Jharkhand High Court
Mahendra Prasad Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 July, 2016
Author: R.N. Verma
Bench: Ravi Nath Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision - No. 1115 of 2014
With
Cr. Revision - No. 1136 of 2014
With
Cr. Revision - No. 1165 of 2014
1. Nageshwar Sharma, son of late Niranjan Sharma, resident of
Ashapurna Society, PO & PS-Mithapur, District- Deobhumi
Dwarka(Gujarat) (in Cr. Revision - No. 1115 of 2014)
2. Madhusudan Banerjee, son of late Satindra Chandra Banerjee,
resident of S.N.Roy road, Kolkata PO- Shahapur, PS- New
Alipore, District- South 24 Pargana, Kolkata (W.B.)
(in Cr. Revision - No. 1136 of 2014)
3. Binoy Kumar Mishra, son of Late Chandrakant Mishra
Resident of D-9, Pragati Nagar, PO & PS- Dipka,
District- Korwa (Chhatisgarh) (in Cr. Revision - No. 1165 of 2014)
.... .... Petitioners
--Versus--
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Director of Mines Safety, Dhanbad Region no.-1, Dhanbad at
PO, PS & District- Dhanbad .... ....Opposite parties
(In Cr. Revision nos. 1115 of 2014, 1136 of 2014 and 1165 of 2014)
With
Cr. Revision - No. 1195 of 2014
Mahendra Prasad Gupta @ Mahendra Kumar Gupta
Son of late Parmeshwari Das, resident of Sector-3, Pocket no. 1 and 2,
Dwarka, PO & PS-Dwarka, New Delhi .... .... .... Petitioner
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA
In Cr. Rev. nos.- 1115 of 2014 and 1136 of 2014
For the petitioner : M/s. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Amit Kr. Mehta &
Sharad Kaushal, Adv
For the State :- M/s M.B.Lal & Sadhna Kumar, A.P.P.
In Cr. Rev. no.-1165 of 2014
For the petitioner :- Mr. A.K.Kashyap, Sr. Advocate & Anurag Kashyap, Adv.
For the State :- Ms. Anita Sinha, A.P.P
In Cr. Rev. no. 1195 of 2014
For the petitioner: M/s. Nagmani Tiwari, Kaustav Panda and
Manoj Kr. Dash, Adv.
For the State :- Mr. V.S.Sahay, Advocate
For the Mines Safety:- A.S.G.I.
CAV ON- 27/06/2016 PRONOUNCED ON-29/07/2016
All the four revision applications arising out of the same
judgment of affirmation of the conviction and sentences were heard
together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short
2
"the Code"), the petitioners of all the four revision applications have
prayed for setting aside the judgment dated 03.09.2014 passed by
learned Sessions Judge- Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal nos. 73 of 2007,
74 of 2007 and 76 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 09.03.2007 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.M.A. Case no. 357 of 1996
has been affirmed.
3. The prosecution case, which is based on a complaint filed
at the instance of the complainant - Director of Mines Safety,
Dhanbad Region no.-1, C.M.A. no. 357 of 1996 was instituted with the
allegation that the complaint being the Inspector of Mines under
Section 5(1) of the Mines Act received information that on 05.01.1996,
when a gang of 17 loaders were engaged in loading coal at Junction-
8, East Level of Two Dip, bottom section, Combined Seam, PK-1 Unit
of Kusunda Colliery, Coal roof measuring about 7.6m x 6.1m x 0.20 m
fell from the height of 2.8 m inflicting fatal injuries to four of them
and five others received serious bodily injury whereas the remaining
8 loaders escaped unhurt. During inspection and inquiry by the
complainant, following violations were found, which caused the
accident: (i) in contravention of Systematic Support Rules framed and
enforced under the provision of Regulation 108 of Central Mines
Rules, 1957 read with Section 18(4) of the Mines Act, the accused
persons namely Mahendra Kumar Gupta, Nageshwar Sharma, Binoy
Kumar Mishra and Madhusudan Banerjee failed to support the place
of occurrence as per the said Systematic Support Rules.
(ii) in contravention of the above Systematic Support Rules, the
accused no.-5 i.e. Shankar Prasad Mukherjee Under Manager,
Kusunda Colliery could not take step for making inspection of place
of occurrence nor gave specific direction pertaining to support the
place of occurrence although condition of bad roof were reported to
him by Sri Chand Babu- Overman of Shift.
(iii) the accused-overman Sri Chand Babu engaged the loaders at
the place of occurrence, which was not supported as per the terms of
3
the Systematic Support Rules even when the condition of bad roof
was reported to him by the over man of the previous shift.
(iv) one of the accused Sardar Ambika Singh of the said Colliery
deployed the loaders in the face without supporting the roof in terms
of Systematic Support Rules.
Hence, the above noted contraventions constitute
offences, which are punishable under Section 72 (A) and since the
above contraventions resulted in loss of lives of four persons and
serious bodily injuries to 5 persons, the accused persons are severally
and vicariously liable for punishment under Section 72(c)(1)(a) and
72(c)(1)(b) respectively of the Mines Act, 1952.
After the accident, an inquiry was
conducted by competent authority and during inquiry, 21 persons
including injured labourers were examined. Inquiry Report was
marked as Ext.-5.
4. After substance of accusations were read over and
explained to the accused persons, the prosecution in order to prove
its case examined Siaram Paswan as PW-1, Bhaskar Bhattacharya-
PW-2, Mahadev Mandal- PW 3 and Sanjiv Kumar- PW-4. The
documentary evidences were also adduced, which were marked from
Ext.-1 to Ext.-15.
5. The trial court after considering the evidences both oral
and documentary and hearing the parties convicted the accused
persons namely Mahendra Kumar Gupta, Nageshwar Sharma, Binoy
Kumar Mishra, Sahid Akhtar Khan and Madhusudan Banerjee under
Sections 72(A), 72(c)(1)(a) and 72(c)(1)(b) of the Mining Act and
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of six
months, two years and one year respectively with fine with default
clause. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, the accused persons preferred three appeals bearing
Criminal Appeal no. 73 of 2007, Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2007 and
Criminal Appeal no. 76 of 2007 before the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad.
4
The appellate court after hearing the parties affirmed the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence. Hence, the above revisions.
6. Though the revisions were filed by different counsels but
the main submission was advanced by Mr. Kashyap learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Revision no. 1165 of
2014 and the other counsels adopted the same submissions except
Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta the learned counsel appearing in Cr.
Revision no. 1115 of 2014 and Cr. Revision no. 1136 of 2014, who
further submitted on the issue of grant of sanction.
7. Mr. Kashyap learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner while assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence of
the trial court and its affirmation by the appellate court as not
sustainable in the eye of law seriously contended that before lodging
the complaint, an inquiry was made by the complainant and during
inquiry, the statement of 21 persons were recorded but the
prosecution examined only one witness, who was not even injured
witness, out of the said 21 witnesses to prove the case before the
learned trial court and no other injured person or even any unhurt
person, who was working at the time of accident, was examined in
court. It was also submitted that except PW 1- Siaram Paswan and
Mahadev Mandal- PW 3, no witness named in the complaint petition
was examined by the prosecution but without applying its judicial
mind, the trial court convicted the petitioners, which was
subsequently affirmed by the appellate court. Learned senior counsel
further contended that the complaint petition was signed by the
Director of Mines Safety, Dhanbad Region but in contravention of the
provisions of the Act, the same was presented in court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad not by the complainant but by
some other person. It was also contended that sanction of DGMS was
necessary before filing of the case but the same was not obtained and
never filed in the court and the non-examination of witnesses other
than the two uninjured PW 1 and PW 3, the prosecution has failed to
prove its case and even there is no allegation in the entire complaint
5
as to which provision of any regulation or any laws or any order
made thereunder has been contravened by the petitioners, which
constitute the offence punishable under Sections 72(A), 72(c)(1)(a)
and 72(c)(1)(b) of the Mines Act and in absence of any such
allegation, the judgment of conviction and sentence cannot sustain
and are liable to be set aside. Learned senior counsel inviting the
attention of the Court to para-10 of the trial court judgment where the
court has come to the finding that accused persons were all aware
about the dangerous condition of the said mines for which they were
strictly bound to follow the provisions of Systematic Rules seriously
contended that this finding is perverse as no such evidence has been
brought before the trial court by the prosecution. Even, there is no
evidence on the record to show the negligence on the part of the
petitioners even after being reported regarding the faulty condition
of the roof but the trial court in para 12 of the judgment has recorded
a finding that the matter relating to the bad condition of the roof was
reported to the authorities. PW-1 in his evidence has testified that
Champai Munda and Kishori Bouri had given the information
regarding the bad condition of mines roof to the Mining Sardar
Ambika Singh but there is no evidence on the record to show that the
said Ambika Singh had ever informed of such condition to the
petitioners and the two persons Champai Munda and Kishori Bouri
have also not been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the
said statement. Hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial court and its affirmation by the appellate court,
merely based on the allegations made in the complaint, cannot
sustain and being unwarranted and illegal are liable to be set aside.
Learned senior counsel in support of his contention relied on several
judgments including (2004) 7 SCC 659; State of Maharashtra Vs.
Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and others, (2004) 7 SCC 665;
Ram Briksh Singh and others Vs. Ambika Yadav and another, 2012
(2) East Cr. C. 645; Surendra Chauhan & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, 2002
6
(4) Crimes, 101; Maguni Ranjan Jyoti Vs. State of Orissa and 2012(4)
East Cr.C. 461 (Jhr.);Raju Sahu Vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)
8. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta learned counsel for one of the
petitioner Nageshwar Sharma ( in Cr. Rev. no. 1115 of 2014) adopted
the submissions of learned senior counsel Mr. Kashyap but
addressed the Court on the point of sanction and seriously contended
that the judgment of conviction by the trial court and its affirmation
by the appellate court are bad in law as no sanction as provided
under Section 197 of the Code was granted by the competent
authority. Resultantly, the order taking cognizance is itself bad in
law. Mr. Mehta further submitted that the petitioners were all senior
officers like General Manager, Manager and being public servant, a
protection has been given under Section 197 of the Code but the
prosecution has not produced any document to show the grant of
sanction by the competent authority as previous sanction for their
prosecution was necessary. Lastly it was submitted by Mr. Mehta
that though the petitioner Nageshwar Sharma has been shown to be
an Agent and on that ground, he has been prosecuted but he was
never appointed by the competent authority as an Agent and this fact
has been supported by PW 2- Bhaskar Bhattacharya in his evidence
that the accused was Additional General Manager on the date of
alleged occurrence. This fact also finds support from Ext.11/1 in
which he was shown as Additional General Manager and not an
Agent of Kusunda Colliery and since he was not an Agent, he cannot
be prosecuted in the light of the judgment delivered on 08.10.2014 in
Cr.M.P. no. 4878 of 2001; S.Aikat Vs. State of Jharkhand and another
wherein cognizance of offence taken against the petitioner of that
case, who was never nominated as an Agent or deemed Agent under
Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1957, was quashed.
9. Per contra, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing on behalf of the Director of Mines Safety, Dhanbad
submitted that there are ample legal evidence on record to show that
the complaint was presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate by
7
an authorized person on behalf of Director of Mines Safety and the
same would be clear from the letter addressed to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate forwarding the complaint petition and that it was the
intention of the framer of law that under Section 75 of the Mines Act,
the Director General of Mines or the other competent person has not
to be physically present before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the
presentation rather he may authorize any other person or even an
Advocate to present the complaint petition before the competent
court. Learned A.S.G. further contended that both the courts have
rightly evaluated the evidences on record and convicted the
petitioners and even if the petitioners were public servant, no
sanction was required in their cases as none of them was removable
from their office save by or with the sanction of the government. Such
sanction under Section 197 of the Code for launching of prosecution
against such officers i.e. the petitioners are not required and in
support of his contention, the learned A.S.G. relied on a case K.Ch.
Prasad Vs. J.Vanalagha Devi and others as reported in (1987) 2 SCC
52. It was also submitted that since the accident has not been denied
by the defence, examination of the witnesses cited as witness during
inquiry is not necessary. Lastly, it was submitted that this court
sitting in revision cannot undertake indepth and minute re-
examination of the entire evidences and upset the concurrent
findings of the trial court and first appellate court.
10. Before I enter into the veils of submissions of the learned
counsels, it is pertinent to examine the powers of this Court sitting in
revision. Learned senior counsel Mr. Kashyap relying upon a case
State of Maharashtra (supra) submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in para 22 of the judgment has held that the revisional court is
empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the appellate
court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 401 of the Code.
Section 401 of the Code is a provision enabling the High Court to
exercise all powers of an appellate court, if necessary, in aid of power
of superintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision
8
conferred on the High Court or the Sessions Court. So, the High
Court sitting in revision can exercise all the appellate powers. But, on
going through the entire judgment, I find that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has considered the revisional power of High Court in that case
otherwise. In the said case State of Maharashtra (supra), the accused
was convicted by the trial court and the appellate court being the
Sessions Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial Court, Whereafter, matter came in revision before
the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Court acquitted the accused
persons from the charges. The matter went up to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court setting aside the
judgment of acquittal held that there were no grounds available with
the High Court to upset the verdict of conviction and sentence passed
by the two courts and to direct acquittal of the accused. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in paragraph 21 of the said judgment held as follows:
"21. In embarking upon the minutest re-examination of the whole
evidence at the revisional stage, the learned Judge of the High Court was
totally oblivious of the self-restraint that he was required to exercise in a
revision under Section 397 CrPC. On behalf of the accused, reliance is
placed on the decision of this Court to which one of us (Justice
Sabharwal) is a party i.e. Ram Briksh Singh v. Ambika Yadav. That was
the case in which the High Court interfered in revision because material
evidence was overlooked by the courts below."
In another case Duli Chand Vs. Delhi
Administration (1975) 4 SCC 649, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
considering the similar issue held in paragraph-5 as follows:
"5. The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction
of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in
refusing to reappreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining
whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned
Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct. But
even so, the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the
purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the
finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the
finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse. "
Though observation was made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the above case, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court
further held in para-24 that it is necessary to note that in the case of
Duli Chand (supra), the High Court had re-appreciated the whole
9
evidence and confirmed the findings of the two courts below. This
Court, therefore, did not interfere with the findings.
11. Obviously in the light of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, this Court sitting in revision cannot re-appreciate or
review the entire evidence but at the same time, this Court cannot
ignore to re-examine the findings recorded by the two courts below
to see whether those findings are based on the appreciation of
evidence in right perspective and not perverse.
12. So far as the submission of the learned senior counsel Mr.
Kashyap that the complaint was not presented by the Director of
Mines Safety or by any other person authorized by him, is concerned,
on perusal of complaint petition (Ext.1), it would appear that the
complainant was B.Bhattacharya, Director Mines Safety, Dhanbad
Region and his signature is there on the complaint petition. The
forwarding letter of the same authority is also there by authorizing
Sri M.M.Ansari, the Special P.P./A.P.P. Mines of the Directorate to
present the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In this
connection, a reference of Section 75 of the Act is important and the
Section 75 of the Act provides that no prosecution shall be instituted
against any Agent or Manager for any offence under the Act except at
the instance of Chief Inspector or of the District Magistrate or of an
Inspector authorized in this behalf by the general or special order in
writing by the Chief Inspector. The new designation of the post of
Chief Inspector is Director General and Inspector is equivalent to
Director. The word "At the instance" as used above does not mean
that the complaint should be presented by the person named above
by physically present in Court. It appears from perusal of the
complaint that it was signed by the Director, Mines Safety, who had
been authorized and in the forwarding letter to the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, the name of the Advocate was duly authorized to
conduct the case. So, there appears to be no contravention of the
provision of Section 75 of the Act.
10
13. The second submission of learned senior counsel
Mr. A.K. Kashyap and learned counsel Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta was
on the issue of sanction as no previous sanction was obtained before
taking cognizance though the accused persons were all public
servant. In the case K.Ch. Prasad (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
while dealing with the almost similar situation in which the accused
was an Officer in a Nationalized Bank held in para-6 as follows:
"6. It is very clear from this provision that this section is attracted
only in cases where the public servant is such, who is not removable
from his office save by or with the sanction of the government, it is
not disputed that the appellant is not holding a post where he could
not be removed from service except by or with the sanction of the
government. In this view of the matter even if it is held that
appellant is a public servant, still provisions of Section 197 are not
attracted at all."
At this juncture, learned senior counsel Mr. Kashyap
contended that obviously the petitioners are not holding the post or
posts where they could be removed from services except by or with
the sanction of the government but the competent authority, who can
remove the petitioners from services derives his power under
regulations and those regulations ultimately derive from authority or
the Act of the Parliament and, therefore, it was contended that the
regulations are framed with the approval of the Central Government.
It is true that the authority under the BCCL has derived powers
under regulations, which were enacted by the Parliament but it does
not mean that the petitioners cannot be removed from their services
by anyone except by or with the sanction of the government. Even
though the petitioners were public servants, sanction was not
required. Hence, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate in
the instant case cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
14. So far as another contention of learned counsel Mr. Mehta
relating to one of the petitioner Nageshwar Sharma that he was never
an agent, is concerned, a close scrutiny of Section 77 of the Mines Act
is necessary which provides the circumstances under which the
liability could be avoided by the owner, agent or Manager. The
11
Section permits the owner, the agent or the Manager to file a
complaint against the actual offender or to have the accused
produced before the court. When the owner, agent or Manager
successfully proves that he used due diligence to enforce execution of
the relevant provisions of the Act, (a) that the person, who actually
committed the offence, did so without his knowledge, consent and
connivance and (b) that when actually offender is thus brought to
book, the liability of the owner, agent or Manager is avoided. But in
the instant case, there is no evidence on record to show that either the
owner or agent or Manager at any point of time even tried to bring
the actual offender before the court or even there is no whisper that
this issue was raised either before the trial court or before the first
appellate court.
Section 77 of the Act clearly shows that if any
other person (actual offender), apart from "owner" or "agent" or
"manager" is proved to the satisfaction of the Court, to have
committed the offence, such other has to be convicted of the offence
and has to be made liable to the like punishment" as if he were the
"owner", "agent" or "manager" of the Mines. This provision clearly
shows that not only the "owner", "agent" or "manager" can be
prosecuted but other person, actually contravening the provisions,
can equally be prosecuted. The word " whoever" as used in Sections
72-A, 72-B and 72-C brings within its sweep, not only the above three
but also any person whatsoever who may be found to be
contravening the provisions of the Act. Hence, I do not find any force
in the submission of the learned counsel Mr. Mehta that the
petitioner Nageshwar Sharma being not an agent, his prosecution
was bad in law. However, as the opportunity provided to him under
the Act, has not been followed, the said petitioner cannot evade his
prosecution in this case.
15. The further contention of the learned senior counsel Mr.
Kashyap that the two courts below have not appreciated the evidence
12
in right perspective, in my opinion, in view of the ratio decided by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case State of Maharashtra (supra),
this Court cannot re-appreciate or review the evidence in depth. Even
then I perused the evidences on record. It is true that all the persons,
quoted as witnesses in the inquiry report (Ext.-5), have not been
examined. It is well settled that it is the discretion of the prosecution
to whom he wants to examine in court. The statements of the injured
witnesses were recorded during inqury and they are also the part of
the record (Ext.-4 to Ext.4/20). PW 1- Siaram Paswan was one of the
victim, who had escaped unhurt in the said accident, has testified in
his evidence that on the day of occurrence, he was working in
Kusunda Colliery as mining loader and the occurrence took place on
5th January. He was attending the duty from night of 4th January in
third shift, which commenced at 12.00 hours mid night to 8.00 hours
in the morning. On 5th January at 5:30 a.m., when the occurrence took
place, 17 persons were working there and when the roof fell, nine
workers received hurt and four workers received serious injury. Later
on, seriously injured workers namely Kishori Bouri, Guna Manjhi,
Gopal Mandal and Sagar Manjhi succumbed to their injuries. This
witness in paragraph-5 of his deposition has further testified that at
the time of working, he along with other workers found the condition
of the roof bad, whereafter Kishori Bouri and Champai Munda of the
gang informed the Mining Sardar Ambika Singh about the bad
condition of the roof. They were apprehending that roof will fall on
them. The said Ambika Singh directed to call the dresser, who came
and reported that the condition of the Chal i.e. roof was not proper
upon which the Mining Sardar reacted and said that he has
experience of 20 years and nothing will happen and asked the loaders
including the witness to continue the excavation. The witness has
further testified that the workers protested and requested to give
support to place but the Mining Sardar refused to listen and during
that period, the roof at the junction fell down and the accident took
place but as the witness had moved from that place, he did not
13
sustain any injury. During cross-examination, the witness has stated
that the complaint was made to Ambika Singh by Kishori Bouri and
Champai Munda as there was no cog at the junction bolting and this
fact was reported to the Inspector Mines also and since the workers
i.e. the loaders were working at the place of occurrence without cog
in the bolts, the roof fell down suddenly. It is no doubt that the two
persons Champai Munda and Kishori Munda have not been
examined by the prosecution but the facts remain that due to
violation of Systematic Support Rules, the occurrence took place. The
defence during cross-examination had not given any suggestion that
the injured persons died otherwise in any other incidence. Even in
their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused
persons have not denied the said incidence or the factum of death of
four loaders. Secondly the reason for non-examination of Kishori
Bouri was that after sustaining injury, he succumbed to the injuries.
On perusal of the judgments of the court below, I find that the court
below has discussed the evidences available on record in right
perspective and the submission of the learned senior counsel that the
evidences were not properly appreciated, has no force.
16. Lastly so far as the submission of Mr. Kashyap that there
is no basis for conviction of the petitioners under Section 72(c)(1)(a)
and Section 72 (c) (1) (b) as the courts below have not pointed out any
contravention or violation of any provision of Mines Act or of any
regulation or rule or bye-laws, the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence are bad in law, in my opinion, P.W.1 in his evidence has
clearly testified that there was violation at the hands of the
authorities as the complaint was made to the Mining Sardar and the
Inspector of Mines. Both the courts below have considered the
negligence on the part of the petitioners. The appellate court in para-
12 of the judgment has considered this aspect and the trial court has
also considered the negligence of the petitioners as well as violation
of rules.
14
17. In view of the discussions made above, I do not find any
merit in the above revision applications. Hence, all the above revision
applications, being devoid of any merit, are, accordingly, dismissed.
(R.N. Verma, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, 29th July, 2016
Ritesh/N.A.F.R.