permission letter issued by the University etc. Since accused No.2 was absconding and split up charge sheet was filed against him, this evidence is not material against this accused.
22. PW10 is the PSI of Vidyagiri police station. Witness stated that on 31.01.2013 at 6.00 pm, PW1 came and handed over the computerized complaint, panchanama along with seized articles and accused No.1. On the basis of the complaint, he registered Crime No.19/2013. The FIR is as per Ex.P12. He 18 identified accused No.1 before the Court and also M.Os.1 to 3. Witness also stated regarding seizure of mobile phone, passport from the house, which was in the occupation of accused No.1, under the mahazar Ex.P11. He identified those mobile phones as M.Os. 4 to 7. Even though this witness was cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve his version.
23. PW11 is the scientific officer in FSL Bengaluru. Witness stated that one sealed packet was received from Vidyagiri police station in crime No.19/2013. The seal was in tact and was tallying with the sample seals. It was weighing 10.3644 grams. She has taken 2.2970 grams for examination and she found it was cocaine and caffeine. She issued the certificate as per Ex.P14. Witness identified the sample she had received as MO2 and stated that the cocaine and caffeine is a stimulant drug under the Act 19 and it effects the nervous system. During cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, witness stated that when she tested the sample, it tested negative for the contents of brown sugar/heroin and it tested positive for cocaine and caffeine. She denied the suggestion that she had not received any sample for examination and not examined the same.
24. PW12 is the police inspector in Vidyagiri police station who conducted further investigation and filed the charge sheet. He denied the suggestion that he filed false charge sheet against the accused.
25. If these materials on record are taken into consideration, it is found that all the material witnesses have supported the case and their version are not shaken during cross examination, except one of the pancha examined as PW2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is 20 no compliance of Section 42 of the Act and that Ex.P8 is not the document relating to this case.
26. PW1 specifically stated that immediately after receiving of the credible information, he informed this fact to DCP and also forwarded the report.
27. Second proviso to Section 42 of the Act authorizes the officer to proceed to the spot and enter into the building for search and seizure of the articles, if any, if he has reason to believe that getting the search warrant and authorization may afford opportunity for concealment of evidence or facilitates escape of the offender. Nothing has been elicited from this witness to content that no such possibility was their when PW1 proceeded to the spot. Therefore, evidence of PW1 with regard to receiving of credible information, informing the same to DCP and forwarding the report was not rebutted during his 21 cross examination. Substantial compliance of Section 42 of the Act is seen and it cannot be said that there was non compliance of requirement of law.
28. Moreover, in the present case, it is specifically contended that PW1 who laid the raid was working as ACP and he is a Gazetted officer. This fact is not disputed. The question is whether compliance of Section 42 of the Act is necessary when the raid was held by the gazetted officer himself had come up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UNION OF 1 INDIA Vs. SATROHAN and the Hon'ble Supreme Court coated its earlier decision in M.PRABHULAL VS. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF 2 REVENUE INTELLIGENCE at paragraph 14 which reads as under:
"14.xxxx Under Section 41 (2) only a Gazetted Officer can be empowered by the Central Government or the State Government. Such 1 (2008) 8 SCC 313 2 (2003) 8 SCC 449 22 empowered officer can either himself make an arrest or conduct a search or authorize an officer subordinate to him to do so but that subordinate officer has to be superior in rank to a Peon, a Sepoy or a Constable. Sub-section (3) of Section 41 vests all the powers of an officer acting under Section 42 on three types of officers (i) to whom a warrant under sub-section (1) is addressed, (ii) the officer who authorized the arrest or search under sub-section (2) of Section 41, and (iii) the officer who is so authorized under sub-section (2) of Section 41. Therefore, an empowered Gazetted Officer has also all the powers of Section 42 including power of seizure. Section 42 provides for proceedure and power of entry, search seizure and arrest withuot warrant or authorization. An empowered officer has the power of entry into and search of any building, conveyance or place, break open door, remove obstruction, seize contraband, detain, search and arrest any person between sunrise and sunset in terms provided in sub-section (1) of Section 42.
In case of emergent situation, these powers can also be exercised even between sunset and sunrise without obtaining a search warrant or authorization, in terms provided in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 42. Sub-section 2 of 23 Section 42 is a mandatory provision. In terms of this provision a copy of information taken down in writing under sub-section (1) or ground recorded for the belief under proviso thereto, is required to be sent by the officer to his immediate official superior. It is clear from Section 41(2) that the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, can only empower an officer of a gazetted rank who can either himself act or authorize his subordinate on the terms stated in the Section. Under sub- section (1) of Section 42, however, there is no restriction on the Central Government or the State Government to empower only a Gazetted Officer. But on an officer empowered under sub- section (1) of Section 42, there are additional checks and balances as provided in the proviso and also provided in sub-section (2) of Section
42. It is clear from the language of sub- section (2) of Section 42 that it applies to officer contemplated by sub- section (1) thereof and to a Gazetted Officer contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 41, when such Gazetted Officer himself makes an arrest or conducts search and seizure. It would be useful to also notice Section 43 which relates to power of seizure and arrest in public place. Any officer of any of the 24 departments mentioned in Section 42 is empowered to seize contraband etc. and detain and search a person in any public place or in transit on existence of ingredient stated in Section 43. It can, thus, be seen that Sections 42 and 43 do not require an officer to be a Gazetted Officer whereas Section 41(2) requires an officer to be so. A Gazetted Officer has been differently dealt with and more trust has been reposed on him can also be seen from Section 50 of he NDPS Act which gives a right to a person about to be searched to ask for being searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer. The High Court is, thus, right in coming to the conclusion that since the Gazetted Officer himself conducted the search, arrested the accused and seized the contraband, he was acting under Section 41 and, therefore, it was not necessary to comply with Section 42. xxxx"
(Emphasis supplied)
29. After coating the above decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satrohan (supra) held that Section 41(2) deals with two situations. One is related to gazetted officer while in the other case, the 25 gazetted officer may authoise his subordinate to do the relevant act or may do it himself. Section 41(3) refers to the power under Section 42 which refers to subordinates and thus, it is made clear that when the gazetted officer himself conducted the search, arrested the accused and seized the contraband, he was acting under Section 41 and therefore it is not necessary to comply with the requirements of Section 42 of the Act.
30. The next contention taken by the learned advocate for the accused is with regard to non- compliance of section 50 of the Act. Section 50 of the Act prescribe conditions under which, search of persons shall be conducted. In the present case, no personal search of the accused was conducted to seize the contraband. On the other hand, it is the specific contention of the prosecution that the accused had produced the contraband, which was concealed 26 beneath the bed. When the contraband in question was not seized from the person of accused No.1, the compliance of Section 50 is not called for. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 3 STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. TARA SINGH is to be placed on record.
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tara Singh's case, had an occasion to consider the applicability of Section 50 of the Act, when the contraband was not carried on the person of the accused and in paragraph 4 it is held as under:
"4.At the very outset, it must be understood that the provisions of Section 50 would no longer be applicable to a search such as the one made in the present case as the opium had been carried on the head in a gunny bag. A Bench of this 4 Court in State of H.P. v.Pawan Kumar after examining the discrepant views rendered in various judgments of this Court has found that Section 50 of the Act would not apply to any 3 (2011) 11 SCC 559 4 (2005) 4 SCC 350 27 search of seizure where the article was not being carried on the person of the accused.xxxx"
(Emphasis supplied)
32. Therefore it is clear that requirement of compliance of conditions mentioned in Section 50 of the Act is not required to be followed in the present case.
33. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has not proved the ownership of the building in question, nor it has examined the owner of the building to prove that the same was rented in favour of accused No.1. All the material witnesses including PW1 stated that when they knocked the door, accused No.1 was in the house and he opened the door. Subsequently it was accused No.1, who produced the contraband, which was concealed beneath the bed in a room. This say of the witnesses is not at all shaken during their cross examination. Mere possession of narcotic drug or 28 psychotropic substance is sufficient to attract section 8(c) of the Act. When the prosecution is successful in placing the materials that there was a house and the accused was in possession of the same at the relevant point of time, where the contraband was held, the contravention of Section 8(c) of the Act, is complete. The prosecution is not required to prove the ownership or the tenancy of the person to constitute the offence.
34. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the discrepancies in the quantity of the contraband sent for examination to FSL as per PW1. As per Ex.P2, M.Os.2 and 3 were weighing 10 gms each, whereas as per Ex.P14 the sample send for examination was weighing 10.3644 grams. This variation in the weight, may be due to the reason that the same was weighing under Ex.P2 and P14 in different scales at different 29 time. But nothing has been elicited from either PW1 or PW11 to contend that MO2 was never sent for FSL examination or to contend that the sample which was examined by PW11 was not the sample which was drawn by PW1 from the bulk contraband which was produced as per MO1. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that it creates doubt or goes to the root of the matter.
35. Lastly learned counsel for the appellant contended that even though the case of the prosecution is that the brown sugar/heroin was possessed by the accused, the FSL report does not substantiate the same. Ex.P14 discloses that the substance examined was cocaine and caffeine and not brown sugar/ heroin. Ofcourse PW1 and all the prosecution witnesses have referred to the substance as brown sugar/heroin, but the FSL report discloses that substance was not brown sugar/heroin but it was 30 cocaine and caffeine. Unfortunately, the charge framed by the trial Court also refers to the substance as diacetylmorphine (usually known as brown sugar/heroin). Neither the prosecution nor the accused sought for alteration of the charge nor the trial Court suo moto altered the charge. But the fact remains that both these substances are recognized as narcotic drug and psychotropic substances. Cocaine is found in serial No.27 of the Notification specifying small quantity and commercial quantity with its chemical name as 'methyl ester of benzoylecgonine'. Whereas heroin is found at serial No.56 with its chemical name as 'diacetylmorphine'. When there is no dispute that cocaine is also a contraband recognized under the Act, it cannot be contended that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused.
31
36. As per serial No.56 of the notification. 2gms of cocaine is considered as small quantity, whereas 100 gms and above is considered as commercial quantity. In the present case, the contraband that was seized was 220 gms and therefore it constitute commercial quantity.
37. Now the question arises as to whether non framing of specific charge for possessing cocaine and caffeine by the accused is fatal to the case of the prosecution. As per Section 215 of the Code of Criminal procedure (for short referred to the 'Code'), no error in stating either the offence or the particulars is required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was infact misled by the said error or omission and it is occasioned a failure of justice. Similarly as per Section 464 of the Code, no finding, sentence or order by a 32 Court of competent jurisdiction, shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court, of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has infact been occasioned thereby.
38. Both under Sections 251 and 464 of the Code, the Court has to consider as to whether any failure of justice has occasioned and whether the accused No.1 mislead by such an error or omission or irregularity in framing of the charge. If the trial Court records are taken into consideration, I do not see any such misleading of the accused, even though it can be said that there was an error in mentioning the exact name of the contraband possessed by the accused. Definitely, it has not resulted in failure of justice to the accused. When there is no failure of justice and when 33 the accused is not mislead by the said error, it cannot be said that the conviction recorded by the trial Court is invalid on this sole ground.
39. In view of the discussions held above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused/appellant for contravention of Section 8(c) punishable under Section 22(c) of the Act and the accused is liable for conviction.
40. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. After taking into consideration all these relevant materials on record, the trial court has rightly formed an opinion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused and the accused was convicted and sentenced. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, calling for the interference by this Court. Hence, the same is liable to 34 be confirmed and the appeal is to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
41. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.
SD/-
JUDGE KGK