Kerala High Court
Thomas Daniel vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 5 May, 2022
Author: K.Haripal
Bench: K.Haripal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 15TH VAISAKHA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 7709 OF 2021
CRIME NO. ECIR NO. KCZO/32/2020 ON THE FILE OF ENFORCEMENT
DIRECTORATE, COCHIN
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1:
THOMAS DANIEL
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.LATE DANIEL,
PERMANENTLY RESISDING AT INCHIKATTIL HOUSE,
P.O.VAKAYAR, KONNI,
PATHANAMTHITTA,
PIN-686698.
BY ADV. C.S.MANU
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
ERNAKULAM,
PIN-682011.
BY SRI. S.V.RAJU, ADDL. SOILICITOR GENERAL,
SRI. ZOHEB HUSSAIN, SPL.COUNSEL FOR ED,
SRI. SUVIN R. MENON, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL
SRI. ANSHUMAN SINGH,
SMT. PALLAVI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.03.2022, THE COURT ON 05.05.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.7709 of 2021 2
ORDER
The first accused in ECIR No.KCZO/32/2020 on the file of the respondent Enforcement Directorate has moved this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to release him on bail. Earlier he had moved the Special Court for trial of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and by successive orders all the applications for bail moved by him were dismissed, of late, by Annexure-A3 order. In the said order the application moved by the petitioner was dismissed whereas the second accused, his daughter, was released on bail under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Act. The said ECIR was registered by the respondent alleging offence under Section 3 read with 4 of the Act. The petitioner was arrested for the case on 09.08.2021 and since then is continuing in judicial custody.
2. According to the petitioner, initially he was arrested on 29.08.2020 by Konny police in Crime No. 1740/2020 alleging various offences under Sections 406, 420 read with 34 of the IPC. Later he was granted bail under various common orders passed by B.A. No.7709 of 2021 3 this Court. Similarly, bail was granted to him by the Additional Sessions Court-III, Alappuzha which is the Special Court for the trial of offences under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, for short the BUDS Act. Similarly various crimes registered against him for cheating and criminal breach of trust by the local police were transferred for investigation to the CBI. In some cases, the Special Court for the trial of CBI cases also granted him bail. All such bail orders were passed imposing stringent conditions, restricting his movements and also with direction for periodical report before the Investigating Officer. During all these times, he was subjected to interrogation by the respondent on several occasions and was arrested on 09.08.2021, after releasing him from judicial custody in the other cases. According to him, the allegations raised against him by the respondent are baseless, that he is absolutely innocent. He alone is doing the business. Due to the financial crisis arose during the lockdown imposed on account of the outbreak of Covid-19, he could not promptly repay the fixed deposits. In fact, interest was being paid by him promptly. Such businesses are being run by him B.A. No.7709 of 2021 4 from 1965 onwards without any sort of complaint. After his arrest in Crime No. 1740/2020 of Konny police station, he had been in police custody for seven days. Then he was thoroughly interrogated; all his branches were searched, vehicles belong to him have been seized and bank accounts have been frozen. All the documents have been taken into custody by the police. In the circumstances, detaining him in further judicial custody is not necessary. Moreover, investigation in the crimes is progressed by the CBI. Till April, 2020 he has paid interest to the depositors. The allegation that he has siphoned off huge amount to Australia is baseless. He has been implicated on misconception and he is willing to co-operate with the investigation. In the nature of the allegations and evidence collected by the respondent, his further custody is not necessary. All the material evidence in the form of electronic evidence have been seized by the investigating agency. Moreover, earnest efforts are being made with a potential business concern by name D Capitals Portfolio Investments LLC, Abu Dhabi for taking over, reviving and restructuring all the businesses of the Popular Group of Companies comprising different legal B.A. No.7709 of 2021 5 entities. If the takeover happens, entire amount due to the depositors will be repaid in due course of time. However, the learned Special Judge had dismissed the application without taking into consideration various important aspects. Therefore, he is sought to be released on bail.
3. The respondent has filed a detailed objection through the learned Additional Solicitor General of India. He has denied all the claims of the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner is the Managing Partner of M/s. Popular Finance with his wife and three daughters as his partners. State police received large number of complaints regarding cheating committed by the petitioner and others. It is estimated that about 3,000 depositors were cheated to the tune of 1,000 crores of rupees. Considering the enormity of the crime, the Enforcement Crime Information Report (ECIR) was registered and investigation was commenced by the respondent. The claims made by the petitioner are baseless. Incriminating materials have been collected by the respondent and there are materials to indicate that he has committed offence under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Act. If he is released on bail, B.A. No.7709 of 2021 6 possibility of him tampering with evidence and influencing the witnesses cannot be ruled out. The primary witnesses of the case are the employees of the Popular group. Similarly, even though he was interrogated on different occasions, he has not divulged the true state of affairs and has not co-operated with the investigation. He was evasive and non co-operative. After collecting huge amounts from the depositors, he has laundered the money in Australia and Dubai on the pretext of imports through banking channels and through hawala. Materials have been collected to show that sale proceeds of the properties disposed of by him have been received in his Savings Bank account through the bank accounts of unknown persons and ultimately used for his personal benefits.
4. In the objection, statements of Sri.Koshy Mathew, DGM and Thomas Daniel, Cashier of Popular Finance Group have been highlighted who have stated that the petitioner had withdrawn cash of about 100 crores of rupees by assigning signed cheques to the said Thomas Daniel, cashier, which were used for purchase of properties and for his personal requirements. B.A. No.7709 of 2021 7 Moreover, gold kept as security against gold loans availed by the customers were re-pledged by the petitioner and others without the consent of the customers. The money withdrew from the bank account of the Popular Finance was converted to dollars and sent to Dubai through carriers who are his friends and relatives. Such money was delivered to his relative Mr. Boban at Dubai. The said Boban was transferring the amount to Mr. Varghese Pynadath, brother-in-law of the petitioner in Australia. The petitioner is holding 50% of the share in a Dubai based company by name Carry Cart Trading LLC, along with one Eldo. It came out through interrogation of the petitioner that he invested one million Dirhams for the purchase of shares of Carry Cart Trading LLC. The network of the petitioner is very large and spreads its tentacles in India and abroad. He has purchased assets in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh worth several crores of rupees. Even though he has sold 15 cents of land in Konni in August 2020 for Rs.1 crore, Rs.90 lakhs of sale proceeds was received in the account number given by one of the staff Mr.Anil Kumar and Rs.10 lakhs alone was received in cash. Later, Rs.95 B.A. No.7709 of 2021 8 lakhs was transferred for legal assistance. He has already demonstrated a tendency to sell the properties acquired through the proceeds of crime, if he is enlarged on bail, he may dispose of the movable and immovable properties acquired through the proceeds of crime. Even though at first he denied having any connection with the Australian company Popular Group PTY Ltd., later has admitted that he is the director of the company. Even though he has sold a five storied commercial building in Bangalore in 2006, nine acres of land in Tanjore in 2013, a flat of 700 square feet in Thiruvalla in 2020, 70 cents of paddy land in Pathanamthitta in 2020 and 14 cents of land in Konny in 2020, purchase and sale of few of these properties were not revealed earlier. The exact trail of utilisation of funds has not been divulged by the petitioner. He has also expended several crores of money for the higher education of his daughters and son-in-law from the bank account of Popular Finance, but details of which are not yet revealed. They have also expended huge amount of money for the interior designing of 270 branches opened by the Popular group, that everything was done on collusion with the managerial staff B.A. No.7709 of 2021 9 and the contractor. Moreover, very many accomplices of the petitioner also have been interrogated. He has also purchased twenty vehicles, most of them are premium luxury vehicles like Mercedes Benz etc. Having regard to the gravity and nature of the offence alleged against the petitioner, it is not in the interest of justice to release him on bail.
5. I heard Sri. C.S. Manu, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, in detail. The respective contentions were reiterated by the learned counsel on both sides.
6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, now from the version of the learned Additional Solicitor General, it has come out that the respondent has already laid a complaint before the Special Court, a copy of which has since been served on him; since the investigation is over, there is no meaning in detaining the petitioner further. The debacle was the result of the global pandemic so that simultaneous demands for interest and withdrawal of capital amounts could not be met by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, if such a massive demand for B.A. No.7709 of 2021 10 withdrawal of money is raised against any financial institution, it may not be able to withstand the demand overnight and that shook the business of the petitioner. But the assets of the Popular Finance and allied entities are still in tact; if sufficient time is given, they will be able to give back the entire amount and resurrect the business. In fact, deliberations have already been made in that direction with a reputed financial institution by name D Capitals Portfolio Investments LLC, Abu Dhabi. The petitioner and other directors of the company have not misutilised any amount, no act of money laundering has been done, no amount has been taken out of the country; all the amounts have been deposited in profitable ventures, only thing is that they should be allowed to get back such amount which would enable them to repay the demands of the depositors. He admitted that in compelling circumstances the petitioner had to re-pledge the gold with banks, which would be able to be redeemed and given back to the borrowers. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner used to pay Rs.150 crores a year as interest to the depositors, it being an institution started in 1965 has a name of its B.A. No.7709 of 2021 11 own, it has large number of branches and assets all over the country; no amount has been lost or misutilised; the petitioner has been interrogated and is co-operating with the investigation. All the material evidence in the form of electronic devices have been seized and are in the custody of the investigating agencies so that there is no question of tampering with the evidence. Similarly, according to the learned counsel, he has surrendered the passport, properties have been seized and frozen by the investigating agencies; there are sufficient conditions imposed by this Court while he was granted bail so that there is no flight risk in the case. Relying on the decisions reported in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [(2020) 13 SCC 791], Krishna Mohan Tripathi v. State Through Enforcement Directorate [2021 AIR (SC) 2929], which were all under the Act, the Supreme Court has not followed the twin conditions while granting bail. Relying on the decision reported in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India and another [AIR 2017 SC 5500] the learned counsel pointed out that since the Supreme Court has struck down Section 45 of the Act there is no meaning in insisting to comply B.A. No.7709 of 2021 12 the twin conditions.
7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner amendments were made to the Act to undo the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah, quoted supra. However, all the defects highlighted by the Supreme Court in the above decision have not been cured by the Parliament. According to him, still the adage, bail is the rule and jail is the exception, has to be considered by this Court.
8. In his elaborate reply, the learned Additional Solicitor General Sri. S.V. Raju said that the principle, bail is the rule and jail is the exception, is not applicable to a case falling under the Act especially when huge amounts were laundered by the accused persons. Relying on various decisions, Ajay Kumar v. Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Application (B.A.) No.1149/2021 of the Bombay High Court, B.A.No.4295/2021 of Delhi High Court in Raj Singh Gehlot v. Directorate of Enforcement, Bimal Kumar Jain and another v. Directorate of Enforcement [2021 SCC Online Del 3847], Mohammad Arif v. Directorate of B.A. No.7709 of 2021 13 Enforcement, Govt. of India [2020 SCC Online Ori 544]:
[(2020) 374 ELT 478] of Orissa High Court, order of the Patna High Court in Crl.M.C. No.73052/2019, order of the Madras High Court in Crl. O.P. (M.D.) Nos.6883 & 6037 of 2021 etc., the learned Senior Counsel pointed out that applications filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in similar circumstances have been dismissed by the High Courts taking into account the twin conditions in Section 45 of the Act. Referring to an order passed by a Single Judge of this Court in M.Sivasankar v. Union of India [2021 SCC Online Ker 395], he said that the applicant was granted bail since the amount laundered was only Rs.64 lakhs, holding that proviso to Section 45(1) of the Act would not operate since the amount laundered fell short of Rs.1 crore. The learned Additional Solicitor General pointed out that the constitutional validity of the amendments is also under challenge, the matter is being heard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court so that the validity of the amendment has to be presumed by this Court. Referring to the crux of the case, he said that here the fraud involved is nearly B.A. No.7709 of 2021 14 Rs.1,000 crores, about 33,000 depositors have been defrauded, that the petitioner is the prime accused. There is clear proof that he had taken deposits illegally, amounts collected have been transferred outside India. According to him, the statements of the petitioner and his daughter, who are the main functionaries of the financial institutions and other sister concerns recorded under Section 50(3) of the Act, which are admissible in evidence, clearly indicate that the petitioner is guilty of laundering huge amount, entire amounts have not been traced, that the final report has been laid is not a ground for seeking bail to him; so he strongly pleaded for dismissing the application.
9. I heard Sri. Suvin R. Menon, the learned Central Government Counsel also who assisted the Additional Solicitor General.
10. There cannot be any dispute on the factual background of the case. The petitioner is the prime accused in large number of cases registered initially by the local police alleging offences under Sections 120B, 420, 406 and 409 read B.A. No.7709 of 2021 15 with 34 of the Indian Penal Code besides under Sections 3 and 4 read with Sections 21 and 22 of the BUDS Act. The sum and substance of the allegations is that he as the Managing Director of the Company by name Popular Finance, which has branches all over the State and also in some of the southern States of the country, had collected huge amounts as deposits promising to pay attractive interest. He is also having money lender licence under the Kerala Money Lenders Act and is lending money on the security of gold pledged by the customers. The head office of the Popular Finance and sister concerns is in Vakayar in Pathanamthitta district. Alleging that amounts deposited by the defacto complainant in Crime No.1740/2020 of Konni police station were not paid back, she approached the police and registered the first crime, followed by a flood of cases registered against the petitioner, his wife and three daughters and some near relatives. It is stated that so far 1368 cases have been registered in different police stations of the State besides a crime registered by the CBI on the directions of this Court. The estimation of the prosecution is that they have defrauded nearly B.A. No.7709 of 2021 16 Rs.1,600 crores from a large number of depositors estimated to be 30,000, who were dealing with the petitioner and others through 258 branches. Some of the depositors approached this Court and at the instance of this Court, the CBI took over investigation. Meanwhile, separate proceedings have been initiated under the BUDS Act and the Kerala Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act etc. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner and his wife and children were arrested for such cases. At first all the accused had gone hiding; later the petitioner and his wife surrendered before police in compelling circumstances when two of his daughters were arrested from Delhi airport while trying to leave the country. Thus the petitioner was arrested on 29.08.2020 and after incarceration for about six months, was granted bail. Thereafter, the respondent registered ECIR No. KCZO/32/2020 on 17.09.2020. The petitioner and his daughter, the second accused, were interrogated in numerous occasions and ultimately, on 09.08.2021, he was arrested by the respondent. Initially he moved the Special Court and by the impugned B.A. No.7709 of 2021 17 order, the application was dismissed, though his daughter was granted bail under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Act. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent filed a complaint, copy of which has been produced for perusal of the court; the petitioner was also served with a copy of the same. But according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, such a complaint was hurriedly filed to deny him statutory bail, so far the Special Court has not taken cognizance of the offence. But it is a fact that complaint has already been preferred. Referring to Nikesh Tarachand Shah, quoted supra, the learned counsel wanted to say that since the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Act have been declared unconstitutional, the petitioner cannot be denied bail on the very same premises.
11. I have rushed through the materials placed before court by the petitioner as well as the respondent. I have no doubt that, for overwhelming reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
12. Firstly, the embargo under Section 45 of the Act is very clear, which reads thus:-
B.A. No.7709 of 2021 18
"45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless--
i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and
ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail:
Provided that a person, who is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs:
Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by-
(i) the Director; or
(ii) any officer of the Central Government or State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or a special order made in this behalf by that Government.
(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other provision of this Act, no police officer shall investigate into an offence under this Act unless specifically authorised, by the Central Government by a general or special order, and, B.A. No.7709 of 2021 19 subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.
(2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in sub-section (1) is in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.
Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that the expression "Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable" shall mean and shall be deemed to have always meant that all offences under this Act shall be cognizable offences and non-bailable offences notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), and accordingly the officers authorised under this Act are empowered to arrest an accused without warrant, subject to the fulfillment of conditions under section 19 and subject to the conditions enshrined under this section."
13. It is true that after rendering the decision in Nikesh Thara Chand, quoted supra, certain amendments were brought in and a person accused of offence under the Act cannot be released on bail if the application is opposed by the Public Prosecutor and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The constitutional validity of the amended provisions is under challenge before the Apex Court and the matter is B.A. No.7709 of 2021 20 being heard by the Apex Court. Here it is an application for bail filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The legality and correctness of the amendment cannot be called in question in a bail application. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Solicitor General, so long as the provisions stand, this Court has to presume its constitutional validity and will have to proceed on the basis that the provisions are in accordance with the Constitution.
14. The learned Solicitor General also pointed out various instances, in which other High Courts have proceeded presuming the validity of the provision insisting compliance of the twin conditions for granting bail. Secondly, turning to the facts also, the gravity and enormity of the allegations against the petitioner desist this Court in thinking in terms of allowing the application. It may be true that the Popular Finance was founded in 1965 and had earned a name in central Travancore for sometime. Earlier, when a bail application was taken up for consideration, this Court had occasion to hear a learned counsel saying that the financial institution had a very humble B.A. No.7709 of 2021 21 beginning founded by the fore-fathers of the petitioner on whom people in the area had great trust and confidence. It appears that the petitioner also could run the business for sometime in good stead. But the materials produced by the parties clearly indicate that everything has gone out of his hands. He is a registered money lender under the Kerala Money Lenders Act. He had also obtained permit from the Reserve Bank of India for collecting deposits. But after 1997, he has not approached the RBI and the RBI had occasion to proceed against him before the Court at Pathanamthitta. Documents clearly reveal that the petitioner had indulged in collecting large amounts as deposits offering high rate of returns; everything was done illegally. There are large number of instances in which, after collecting money in deposit in Popular Finance, receipts used to be issued in the name of other entities launched by the petitioner and his wife and children themselves. He had collected money from different sources by claiming it as 'India's emerging gold loan company'. The estimation of the respondent is that they have collected B.A. No.7709 of 2021 22 Rs.1,600 crores from about 30,000 depositors through 258 branches.
15. Referring to the statements of Dr. Rinu Mariyam Thomas, the second accused and the daughter of the petitioner, the learned Additional Solicitor General pointed out that the businesses were being run in a most unprofessional manner; after 2013 income tax returns have not been submitted, accounts were not properly audited and amounts collected from different depositors were spent for purchasing vehicles and other assets; he had arranged medical seats for all the three daughters by giving capitation fee of Rs.25 lakhs, 25 lakhs and 40 lakhs respectively in Pushpagiri Medical College. Similarly, PG seats were arranged for two daughters and his son-in-law by making capitation fee of nearly Rs.1 crore each. Large number of premium vehicles like Benz cars were purchased by him, amounts were also spent indiscriminately for beautifying and decorating the branch offices. The complaint also indicates that large sums of money were sent to Dubai and Australia for his businesses through bank B.A. No.7709 of 2021 23 transactions as well as by cash transferred through hawala means.
16. Worsening is the fact that when matters went out of control, petitioner and his daughters re-pledged gold ornaments with different banks and collected an amount of Rs.14,46,80,680/-. The respondent has identified 1132 cases of re-pledging gold. It is to be noted that those gold ornaments belong to the customers of the petitioner who had borrowed money from his financial institutions by pledging gold items. Re-pledging of gold ornaments were done behind the back of the customers. As highlighted by the learned Additional Solicitor General, when the petitioner and his daughters were interrogated, initially they did not divulge such re-pledging, but ultimately, they had to admit. Details of such re-pledging are available in the complaint.
17. The petitioner has a case that investigation is complete, that all the material documents collected in electronic form are with them, that the conditions imposed by this Court and other courts while granting him bail in the B.A. No.7709 of 2021 24 predicate offences are rigorous, that there is no flight risk. It may be true that the respondent has already laid a complaint. All the same, the prime witnesses in the case are the staff members of the petitioner. If he is released on bail, the possibility of him influencing and winning over them cannot be ruled out. Having regard to the gravity of offence and the huge amounts involved, the expectation of the petitioner that he would be able to revive and resurrect the business, is only just like the dream of the milkmaid.
18. Even though the learned counsel described it as ill- advised, it is a fact that the petitioner had moved the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta with a petition for declaring him insolvent.
19. The learned counsel is not justified in placing reliance on the decisions reported in P. Chidambaram and Krishna Mohan Tripathi, quoted supra. There are no factual comparison of these cases. The amount involved in Krishna Mohan Tripathi is only Rs.1,38,63,445/- where the Apex Court was granting bail taking into account the facts of the case. Similarly, in P. Chidambaram's case, the total amount B.A. No.7709 of 2021 25 allegedly laundered comes only Rs.3 odd crores, the said petitioner is the former Finance Minister of the country; he was 74 years old and was suffering from some ailments. Therefore, these two decisions cannot come to the aid of the petitioner.
20. The learned Additional Solicitor General pointed out that the petitioner has a tendency to dispose of properties, details of which were found out with great difficulty; the sale proceeds of the properties were routed through the accounts of his employees. He also placed before this Court a sealed cover and requested to consider the documents. But from the covering letter itself, it is clear that the cover contains copy of certain sale deeds and I have not opened it.
21. After considering the totality of the situation emerging in the case, I am not convinced that the petitioner is justified in seeking bail. The learned Additional Solicitor General and the learned Central Government Counsel have seriously opposed the application for bail. Having regard to the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, the stake involved, the gravity of offences, the fact that the petitioner has B.A. No.7709 of 2021 26 business interests in Dubai, Australia etc., it cannot be said that there is no flight risk in the case. It has also been pointed out that the entire proceeds of the crime are not yet traced. There are prima facie materials to believe that he is guilty of the offence alleged against him. Moreover, some of the important witnesses are his own employees. In the circumstances, this is not a fit case to grant him bail.
Resultantly, the bail application is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.HARIPAL JUDGE Okb/DCS/13.04.2022