Jharkhand High Court
Rautu Bodra S/O Bishun Bodra R/O Village ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 16 November, 2021
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 908 of 2012
Rautu Bodra S/o Bishun Bodra R/O Village Bodrabasa, Sankosai P.O-
sadar, P.S- Chaibsa Mufassil District- Singhbhum west.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate Mr. Navneet Sahay, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Saket Kumar, Advocate 14/16.11.2021 Heard Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State.
3. The present revision application is directed against the judgement dated 28.01.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2000 by the learned 1st Class Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa by which the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner and the co-accused Dumbi Ichaguttu were convicted under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code vide judgement and order of sentence dated 01.09.2000 and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years under Section 409 I.P.C.; Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code; Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 468 of Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- was also imposed upon the petitioner. The judgement of conviction was passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West in Chaibasa Muffasil P.S. Case No. 91 of 1994 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 419 of 1994. The petitioner had filed Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2000 against judgement of his conviction and the co-accused had filed Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2000 and both the appeals were taken up together and decided by the impugned appellate court's judgement dated 28.01.2005.
4. It has been mentioned by the petitioner in para 9 of the present petition that the co-accused namely Dumbi Ichaguttu had preferred 2 Criminal Revision No. 318 of 2005 which, at the time of filing of the present case, was pending. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said criminal revision no. 318 of 2005 has been dismissed on account of non-prosecution.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioner
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgement convicting the petitioner is perverse in view of the manner of consideration of the evidences on record mentioned by the learned appellate court at para 21 of the impugned judgement. He submits that the so-called beneficiaries of loan and so-called account holders were examined as P.Ws. and the judgement has been passed on the basis of their oral evidence only and signatures which were found in the document of the bank in connection with which they had denied having put their signature, were never marked as exhibit. He submits that those signatures having not been marked as exhibit, never formed a part of the record and accordingly, denial of signature by the aforesaid beneficiaries, was not sufficient to convict the petitioner. He submits that it was for the prosecution to lead further evidence to demonstrate that the signatures that were put by aforesaid beneficiaries, were not their signatures and appropriate steps regarding verification of signature etc. should have been undertaken by the prosecution.
6. The learned counsel submits that under aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the petitioner beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appellate court has also relied upon certain audit report and it has come in the cross-examination of the so-called auditor, who was examined as P.W. 12, that he was not a chartered accountant. The learned counsel submits that on account of this position, a person not having the degree of a chartered accountant, was incompetent to be an auditor of the bank involved in the present case, which is governed by Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 and Chapter V particularly Section 19 thereof refers to Account and Audit. He submits that Section 19 refers to auditor to be qualified under Section 226 of the Companies Act, 1956 and 226 of the Companies Act, 1956 clearly provides that audit can be conducted only by a chartered accountant. The learned counsel submits that as the person was not competent to conduct audit, therefore, any document prepared 3 by him or his evidence, has no value in the eyes of law and therefore, conviction of the petitioner referring to such documents is illegal and perverse calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon a judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "L.I.C. of India and Ors. Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen" reported in (2010) 4 SCC 491 to submit that mere admission of document in evidence or mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof. He has referred to para 31 of the said judgement.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1972) 3 SCC 22 (Dr. S. L. Goswami Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) to submit that it is for the prosecution to prove the ingredients of an offence and the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused and even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any less on the prosecution.
10. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 7 SCC 684 (Ranjit Kumar Haldar Vs. State of Sikkim) to submit that the general rule is that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 of the Evidence Act was introduced not to relieve prosecution of their duty, but the same was designed to meet situation, in which it would be impossible or difficult for prosecution to establish facts which are especially within knowledge of accused. The learned counsel has submitted that the burden of proving the prosecution case has not been discharged from the side of the prosecution in the instant case and accordingly, the judgement of conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
11. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already served the sentence and has also served further sentence on account of non-deposit of the fine amount and the present case is important for the petitioner on account of the fact that the petitioner has been dismissed from service on account of his conviction in the present case. He also submits that the present age of the petitioner is 55 years and accordingly some sympathetic view may be taken.
4Arguments on behalf of the opposite party
12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that concurrent findings have been recorded by the learned courts below and the petitioner being the manager of the concerned branch of the bank at the relevant point of time, had full responsibility to verify the persons who were opening the account and in the present case fictitious accounts were opened and consequently, fictitious loans were also disbursed through those accounts which caused draining out of the fund from the bank causing wrongful loss to the Bank.
13. The learned counsel for the State has also submitted that so far as the audit is concerned, the audit was conducted by an officer of the bank itself which though termed as an audit, but the higher officers of the bank have all access and right to verify the records of the bank. Accordingly, the P.W. 12 was not an outsider and the audit cannot be said to have been conducted by a statutory auditor referred to under Section 19 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, even assuming that the argument of the petitioner in this regard is correct.
14. The learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the account holders had stated that they were illiterate persons and could not sign, but the documents were having signatures and accordingly, no further evidence was required from the side of the prosecution to prove the case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel further submits that the learned courts below have considered the evidences on record and have returned concurrent findings convicting the petitioner and under such circumstances, there is no scope for re- appreciation of the evidences and coming to a different finding. He also submits that no material irregularity or perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and therefore, the impugned judgements do not call for any interference by this Court.
Findings of this Court
15. The prosecution report was lodged by the chairman of Singhbhum Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chaibasa alleging that the petitioner has committed fraud and embezzlement of Rs. 8,72,500/- by opening frivolous saving bank accounts and making false debit and credit and withdrawal from the accounts and financing to non-existing borrowers 5 (IRDP and non-IRDP) to persons other than genuine customers. It was alleged that the petitioner also committed fraud by sanctioning loans against existing term deposit receipts and sanctioning loan against the deposit receipts of two persons other than bonafide depositors. It was also alleged that the branch manager i.e. the petitioner did not report to the branch with effect from 02.08.1994 and the informant sent a suspension letter dated 01.08.1994 to the petitioner. On the basis of aforesaid allegations made in the written report, one first information report was registered against the petitioner for offence under Sections 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and the police took up the investigation of the case.
16. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge- sheet under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 120-B of Indian Penal code against the petitioner and one co-accused namely Dumbi Ichaguttu and cognizance of the offence was taken under the same sections vide order dated 13.06.1996 and the case was transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chaibasa for trial and disposal. The charge was framed on 29.08.1996 under Sections 467, 468, 409 and 120-B of Indian Penal code and the charge was read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
17. Altogether 12 witnesses were examined at the stage of trial from the side of the prosecution. Out of them, P.W. 2 was the informant, P.W. 9 was the manager of the bank at the time of conducting audit, P.Ws. 10 and 11 were the investigating officer of the case who had investigated the case one after another and P.W. 12 was the auditor who conducted the audit. P.W-1, 3 to 8 were the persons in whose name fictitious bank accounts were opened/ fictitious loan were sanctioned during the tenure of the accused persons in the concerned branch and the petitioner was the branch manager at the relevant point of time.
18. P.W. 2- the informant of the case deposed that he was the chairman of the bank and the petitioner was the manager since 1990 to August, 1994. The co-accused was the clerk and cashier in the concerned branch. He further deposed that he came to know from the audit report that forgery was committed by withdrawal from the bank by opening fictitious saving bank accounts, by opening fictitious term deposit account and fictitious loan account against term deposit and the loan account were opened under IRDP and non-IRDP schemes. He further 6 deposed that the petitioner being the branch manager signed the loan identification and verification of the signature was done by him while he was posted at the concerned branch and in the entire transaction during the tenure of the petitioner, an amount of Rs. 8,72,500/- was siphoned off from the bank through such fictitious transactions. This witness was thoroughly cross-examined from the side of the defence and it has come during his cross-examination that no explanation was called for by him from the petitioner in connection with the discrepancy pointed out by the audit report and this witness had never inquired into the matter personally.
19. P.W. 9 was the branch manager of the bank during the period of special audit. He has deposed that through audit, it came to his knowledge that there was forgery and misappropriation committed by the petitioner and the cashier. This witness has also stated that as per the direction of the auditor, he went to several persons who denied to have taken any loan from the bank.
20. P.W. 12 was the concerned officer of the bank who conducted the enquiry / audit and prepared an audit report and consequently, the aforesaid entire fact about embezzlement of the money from the bank came to light. The P.W. 12 has also supported the case and during his examination, he admitted that he was not a chartered accountant.
21. P.W. 1, in her examination-in-chief, had stated that she had fixed deposits in the bank about six years back which she had received after death of her husband. She has categorically stated that she did not take any loan against these deposits. She has identified the accused in the court and has stated during cross-examination that at the time of deposit of money, her brother had accompanied him and at that time, there was no discussion or conversation in connection with taking any loan and during cross- examination again, she denied having taken any loan from the concerned bank.
22. P.Ws. 3 and 4 have categorically denied having taken any loan from the concerned bank and they have also stated that they neither signed any of the loan documents in the bank nor applied for any loan. They have categorically stated that they are illiterate persons, apply thumb impression as a mark of their identification and cannot sign. There was no material to indicate that P.Ws. 3 and 4 had taken any loan from 7 the bank although two different loans were standing in their respective name.
23. P.W. 5 has stated that he had a bank account in the concerned branch of the bank and he has categorically denied to have taken any loan against his fixed deposit and stated that the fixed deposit receipt was with him and therefore, there was no question of taking loan against fixed deposit. He has also stated that somebody else has taken loan in his name and has stated that the petitioner and the co-accused were posted in the branch during relevant period and he identified the accused. This witness has also been thoroughly cross-examination and he reiterated that he had not taken any loan from the bank. P.W. 6 has also denied having taken any loan from the bank. He has categorically stated during his cross-examination that his signatures were forged in the loan documents. P.W. 7 has also categorically denied having taken any loan from the bank and he had no knowledge about the loan. He categorically stated that he did not sign any document of the bank and identified both the accused in the court. During his cross-examination also, he reiterated that he had not taken any loan from the bank. P.W. 8 had also stated that he had not taken any loan from the bank.
24. P.W. 9 was the then bank manager. He has stated that the petitioner and the co-accused have been suspended. He has further stated that he came to know from the audit report that during the tenure of the petitioner and the co-accused, the defalcation of money of the bank had taken place. This witness has stated that he had met the customers of the bank under the instructions of the auditor who denied having taken any loan from the bank. P.W. 9 has further stated that he wanted to meet Fulmani Mai of the same village and he came to know that she was not a resident of the village and in fact, no such person as Fulmani Mai ever lived in that village, but, in spite of that loan was sanctioned and issued in such fictitious name. During examination of the documents and considering the photograph available in the documents, it came to light that the photograph was of someone else namely Yugal. The customers had also stated that neither they had made any application for loan nor they had signed any document for the purpose. This witness was fully cross-examined from the side of the defence and it was clear that during the tenure of the petitioner, fictitious loans were sanctioned although 8 such persons had not taken any loan from the bank either under IRDP or under NIRDP.
25. P.Ws. 10 and 11 are the investigating officers of the case who have fully supported the prosecution case and investigated the case. They have stated that they had been to the place of occurrence and had talked to the various persons and found the case against the accused persons true and submitted charge-sheet.
26. P.W. 12 is the person who had conducted the audit. He had clearly stated that on the date of his cross-examination, he was posted as branch manager of Singhbhum Regional Gramin Bank, Chakradharpur. He was fully examined and cross-examined. During his examination-in-chief, he had stated that he had conducted the audit along with one more person and during the period in question i.e. 05.07.1994 to 14.07.1994, he was posted in the Central office of the bank. At that point of time, the petitioner was the branch manager and the co-accused was working as the cashier and during the tenure of the petitioner, an amount of Rs. 8,72,500/- was siphoned off. He has given the details of the various amount which was deposited from the various accounts/ saving bank accounts opened in fictitious names. This witness has fully supported the case regarding opening of fictitious accounts, sanctioning of fictitious loans and transactions in the account leading to siphoning off the money from the bank. The audit report was also exhibited along with its annexures. During his cross-examination, this witness has categorically mentioned that he had prepared a summary of the audit report from page 01 to 05 and the matter regarding fictitious account was also available in the report from page no. 50 to 56. This witness also exhibited certain documents. This witness was thoroughly cross-examined. He has stated in his cross-examination that he was never appointed as an auditor of Singhbhum Kshetriya Gramin Bank and he had conducted the audit under the instructions of the head office. He stated that a copy of the said direction of head office was furnished by him in the court. He has stated that he had worked in various branches of the bank and he was given special training to conduct audit.
27. The learned trial court considered the evidences of all the witnesses including the persons who were said to be the account holders and were said to have taken loan as well as the person who had conducted the audit i.e. P.W. 12 and the investigating officers of the case 9 and found their evidences thoroughly reliable in spite of the fact that they were thoroughly cross-examined. The learned trial court also found that the loan was sanctioned even under the signature of those beneficiaries who, in fact, had categorically stated that they were illiterate and accordingly, could not sign and only put their thumb impression. The learned trial court recorded its findings at para 31 of its judgement that the accused persons including the petitioner defalcated an amount of Rs. 8,72,500/- belonging to the bank which came to light upon audit and from the report of the audit, it appeared that the accused persons had opened bogus accounts in an illegal manner and withdrew the amount from the account in an illegal manner and also sanctioned loan under IRDP and non-IRDP programme by committing forgery and fraudulently disbursed the money. The learned trial court also considered that the details of all the debit entries have been reflecting in the audit report. The learned trial court also recorded that the auditor had filed a petition that all the facts mentioned in the audit report were based on ledger book, payment scroll book, debit credit ledger and other documents relating to loan and the auditor had given his evidence in detail giving minute details of the various transactions. It is further not in dispute that all the witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined from the side of the defence including auditor. The learned trial court considered the evidences on record and convicted the petitioner under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and convicted the co-accused for offence under Sections 409 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code.
28. The two convicts filed separate appeals which were disposed of by common judgement which has been impugned by the petitioner who had filed his appeal before the lower appellate court as Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2000. The learned lower appellate court also considered the evidences on record and found that P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have given evidence and have clearly stated that they did not sign any of the documents of the bank. It has also recorded that the documents were produced before them and they had stated that they did not sign any of the documents.
29. The learned appellate court has recorded that although the documents have not been marked exhibit, but those documents were available in the records. The learned appellate court also recorded that 10 the defence did not take any steps to prove that the signature was that of the concerned persons.
30. The learned appellate court also considered that P.W. 12 has conducted the audit and exhibited various pages and upon whose perusal, it was clear that there was discrepancy in the ledger account, G.L.B. account and a number of loans were extended under IRDP and non-IRDP accounts to persons who never took loan and this is supported by the evidence of P.Ws. 3 to 8 who had given oral evidence that they did not take any loan. The learned appellate court also recorded from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5 that it is clear that though they had made certain deposit, but they did not take any loan against the deposit, but as per the bank record, loan was sanctioned in their names as well. P.W. 9 has clearly stated that all the loans were sanctioned by the petitioner and were also disbursed. The learned appellate court also considered the evidences on record and gave concurrent findings upholding the conviction of the petitioner as well as the co-accused.
31. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the signatures on the loan documents and other documents were never marked as exhibit and accordingly the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. This court is of the considered view that the aforesaid fact does not help the petitioner in any manner what so ever. This court finds that the accounts holders/beneficiaries of loan as per the bank records were examined as P.W. 1, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 and they have denied having taken any loan from the bank. They had also denied having signed any of the documents. From the records of the case, it appears that the documents in original from the bank were called for by the learned court below pursuant to an application filed by the accused for production of the original loan documents.
32. P.Ws. 3 and 4 have clearly deposed that they are completely illiterate and cannot even sign and use their thumb impression. They have deposed that they neither have any account in the bank nor have taken any loan from the bank. They have denied having put any signature on any loan document. They have also denied having filled up any form for loan. Thus, loan was even sanctioned by the petitioner in the name of illiterate persons- incapable of signing although the documents contained their alleged signature. On the face of such oral evidence of completely 11 illiterate persons, incapable of even putting their signature, non-marking of their alleged signature as exhibits is of no consequence and it was for the defence to lead evidence or appropriately cross examine them on the point as to whether they could sign or not. It is not in dispute from the side of the petitioner that he was the branch manager at the relevant point of time and loans were disbursed by him in the name of the aforesaid witnesses. P.W. 1 had clearly deposed that she had fixed deposits in the concerned branch of the bank and she had had two pass books, one was having Rs. 5,000/- and other was Rs. 35,000/- regarding fixed deposit. She clearly deposed that against these two deposits, she had not taken any loan.
33. P.W. 5 has stated that he had three fixed deposits in the bank bearing account numbers 26, 41 and 75 and the said fixed deposits had not matured. He had another fixed deposit in the bank which had matured and he had taken the entire amount. He has categorically stated that he has not taken any loan against any of the three fixed deposits and the original fixed deposit receipts were available with him. He has clearly stated that the accused persons were manager and cashier in the concerned branch of the bank at the relevant point of time. He has specifically referred to the loan account numbers with date and other documents connected with the two loan accounts and clearly stated that they are not under his signature and he had not taken any loan. This witness has been thoroughly cross examined by the defence, but he remained consistent in his evidence. P.W. 6 has clearly deposed that he has not taken any loan from the bank, nor he had filed any application for loan. He has referred to the loan application, the loan agreement, the demand promissory note, the bond under Public Demand Recovery Act along with dates of the documents and clearly denied his signature. However, he identified the accused in the court. P.W. 7 has also clearly denied having ever gone to the concerned bank and has clearly denied having taken any loan or even made any application for loan. He has also referred to the various documents with date and has clearly denied his signature on the documents. However, he identified the accused persons present in the court. P.W. 8 has also denied having taken any loan from the bank and he has stated that he never visited the bank for taking loan.
34. These witnesses have also been fully cross examined, but in spite of the fact that they denied execution of any of the loan documents and 12 have denied having taken any loan, no steps were taken from the side of the defence to further confront them with the signatures of the loan documents and/or get the same verified through an expert, although it was the defence who had called for the original loan documents by filing an application and the same were produced by the prosecution upon direction by the court. Most of the aforesaid witnesses have also deposed that the officers of the bank had come for an enquiry from them as to whether they had taken any loan or not to which they had denied. These witnesses have also stated that their statements were also recorded by the police.
35. This Court finds that it is not in dispute that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was the branch manager during which the transactions involved in the present case have taken place. It is further not in dispute that the persons namely P.W. 1, P.W. 3 to P.W. 8 are the persons in connection with whom the banking transactions were said to have been done. It is further not in dispute that the loan was disbursed under the signature of the petitioner. Further, the bank had conducted necessary enquiry through P.W. 12 before filing the case. P.W. 12 has fully supported the prosecution case and given the details of the banking transactions and the manner in which the money was siphoned off from the bank. This witness has also been thoroughly cross examined by the defence but his evidence remained consistent. The informant who is the chairman of the bank, the investigating officers of the case and another bank manager have also been examined as witnesses and have fully supported the prosecution case and were also thoroughly cross-examined by the defence, but their evidences from the side of the prosecution were found to be trust worthy and reliable by both the learned courts below.
36. The other argument of the petitioner is regarding incompetence of P.W. 12 to conduct Audit by referring to chapter V, Section-19 of Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 and Section 226 of the Companies Act. This court is of the considered view that the same has no bearing in the matter in view of the fact that the audit enquiry conducted by P.W. 12 was not in the capacity of Audit under the provisions of Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, but the same was pursuant to a direction issued by the head office to P.W. 12 who himself was a high ranking official of the bank to conduct an enquiry in the matter of opening of fictitious bank accounts and disbursement of fictitious loans resulting in siphoning of 13 bank's money during the tenure of the petitioner working as branch manager of the bank at the relevant point of time in connivance with the co-accused clerk cum cashier. This exercise is an internal enquiry/audit of the bank and has nothing to do with audit under Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. In such circumstances, argument of the petitioner that P.W. 12 was not competent to conduct any audit or enquiry on the ground that he was not a chartered accountant and he was not competent under the provisions of the aforesaid acts has no bearing in the matter and is devoid of any merit. This court is the considered view that in case of fictitious transactions, the bank has full jurisdiction to get the matter enquired into or audited by an officer of the bank itself and proceed accordingly.
37. So far as the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "L.I.C. of India and Ors. Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen"
reported in (2010) 4 SCC 491 is concerned, the same does not help the petitioner in any manner as there are enough materials on record to prove the prosecution case and the learned courts below have convicted the petitioner and the co-accused upon consideration of such materials which are neither illegal, nor perverse nor suffer from any material irregularity.
38. The judgements passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1972) 3 SCC 22 (Dr. S. L. Goswami Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) as well as (2019) 7 SCC 684 (Ranjit Kumar Haldar Vs. State of Sikkim) also do not help the petitioner as the prosecution has brought on record enough materials and has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts and the defence did not lead any evidence to create a doubt in the prosecution and even during cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the defence failed to create any doubt in the prosecution evidences.
39. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered view that fictitious transaction leading to siphoning off the money of the bank has been proved by the cogent evidence on record. There is no scope for re-appreciation of the materials/ evidence on record and to come to a different conclusion in revisional jurisdiction in absence of any illegality, or perversity or any material irregularity.
40. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, this petition is hereby dismissed.
41. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed.
1442. Let the copy of the records of the case as received from the learned court below, be sent back to the court concerned.
43. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through 'FAX/Email'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj