Kerala High Court
P.N. Sambasivan vs Inspector Of Police Cbi/Spe on 31 May, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KER 208
Author: P.Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2019 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1941
CRL.A.No. 31 of 2001
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 30/1998 of SPECIAL COURT (SPE/CBI)-
II, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/1st ACCUSED:
P.N. SAMBASIVAN, S/O.P.C.NARAYANAN,
BRANCH MANAGER,
SBT PAZHANGAD BRANCH,
KOCHI, R/O.NO.2,
PRESS CLUB COLONY,
ANCHUMANA ROAD,
EDAPPALLY, KOCHI - 24
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
SRI.S.RAJEEV
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBI/SPE, KOCHI
(R.C 25/1/95 OF SPE/CBI/KOCHI.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, C.B.I.
SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRYSC C.B.I.
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC, FOR CBI
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.05.2019,
ALONG WITH CRL.A.43/2001, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2019 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1941
CRL.A.No. 43 of 2001
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 30/1998 of SPECIAL COURT
( SPE/CBI)-II, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/2ND ACCUSED:
P.D.ARUN, S/O.H.DAMODARA PRABHU,
PRABHU NIVAS,
KANDAKADAVU, KOCHI.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.D.SHENOY (SR.)
SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
1 INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
C.B.I, S.P.E., KOCHI.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI. SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR, SPL.P.P. FOR
C.B.I.
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.K.P.SATHEESAN, SC, FOR CBI
SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRYSC C.B.I.
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC, FOR CBI
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
31.05.2019, ALONG WITH CRL.A.31/2001, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001
3
J U D G M E N T
The appellant in Crl.Appeal No.31 of 2001 is the first accused in C.C.No.30 of 1998 of the Special Court (SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam, and the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.43 of 2001 is the second accused therein. The first accused was the Manager of the Pazhangad Branch of the State Bank of Travancore (the Bank) during 1992-1995, and the second accused was a customer of the bank having an agricultural cash credit facility.
2. The two accused faced trial before the court below on the allegation that as part of a conspiracy hatched by them to cheat the bank, and to cause wrongful loss to the bank, the first accused sanctioned withdrawal of a huge amount of Rs.11,68,908/- to the second accused, much in excess of the sanctioned limit of Rs.3 lakhs, thus causing unlawful pecuniary benefit and advantage to the second accused, and to justify the said act and CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 4 also to ensure credit to the account of the second accused upto the sanctioned amount, the first accused purchased seven cheques drawn in favour of another account of the second accused from a partnership concern of which the second accused is a partner, the first accused kept the seven cheques for months without being presented for collection, with the object of facilitating credit to the account by the time, and to justify the act on his part, and also to make good the deficit in the account the first accused even made a false document, and false entries in the bank registers. The FIR in this case was registered by an Inspector of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the basis of some source information. It was not on the basis of any definite complaint from any responsible authority of the bank. After investigation, the CBI submitted final report in Court.
3. The two accused appeared before the trial court, and pleaded not guilty to the charge CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 5 framed against them under Section 120(B) IPC read with Sections 409, 420, 467, 471 and 477A IPC, and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Final report against the second accused was brought with the application of Section 120(B) IPC for every act of offence alleged against the first accused. The prosecution examined 23 witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P56 documents. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both the accused denied the incriminating circumstances. The first accused projected a defence that he sanctioned withdrawal in excess of the permitted limit in good faith, and he had also reported the matter for ratification to the higher authority, and that he had not made or fabricated any document or entry in the registers, with the object of cheating or defrauding the bank. The accused did not adduce any oral evidence but Exts.D1 to D10 were marked.
4. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the first accused guilty under CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 6 Sections 120(B), 409, 420, 467, 471 and 477A IPC, and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Applying Section 120(B) IPC, the second accused was also found guilty under all the above sections.
5. On conviction, the first accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under all the sections, and by applying Section 120(B) IPC, the second accused was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under all the sections. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 23.12.2000, the two accused have come up in appeal.
6. When the two appeals came up for hearing, the learned senior counsel submitted that the prominent allegation as against the first accused is that he sanctioned withdrawal of amount by the second accused from his agricultural cash credit account in excess of the sanctioned limit CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 7 in good faith, and that this by itself will not constitute the offence of criminal misconduct as defined under Section 13(1) of the PC Act. The learned counsel also submitted that the first accused had not made any document or entry dishonestly, with the object of cheating or defrauding the bank, and that whatever he did was only to rectify the mistakes committed by him during the discharge of his official functions. The learned counsel also submitted that the second accused cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 120(B) IPC, when he has not made any wrongful gain, and when he has not been party to any act done by the first accused or to any mistakes committed by the first accused.
7. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the entire materials including the judgment of the trial court what I find is that practically and prominently the prosecution case is that the first accused unauthorisedly sanctioned withdrawal of huge amount by the second accused from his CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 8 agricultural cash credit account with the bank far in excess of the sanctioned limit, with the object of causing undue advantage to the second accused, and that to justify, or to ensure credit of the sanctioned amount to the concerned account, the first accused even waited for weeks or months to encash the cheques purchased by him for credit to the account of a partnership firm of the said second accused. If this is the allegation, or if this is practically the prosecution case, it will have to be thoroughly examined whether the act of the first accused in sanctioning withdrawal of huge amount in excess of the permitted limit will by itself constitute an act of criminal misconduct as defined under the PC Act. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution does not have any allegation anywhere in any of the prosecution records that the first accused had accepted bribe or illegal gratification from the second accused for sanctioning overdrawal from his account. The prosecution does not have any material to allege CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 9 or to content that the first accused permitted or sanctioned overdrawal from the account of the second accused, with any malafide intention or with the object of helping the second accused unlawfully, or with the object of the second accused being unlawfully benefitted. Pending this appeal, the second accused filed Crl.M.A.No.1/2018 for accepting three documents as additional evidence. This application was not seriously opposed by the CBI because, the bank is a party to the documents. One is the final order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam in a loan recovery application brought by the bank as O.A.No.1579/1998, the other is the judgment of the Sub Court, Kochi in O.S.No.48/1998 brought by the bank for recovery of amount from eight defendants including the second accused, and the third one is the decree of the Sub Court in the said suit permitting the bank to recover the loan amount from the second accused and others. Since the prosecution cannot have any dispute regarding these CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 10 documents, Crl.M.A.No.1/2018 is allowed, the three documents are accepted, and the documents are marked as additional evidence in appeal as Exts.P11 to P13.
8. The additional documents marked in appeal are very much relevant in deciding whether the second accused can be said to have been unlawfully or unduly benefitted by the act of the first accused in sanctioning withdrawal of amount in excess of the permitted limits. What I gather from examining the whole prosecution records is that the cardinal issue involved in this case is quite legal, as to whether the accused can be convicted on the allegation of criminal misconduct, cheating, and forgery on the given allegations, if at all the factual aspects are admitted. It appears that the first accused does not practically have any dispute regarding the factual aspects concerning the overdrawal made by the second accused as sanctioned by him, and also regarding the purchase of seven cheques to the credit of one CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 11 partnership firm of which the second accused is a partner. Ext.P1 is the certified extract of the agricultural cash credit account No.13(2)/1992-1993 of the second accused, Ext.P6 is the extract of the account in the name of one M/s.Golden Creek, of which the second accused is a partner, and Ext.P45 is the extract of another account in the name of M/s.Bee Jay Motors, Karuvelippady, of which also the second accused is a partner. Seven cheques for a total amount of Rs.8,70,000/- were purchased by the first accused in exercise of his capacity as Bank Manager, for credit to the account of M/s.Golden Creek, and these cheques were issued from the account of M/s.Bee Jay Motors. It has come out in evidence that credit of an amount of Rs.8,70,000/- to the Ext.P1 account of the second accused was made by the first accused as on 31.03.1995 but, actually the amount covered by the seven cheques came to the Ext.P6 account as credit only by 07.06.1995. The prosecution allegation is that presentation of the seven cheques were delayed CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 12 by the first accused till 06.06.1995 despite recording credit as on 31.03.1995 itself, with the object of sufficient money being deposited in the Ext.P45 account . It will have to be examined whether this act also will, by itself constitute criminal misconduct as defined under the PC Act.
9. Before going to the discussion on the legal aspects referred to above, let me see whether there is a proper prosecution sanction in this case. Ext.P44 is the prosecution sanction proved by PW11, who was the General Manager of the bank at that time. It appears that the defence has no dispute regarding the prosecution sanction. Anyway, PW11 has given evidence that as the General Manager, he was the authority competent to remove the first accused from service, and that the Ext.P44 sanction was granted by him after perusing the entire prosecution records and after applying his mind independently to the facts of the case. This evidence stands not discredited. I find that there is a proper prosecution in this case under CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 13 Section 19 of the PC Act, to prosecute the first accused.
10. On the basis of the earlier decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, this Court has explained in State v. K. Mohanachandran (IAS) and Others [2017(4) KHC 297], as to what all things are necessary to constitute the offence of criminal misconduct as defined under Section 13 (1) of the PC Act. In this case, it is pertinent to note that the prosecution, or the CBI, does not have a specific case as to whether the allegations of criminal misconduct would come under Clause(i), or Clause(ii), or Clause(iii) of Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The ingredients of the three clauses are different, as explained by this Court in Mohana Chandran's case (cited supra). For the application of Clause(i), the first accused must have acted by corrupt or legal means, and for the application of Clause(ii), the public servant must have abused his position as a public servant. For CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 14 the application of Clause(iii), the public servant must have acted without public interest, and he must have thereby gained some benefit or pecuniary advantage for himself or somebody else. Whether it is Clause(i), or Clause(ii) or Clause(iii) the essential common requirement is that either the public servant, or somebody else must have obtained or derived some pecuniary advantage or benefit. For a conviction under Section 420 IPC, it must be proved that somebody was cheated, or that some wrongful loss was caused by the accused, and a corresponding wrongful gain was made by the accused. To punish a person under Section 467 IPC on the allegation of forgery, the accused must have made any false document, with the object of cheating, or with the object of defrauding somebody, or with the object of causing some sort of wrongful loss to somebody. If a person has made a document or made some entries in registers with the object of rectifying some mistake committed by him in the discharge of his official functions, it CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 15 cannot at all be said to be an act of forgery as defined under Section 463 IPC. The allegation of cheating and forgery against the first accused in this case will have to be analysed and examined in the particular factual background relating to the overdrawal sanctioned by him.
11. It has come out in evidence that as on 31.3.1995, an amount of ₹8,70,000/- came in the Ext.P1 account of the 2nd accused as credit as per the seven cheques purchased by the 1 st accused from the Ext.P5 account of M/s.Beejay Motors drawn in favour of the Ext.P6 account of M/s. Golden Creek, and that the outstanding liability in the Ext.P1 account was thereby brought down to ₹2,98,908/-. This is within the sanctioned limit. Of course, it is true that bringing down the amount within the sanctioned limit after having sanctioned overdrawal will not justify the act of sanctioning overdrawal. The crucial question is whether this will by itself constitute criminal misconduct as defined under the P.C Act. The additional CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 16 documents admitted in evidence as Exts.D11 to D13 on the side of the 2nd accused will show that the Bank had initiated civil proceeding against the 2 nd accused and others for recovery of the amount due, and the Bank has already obtained a decree. It is practically an admitted fact that the 1 st accused had not accepted any bribe or illegal gratification from the 2nd accused or any other partner of M/s.Golden Creek or M/s.Beejay Motors for unauthorisedly sanctioning overdrawal in favour of the 2nd accused. Thus, it is a fact that the 1st accused was not in any manner unlawfully benefitted, and that the 1st accused had not gained any undue benefit or advantage by sanctioning overdrawal in favour of the 2nd accused. For a findiing under Section 13 (1) (d) of the P.C Act, the prosecution must prove that either the public servant had obtained or derived any undue benefit or advantage, or by the act of the public servant some other person had made such gain or advantage. When the prosecution has no case at all anywhere CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 17 that the 1st accused had made any unlawful gain or benefit from out of the loan transaction, the next question is whether the 2nd accused had derived any unlawful benefit or gain in the loan transaction. The amount received by the 2nd accused by way of overdrawal is nothing but loan amount. This is not a gratuitous payment, and whatever amount received by the 2nd accused; whether it is within the permitted limits or above the permitted limits, will have to be repaid by him with interest. The said liability is a contractual liability. When the excess amount received by the 2 nd accused under the loan transaction, as unauthorisedly sanctioned by the 1st accused, is the amount to be repaid with interest as per a contract, it cannot at all be said that it was an unlawful benefit or gain made by the 2nd accused. The Exts.D11 to Ext.D13 documents will prove that the Bank has already obtained a decree on the civil side. The Bank can enforce the decree and realise the amount.
12. Yet another allegation against the 1st CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 18 accused is that having purchased the Ext.P7 series cheques from the account of M/s.Beeyjay Motors for credit to the Ext.P6 account of M/s. Golden Creek, the 1st accused unnecessarily kept the cheques for a few weeks without being encashed, and thereby he facilitated credit of amount to the Ext.P45 account. It is a fact that all the seven cheques in the Ext.P7 series cheques were honoured in time, and the amount had come to the Ext.P6 account of M/s. Golden Creek. The whole amount was collected by 7.6.1995. It is true that before getting credit of that much amount in the Ext.P6 account, the amount of ₹8,70,000/- covered by the seven cheques was credited to the Ext.P1 account by the 1st accused. Of course, it was wrong on his part to record credit before the cheques being honoured. This is of course wrong and is quite against the Code of conduct of the bank. No doubt, departmental action is possible against the 1st accused for the unauthorsed act done by him. To find him guilty or to punish him under Section CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 19 13 (1) (d) of the P.C Act, the 1st accused must have made some unlawful gain or undue benefit by his wrongful act, or he must have caused such gain or benefit to the second accused. The 2nd accused has not gained any unlawful benefit except overdrawal from his agricultural cash credit account. This overdrawal by itself cannot be said to be an act of undue gain or advantage because whatever amount drawn by him from the loan account will have to be repaid by him with interest as per the contract between him and the bank.
13. Just because the 1st accused kept the Ext.P7 series cheques unencahsed for some time with the object of facilitating credit in the account, the act of the 1st accused cannot be said to be an act of misconduct as defined under the P.C Act. Every misconduct is not punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) of the P.C Act. Misconduct, as meant and understood in common parlance, is not the criminal misconduct as defined under Section 13 (1) of the P.C Act. To make it criminal miscoduct as CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 20 defined under the P.C Act, it must be either an illegal or corrupt act, or it must be an act of abuse of official position, or it must be an act without public interest, and in any instance, the said act of the public servant must have caused some unlawful gain or benefit to him or somebodyelse. Sanctioning huge amount of loan in excess of the permitted or authorised limit, by a Bank Manager, cannot be said to be by itself an act of criminal misconduct, unless it involves some element of corruption. No doubt, if such overdrawal or the sanctioning of huge amount of loan beyond permitted limits was granted by the 1 st accused by accepting bribe from the 2 nd accused, it will definitely come under the purview of the P.C Act as a criminal misconduct. If the 1 st accused has caused any wrongful gain or benefit to the 2 nd accused, as part of the loan transaction, otherwise than as the amount of loan sanctioned by him, that also may come within the purview of criminal misconduct. Sanctioning an amount of loan; CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 21 whether it is within limits or beyond limits, will not by itself constitute an act of criminal misconduct. Just because he kept the Ext.P7 series cheques unenchased for sometime with the object of facilitating credit to the concerned account for honouring the cheques, he cannot be prosecuted on the allegation of criminal misconduct because he is no way benefitted by this. The 2 nd accused is also no way benefitted by this because whatever amount he received from the Bank by way of overdrawal will have to be repaid. No doubt, the alleged act of of the 1st accused would definitely amount to breach of the Code of Conduct of the Bank and also the Rules and Regulations governing the transactions of the bank. In such situations the course of action possible is departmental action, and not criminal prosecution under the P.C Act.
14. Now the question is whether the accused can be found guilty on the allegation of cheating or forgery or criminal breach of trust. It appears that without analysing the various provisions in CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 22 the backdrop of the factual allegations and the facts proved, the trial court mechanically found both the accused guilty under all the sections quoted in the final report by the CBI. For a finding on forgery, the prosecution must prove that some false document was made by the accused with the object of cheating or defrauding. It is not known how the prosecution would allege the offence of cheating in this case. As the person representing the Bank, the 1st accused acted officially and he sanctioned the loan to the 2 nd accused. If he exceeded his limits in his functions, he will have to be proceeded against departmentally. That the 1st accused, acting in his official capacity on behalf of the Bank, sanctioned loan in excess of his capacity, cannot be said to be an act of cheating because the offence of cheating must involve the elements defined under Section 415 I.P.C. Here, there is no case of breach of trust also. Loan was sanctioned by the 1st accused, the loan was availed by the 2nd CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 23 accused, the amount was used by him for his business purposes, the 2nd accused is liable to repay it with interest, and as a civil consequence, the Bank has also obtained a decree against the 2nd accused and others. If so, there is no question of breach of trust, or diversion or conversion of Bank funds.
15. To constitute the offence of forgery as defined under Section 463 I.P.C, the accused must have made some false document or false electronic record or part of such record or document, with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. Making some entries in Bank registers, or even making a document, for any other purpose than the purposes mentioned under Section 463 I.P.C will not constitute the act of forgery. In this case, making of document or falsification of CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 24 account was not made by the 1st accused with the object of committing fraud or to cheat the Bank or to support any claim. The Bank has examined so many bank officials, and important among them are PW1 and PW15. The Bank officials have given evidence regarding the loan transaction in this case, and also regarding the various entries made by the 1st accused in the various registers and accounts of the bank. The scientific evidene also proves that these entries were made by the 1 st accused. On this aspect, the accused cannot have any dispute also. But the crucial question is whether the 1st accused can be said to have nade such entries as an act of forgery. No doubt, the document allegedly made by the 1st accused, and also the entries allegedly made by him in the bank registers were for rectifying the mistakes committed by him in his official functions.
16. The 1st accused has a definite contention that the fact of overdrawal sanctioned by him was reported to the higher authority, and he had sought CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 25 ratification. When asked about this, PW15 could not say anything, and the Investigating Officer also could not give any definite answer to this question. However, to some questions on this aspect, the Investigating Officer gave answers hinting that the request for ratification was not made within time by the 1 st accused. This specific answer that it was not made within time, shows that such a request for ratification was in fact made by the 1st accused before the higher authority. This means that on a bona fide intention or with the bona fide belief that the higher authority would ratify the overdrawal sanctioned by him, he sanctioned overdrawal, but unfortunately the act was not ratified by the higher authority.
17. No document was made by the 1 st accused, and no entry was made by him in the bank registers with the object of cheating or defrauding the bank, or for supporting any claim. He probably realised the mistake on his part, and the request made by him for ratification was also not entertained by CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 26 the higher authority. In such a circumstance it is quite natural that the bank Officer will do something to justify the act done by him unauthorisedly or mistakenly, and to rectify such mistakes, he will do something unauthorisedly too. This is what really happened in this case. Overdrawal was wrongly and unauthorisedly sanctioned by the 1st accused, but he could not get it ratified. When he purchased the Ext.P7 series cheques, he recorded credit to the account of the 1st accused without and before the cheques being encashed. However, within the permitted time, all the seven cheques were honoured by the bank and the entire amount by way of cheques was credited to the Ext.P6 account also. Anyway, it is a fact that things were wrongly done by him, or he had committed breach of the Rules of the Bank and the Code of Conduct of the Bank. For this, he must face the consequences, and it appears that he has already faced the consequence. For the amount due from the 2nd accused, the bank has already obtained CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 27 decree from the Civil Court and also from the Debt Recovery Tribunal. When there is decree for the entire amount due with interest and when that is the liability under the contract executed by the 2nd accused, the amount received by him by way of loan cannot be said to be an unlawful benefit or undue advantage. When the 1st accused cannot be convicted, the 2nd accused also will have to be absolved, because his liability allegedly is only under Section 120B I.P.C.
18. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the conviction and sentence against the two accused is liable to be set aside. It is made clear that by this acquital, the 1st accused will not be absolved from the consequences of departmental action possible or taken or concluded against him. The court's concern is not whether the Bank Manager has committed breach of the Bank Rules and the Code of Conduct, but whether he has committed any definite offence as defined under the law. In the absence of any material to constitute the CRL.A.No. 31 & 43 of 2001 28 essentials of criminal misconduct as defined under the law or to constitute the act of forgery made with the object of cheating or defrauding, the court will have to find the 1st accused not guilty.
In the result, both the appeals are allowed. The appellants are found not guilty of the offences alleged against them under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 471, 4771A IPC and 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act and they are acquitted of the said offences in appeal under Section 386(b)(i) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence against the two appellants in CC 30/1998 of the court below will stand set aside, and the two appellants will stand released from prosecution. The bail bond, if any, executed by them will stand discharged.
Sd/-
Rkj/ma P.UBAID
/True copy JUDGE
P.S to
Judge