Karnataka High Court
K K Shahina vs State By on 26 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
CRL.R.P.No.658/2018
C/W
CRL.R.P.No.1296/2018
IN CRL.R.P.No.658 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. K.K. SHAHINA
W/O. RAJIV RAMACHANDRAN
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT: CF5 GARDENS
SAINIK ASRAM ROAD,
KAKKANADA, THEN R/AT.
KRPA 22, PILIGRAMA,
KONAMATHI, TADAPALLI, COCHIN
KERALA STATE-PIN-682 024.
2. SUBER PADUPU
D/O. ABDUL REHAMAN HAJI
AGED ABOUT : 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT : SANGARAMAPADI POST
KARIDIDAKAMA VILLAGE,
KOTTEKOL PANCHAYATH, CHENGAL 6,
KASARAGUDU DIST.
KERALA STATE-PIN-676 503.
3. UMMAR MOULVI
S/O. MOIDU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
RESIDING AT: C/O. AMMABA BYAKERI
2
IBBANA YALAVADIHALLI MADIKERI
PIN-571 201. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S. BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY
SOWMARPET POLICE STATION
REP. BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. YOGANAND
S/O. LATE KANAN
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT. MALAYALIN THIYA ESTATE WRITER
KUMBUR VILLAGE
SOMAWARPET TALUK
MAIEKERI
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201. ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI R. SUBRAMANYA, AAG ALONG WITH
SRI. P.THEJESH, HCGP FOR R-1
SRI. SUYOG HERELE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING
TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
28.02.2018 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MADIKERI IN S.C.No.42/2015
DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION
227 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE TO DISCHARGE
THEM FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
120B, 506 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION
22 OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT
REGISTERED IN CR.NO.241/2010.
3
IN CRL.R.P.No.1296 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. K.K. SHAHINA
W/O. RAJIV RAMACHANDRAN
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT: KRPA 22, PILIGRAMA,
KONAMATHI, EDAPALLI POST, COCHIN
KERALA STATE-PIN-682 024.
2. SUBER PADUPU
D/O. ABDUL REHAMAN HAJI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT SANGARAMAPADI POST
KARIDIDAKAMA VILLAGE,
KUTTEKOL PANCHAYATH, CHENGAL 6,
KASARAGUDU DIST.
KERALA STATE-PIN-676 503.
3. UMMAR MOULVI
S/O. MOIDU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
RESIDING AT: C/O. AMMABA BYAKERI
IBBANA YALAVADIHALLI MADIKERI
PIN-571 201. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S. BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY
SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION
REP. BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SRI. K.B. RAFIQ
S/O. BAPUTTI
4
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT. M.G. COLONY, NELLIHUDIKERI
SIDDAPURA, KUSHALANAGAR HOBLI
MADIKERI
KODAGU DISTRICT
PIN-571 236. ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI R. SUBRAMANYA, AAG ALONG WITH
SRI. P.THEJESH, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI. SUYOG HERELE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S 397 R/W. 401 CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 28.02.2018 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MADIKERI IN S.C.No.12/2015
DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION
227 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE TO DISCHARGE
THEM FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
120B, 506 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION
22 OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT
REGISTERED IN CR.No.199/2010.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The learned counsel for petitioners absent and learned counsel for respondents present. Though these petitions are listed today for further hearing, the same are taken up for final disposal having regard to the facts that the matters have been substantially 5 heard enough to dispose of the same, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. These are the two Criminal Revision Petitions filed under Section 397 R/w. 401 of Criminal Procedure Code and directed against the order passed in respective Special Case No.42/2015 and S.C.No.12/2015 and the details are presented in the following table:
Sl. Criminal Name of the For the offence Result No. Revision petitioner punishable U/s.
Petition and SC number 1 658/2018 A-1/P-1- Under Sections Discharge against K.K.Shahina, 120B, 506 R/w. application S.C.No.42/15 A-2/P-2, Suber Section 34 of under in Padupu, IPC and Under Section Cr.No.241/10 A-4/P-3- Section 22 of 227 Cr.P.C Ummar Moulvi the Unlawful came to Activities be (Prevention) rejected Act.
2 1296/2018 A-1/P-1- Under Sections Discharge
against K.K.Shahina, 120B, 506 R/w. application
S.C.No.12/15 A-2/P-2, Suber Section 34 of under
in Padupu, IPC and Under Section
Cr.No.199/10 A-4/P-3- Section 22 of 227 Cr.P.C
Ummar Moulvi the Unlawful came to
Activities be
(Prevention) rejected
Act.
6
3. In order to avoid confusion and over-lapping, parties are addressed in accordance with their ranks and status as held by them before the trial Court.
4. Both the petitions were ordered to be clubbed in view of their inter-connections as per the order of this Court on 29.11.2018.
5. The impugned order in Criminal Revision Petition No.658/2018 is dated 28-2-2018 passed in S.C.No.42/2015 and similarly, the impugned order in Criminal Revision Petition No.1296/2018 is dated 28-2-2018 passed in S.C.No.12/2015 both the cases triable for the similar offences.
6. Criminal cases were registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Under Section 22 of the 7 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in Cr.No.241/2010 against the Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 namely K.K.Shahina, Suber Padupu, K.V.Purushotham @ Purush and Ummar Moulvi.
7. The substance of the complaint in Cr.No.199/2010 (SC No.12/2015) is as under:
The complaint is dated 24.11.2010 by one K.B.Rafiq S/o Baputti addressed to the Sub-Inspector, Siddapura Police station, Kodagu and it is against the accused No.1 K.K.Shahina, and four others.
Thereafter, chargesheet was filed against accused persons, namely, K.K.Shahina, Suber Padupu, K.V.Purusotham @ Purush and Ummar Moulvi. The accused persons in S.C.No.12/2015 and S.C.No.42/2015 are same.8
8. The Criminal Revision petitions are preferred by accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 namely K.K.Shahina, Suber Padupu, and Ummar Moulvi in both the cases.
9. S.C.No.12/2015 is concerned, the criminal case was registered in Crime No.199/2010 on 24.11.2010 lodged by K.B.Rafiq S/o Baputti. The complainant states that on the evening of 16.11.2010 a lady along with three persons came to his place at M.G. Colony, Nelli Hudukeri, SIddapura, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu District in Innova car bearing registration No.KL-14-J-
2288 and asked the complainant about the serial bomb blast in Bengaluru and when the complainant asked as to who were those persons, the lady answered that she is a reporter of Tehalka Newspaper and her name was Shahina K.K. The three men who had accompanied her are stated to be Keralite and another person was sitting in the driver seat in the 9 car. The said Shahina and three male persons enquired the complainant stating that he has given statement against Abdul Nasir Madani and T.Nasir and the said persons also threatened him of life if he gives oral evidence against Abdul Nasir Madani and T.Nasir. They are stated to be the members of People Democratic Party (PDP) of Kerala. Out of three persons two were aged 30-35 years and one more person was in the age group of 45 to 50 years. The said four persons introduced themselves as Thehalka Paper Persons and warned the complainant, if he gives evidence in the bomb blast case, he will have to suffer and posed threat to his life. Thus, he expressed fear, apprehension and threat to his life by the said accused persons. The complainant also claims that the said persons have threatened the witnesses in Bengaluru serial blast case. As the complainant was to go to the hospital for medical treatment to his child, 10 he lodged the complaint on 24.11.2010 at 2.30 P.M. It is based on the said complaint a criminal case came to be registered against the accused persons in Crime No.199/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 506, read with Section 149 of IPC.
10. In so far as S.C.No.42/2015 is concerned, the complaint is lodged by Mr.Yogananda, S/o late Kannan addressed to Sub-Inspector, Somwarpet Police Station. The main features of the said complaint is that it is lodged against the same accused persons. The complaint was lodged on 23.11.2010. In the typed copy of the complaint in both the cases, the complaint do not reflect the provisions of law as to whether Section 120B of IPC or Section 22 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. However, considering the FIR and the charge sheet, the same is rendered in context to include the said criminal provisions.
11
11. The other features of this second complaint dated 23.11.2010 is that the complainant is Mr.Yagonanda aged 35 years, S/o late Kannan. On 16.11.2010, when he was in his house at Kumburu village and post, Somwarpet, in the afternoon, a lady along with four persons came in an Innova Car bearing No.KL-14-J-2288 told him that they came from Kerala and want to write book and seeks for information. At that time, they asked the complainant to give information about terrorist and asked whether he has given evidence to CCB and whether he belongs to RSS. They threatened him of life if he gives against about Abdul Nasir Madani. The contents of the complaint in substance are similar to the other complaint. They were all stated to be belonging to Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and belonged to group of Abdul Nasir Madani. This was obvious by watching their talk. The four persons told 12 that the they were reporters and reminded him that if he were to depose the evidence in Bengaluru Serial Bomb Blast case, he would suffer the difficulties and also threatened him of life and complainant seeks legal action against them and also states that the said accused persons are also threatened the witnesses in Bengaluru Serial Bomb Blast case.
12. Upon investigation charge sheet was filed in both the cases and as stated above cognizance was taken by the trial court and thereafter committed the case to the Sessions court. During the pendency of the case, accused persons filed applications for discharge in both the cases which came to be rejected by the trial court as stated above. Against which, these petitions are filed by the accused.
13. Sri.S.Balakrishnan, learned counsel for petitioners in both the petitions submitted that Section 13 22 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 provides that threatening witnesses is an offence punishable with imprisonment for three years and shall also be liable to fine. Learned counsel further submitted that the ingredients of Section 22 of the said Act do not apply to the case on hand. No valid and proper sanction was obtained and there is no compliance of a valid sanction. The matter was referred to the Committee, but it was never perused and ingredients were never examined. Totally said order was passed without application of mind. He would further submit that the sanction order was not passed by the independent authority. As a matter of fact, the Committee was not appointed and it was incompetent. The sanction is not an order that could be passed casually and without application of mind. The sanction is not specially obtained in respect of the offences and are illegally created and the second 14 complaint is duplication of the first complaint. There is no proper complaint, no proper committal nor the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the case.
14. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri.R.Subramanya along with Sri.P.Tejesh for respondent-State submitted that there is no legal embargo for the proceedings to continue. The learned trial Judge has narrated the circumstances which suggest that the order passed is proper and valid. The sanctioning authority has applied its mind and perused the documents and the other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and has granted the sanction order. For all the legal and practical purposes the sanction order by itself speaks that it is scanned and verified by the Committee and it was issued in accordance with law.
15
15. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Subramanya for respondent-State submitted the timing of challenging the order of cognizance appears to be a thoughtful idea of petitioners on facts as they are aware that there is a case against them on merits under the said special statute. There is no lapse either substantial or formal and the petitioners having ran out of grounds have preferred the present revision petitions only with a malafide intention. There are no materials or circumstances even to presume in favour of the petitioners.
16. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that Chapter III of the Act provides for sanction of the Central Government or any officer authorised by Central Government in this regard. Thus without previous sanction the complaint could not have been registered and there was no occasion for taking cognizance. It was further submitted that for sanction, 16 the necessary consideration is, sanction order must invariably contain all the details of the materials available and as a matter of fact it must be a review. It was also submitted the offence under Section 22 falls under Chapter III and Sections 45 and 46 of the UA(P) Act provides for the sanction by the competent authority. It was further submitted that the order passed by the Principal Secretary does not speak the materials considered and justifiability in according sanction. The lack of proper sanction as contemplated under UA(P) Act is fatal to prosecution case and every acts done after the cognizance.
17. Learned counsel for petitioners relied upon the decision of Orissa High Court in the case of Subhashree Das @ Mili Panda and others Vs State of Orissa in Crl.MC 3080/2010 and also on the decision reported in AIR 1997 SC wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
17
"Criminal - Sanction- Section 20-A of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - previous sanction by Inspector General of Police under Section 20-A (2) is condition precedent for taking cognizance by Designated Court- Cognizance taken without valid sanction
- held, without valid sanction Designated Courts gets no jurisdiction - Cognizance taken and proceedings adopted thereunder also without jurisdiction and ought to be vitiated."
He has also relied on the decision reported in (2002) 10 SCC 688 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
"Criminal - Previous Sanction -Proceedings assailed on the ground that no previous sanction was obtained by appropriate authority - Held, proceedings was vitiated as there was no sanction from competent authority."
18. He would also submit that no prima facie case is made out to attract the offence punishable under Section 506 or 120B IPC or Section 22 of the offence under Section 2 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1957.
18
19. Here it is necessary to mention Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1957 which reads as under:
"45. Cognizance of offences - [(1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence -
(i) Under Chapter III without the previous sanction of the Central Government or any officer authorised by the Central Government in this behalf;
(ii) Under Chapters IV and VI without the previous sanction of the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government, and where such offence is committed against the Government of a foreign country without the previous sanction of the Central Government.
2[(2) Sanction for prosecution under sub-section (1) shall be given within such time as may be prescribed only after considering the report of such authority appointed by the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government which shall make an independent review of the evidence gathered in the course of investigation and made a recommendation within such time as may be prescribed to the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government."
20. It is the strong contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that, Sanction for prosecution is a mandatory fact in order to take cognizance. The 19 criminal revision petitions are preferred for setting aside the order dated:28.2.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madikeri in SC Nos.12/2015 and 42/2015. According to petitioners said order proposes to frame charge for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 22 of UA(P) Act. However, the proceedings in the ordersheet of the trial court for issuance of summons to the accused are as under: "In SC No.12 of 2015
26.02.2015. ORDER Register the case and Issue summons to the Accused No.1, 2 and 4 returnable by 23.03.2015 S/d.
Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri.
In SC No.42 of 2015 16.06.2015.
Issue summons to the Accused No.1,2 and 4 20 by 16.06.2015 Sd/-,
21. Learned Additional Advocate General for State relied on the decision reported in 2019 SCC Online Ker 3009 - Roopesh Vs State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor and another, wherein, para 18 reads as under:
"18. In CBI v. Ashok Aggarwal1, the Apex Court had observed as under:
"7. The prosecution has to satisfy the court that at the time of sending the matter for grant of sanction by the competent authority, adequate material for such grant was made available to the said authority. This may also be evident from the sanction order, in case it is extremely comprehensive, as all the facts and 1 [(2014) 14 SCC 295] circumstances of the case may be spelt out in the sanction order. However, in every individual case, the court has to find out whether there has been an application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority concerned on the material placed before it. It is so necessary for the reason that there is an obligation on the sanctioning authority to discharge its duty to give or withhold sanction only after having full knowledge of the material facts of the case. Grant of sanction is not a mere formality. Therefore, the provisions in regard to the sanction must be observed with complete strictness keeping in mind 21 the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought. It is to be kept in mind that sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. Therefore, it is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to the government servant against frivolous prosecution. Further, it is a weapon to discourage vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent, though not a shield for the guilty. Consideration of the material implies application of mind. Therefore, the order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same. If the sanction order on its face indicates that all relevant material i.e. FIR, disclosure statements, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and other materials on record were placed before the sanctioning authority and if it is further discernible from the recital of the sanction order that the sanctioning authority perused all the material, an inference may be drawn that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law. This becomes necessary in case the court is to examine the validity of the order of sanction inter-alia on the ground that the order suffers from the vice of total non- application of mind.
(Vide: Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. King AIR 1949 PC 82; Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 124; Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P. AIR 1979 SC 677; State through Anti- Corruption Bureau, Govt of Maharashtra v. Krishanchand Khushalchand Jagtiani AIR 1996 SC 1910; State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti (2009) 17 SCC 92; Satyavir Singh Rathi, ACP v. State AIR 2011 SC 22 1748; and State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh G. Jain (2013) 8 SCC 119).
8. In view of the above, the legal propositions can be summarised as under:
(a) The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction.
(b) The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withhold the sanction.
(c) The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
(d) The order of sanction should make it evident that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material.
(e) In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law."23
22. Learned Additional Advocate General also relied on the decision reported in 2019 SCC online SC 1265
- Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) etc., Vs Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal and another, wherein para 13 reads as under:
'13. Further the issue relating to validity of the sanction for prosecution could have been considered only during trial since essentially the conclusion reached by the High Court is with regard to the defective sanction since according to the High Court, the procedure of providing opportunity for explanation was not followed which will result in the sanction being defective. In that regard, the decision in the case of Dinesh Kumar vs. Chairman, Airport Authority of India, (2012) 1 SCC 532 relied upon by the learned Additional Solicitor General would be relevant since it is held therein that there is a distinction between the absence of sanction and the alleged invalidity on account of non- application of mind. The absence of sanction no doubt can be agitated at the threshold but the invalidity of the sanction is to be raised during the trial. In the instant facts, admittedly there is a sanction though the accused seek to pick holes in the manner the sanction has been granted and to claim that the same is defective which is a matter to be considered in the trial."
23. Copy of the sanction order was produced in the Crl.R.P.No.658/2018 which reads as under: 24
"Government Order No.OE 41 MOHIBA 2012 Bangalore Dt.18.12.2012 The offences committed in Cr.No.241/2010, under section 120(b) 506 read with 34 of IPC and under section 22 of Unlawful activities (Prevention) act, 1967, of Somwarpet Police Station, Kodagu District, is found to be prima facie, and hence the following accused persons (except the dead accused) under the said sections to be prosecuted, Under section 45 of The Unlawful activities (Prevention) act, 1967, in exercise of the powers vested by the Government of India, the prior permission of Karnataka Government is granted.
Details of the Accused
01 Smt.K K Shashina, Woman, 37 years,
KPRA,22, Pili village, Konamathi
Yedapalli post, Cochin -24.
02 Suber Padupu s/o Abdul Rehaman Haji,
38 years, Sangharampadi Post,
Kandidakama village, Kuttikol
Panchayth, Chinagal, Kasaragodu
District Kerala state.
03 K V Purushotham @ Purush s/o late
kunjiram, 65 years, Padmini vas,
Kundakoyi village, Byadagam Post,
Kasaragodu dist. Kerala
04 Ummar Moulvi s/o Moidu, 34 years, c/o
Ammaba, Bykeri, Ibbanavalavadikalli, Madikeri, Kodagu Dist.
On behalf of and in the name of the Government of Karnataka.
Sd/- (Raghavendra H Auradkar) Principal secretary to Govt.(PSAS) DPAR 25
24. The main contention of the petitioners is that there is inherent defect in sanction and there is no independent review of the evidence collected by investigating agency.
25. The said copy of the sanction order is in English Language and original order is stated to be in Kannada Language and the one filed is the translated copy of the order. The translated version of the proceedings filed in Cr.No.241/2010 in SC No.42/2015. Original proceedings are in Kannada. However, similar proceedings in Kannada was produced by learned AAG in connection with both the cases. I have read and perused the same.
26. The petitioners cannot go into the mind of the authority to say that they have not reviewed it or the authority has not followed the procedure as mentioned 26 under sub section 2 at the time of according the sanction to conclude that the sanction is defective.
27. Insofar as trial is concerned, in S.C.No.42/2015, seven witnesses are stated to have been examined and in SC No.12/2015 five prosecution witnesses were examined and in terms of disposal of the matter when the above witness were examined, there is no imprisonment for disposal of the case on merits.
28. The present criminal revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed on discharge applications. The scope to be considered at the time of considering the application for discharge under Section 227 or 239 Cr.P.C. does not mean that every prosecution papers have to be cross examined. Their Lordships in SCC 2019 on line SCC 1265 have 27 highlighted the guidelines at para Nos. 13 and 14 of the said judgment.
29. Seven prosecution witnesses are stated to have been examined in SC No.42/2015 and five witnesses in SC No.12.2015 are stated to have been examined. The grounds urged by the petitioners do not establish any reasons to allow the criminal revision petitions.
30. Further, the other aspects urged by the petitioners are with reference to facts and in respect of which, opportunity is always available to them during the trial.
31. In totality of the substance of the cases, the petitioners have not established substance in the grounds urged in the criminal revision petitions or the other grounds urged during the arguments. 28
Both the criminal revision petitions are dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.42/2015 and S.C.No.12/2015 dated 28.02.2018.
Sd/-
JUDGE HD/GH/SBN/tsn*