Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Askar Ali @ Asgar And Anr vs State on 25 March, 2019
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 912/2013
1. Askar Ali @ Asgar S/o Sajbare Khan, by caste Musalman, age
30 years, R/o Udaipur, Distrcit Sri Ganganagar
2. Mustaq Khan S/o Mohammad Amin, by caste Musalman, age
27 years, R/o Udaipur, District Sri Gangangar
(At present lodged in Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar)
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.S. Rathore
Mr. T.S. Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Tak, P.P.
Mr. D.S. Gharsana
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
25/03/2019
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.)
The appellants herein stand convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 22.10.2013 passed by learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.79/2012.
Name of the appellant- Offence for Sentence awarded
applicant which
convicted
1. Askar Ali @ Asgar 364 IPC Ten years' rigorous
imprisonment and a
2. Mustaq Khan fine of Rs.1000/- and
in default of payment
of fine, further to
undergo three months'
additional simple
imprisonment
(Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 03:23:20 AM)
(2 of 17) [CRLA-912/2013]
302 IPC Life term
imprisonment and a
fine of Rs.2000/- and
in default of payment
of fine, further to
undergo six months'
additional simple
imprisonment
201 IPC Five years' rigorous
imprisonment and a
fine of Rs.1000/- and
in default of payment
of fine, further to
undergo three months'
additional simple
imprisonment
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently except for those in default of fine. Being aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences awarded, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC. Facts in brief :-
The appellant Askar Ali @ Asgar was married to the deceased Smt. Rani about 10 years before the incident. Matrimonial strife developed between the spouses, due to which, proceedings under Section 498-A IPC as well as for maintenance were initiated and were pending in the courts at Gharsana. Smt. Rani was living with her brother Falak Sher (P.W.3), the first informant, in his house at the village 3 S.T.R., Nai Mandi, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar. Smt. Rani allegedly informed her brother Falak Sher that her husband Askar Ali was calling her frequently and that she had been summoned by him to Suratgarh for settling the matter by mutual compromise. Saying so, Smt. Rani left for Suratgarh on 04.06.2012. The complainant returned from the market in the night time and tried to contact his sister on her mobile, which was switched off. The complainant, continued to locate his sister, but he could not trace her out. He alleged that (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 03:23:20 AM) (3 of 17) [CRLA-912/2013] in the morning of 08.06.2012, he received information from reliable sources that Askar Ali and 4-5 other people had taken away Smt. Rani from the Gharsana Bus Stand. He apprehended that some untoward incident might have happened with Smt. Rani. A typed report (Ex.P/1) with these allegations was lodged by Falak Sher (P.W.3) at the Police Station Gharsana on 08.06.2012 at 12.05 pm. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR No.207/2012 was registered at the Police Station Gharsana for the offence under Section 365 IPC and the investigation was commenced.
During the course of investigation, the decomposed dead body of Smt. Rani was recovered from the Indira Canal. A medical board was constituted to conduct autopsy of the dead body, which gave its report (Ex.P/26) opining that the lady had been done to death by strangulation. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses Asif Khan, Subhan Khan and Ugrasen @ Lala, all of whom claimed that they saw the deceased going with the accused appellants on a motorcycle between 9.30 p.m. to 10.00 pm. The deceased and the accused allegedly apprised the witnesses that they had settled their mutual differences and that the lady was going back to her matrimonial home. These three witnesses had admittedly informed the complainant that they had seen the deceased lastly going away with the accused appellants well before the FIR came to be registered.
Be that as it may. The accused appellant Askar Ali @ Asgar was arrested on 11.06.2012 vide arrest memo Ex.P/37 and the accused appellant Mustaq Khan was arrested on 12.06.2012 vide arrest memo Ex.P/9. It is alleged that Askar Ali gave (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 03:23:20 AM) (4 of 17) [CRLA-912/2013] information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the Investigating Officer on 14.06.2012, which was recorded in Memo Ex.P/41 and in furtherance of the said information, the Investigating Officer proceeded to recover the motorcycle of the accused vide recovery memo Ex.P/21 dated 14.06.2012. A bag was found tied to the motorcycle, from which a female dress and the identity card of the deceased Smt. Rani were allegedly recovered. The Investigating Officer also collected the call detail records of certain mobile numbers claiming them to be connected with the series of events leading to the death of Smt. Rani. After concluding investigation, the Investigating Officer proceeded to file charge-sheet against the accused appellants for the offences under Sections 302, 364 and 201 IPC in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Gharsana. Since the offences were Sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of Special Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Sriganganagar for trial.
The trial court, framed charges against the accused appellants for these offences. The accused denied the same and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 52 documents and 8 articles in support of its case. While being questioned under Section 313 CrPC, the accused were confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. They denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be innocent. Four documents were exhibited, but no oral evidence was led in defence.
After appreciating the arguments advanced by the defence as well as the prosecution and after evaluating the evidence available on record, the trial court proceeded to convict (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 03:23:20 AM) (5 of 17) [CRLA-912/2013] and sentence the appellants as above vide the impugned judgment dated 22.10.2013, which is assailed in this appeal.
Mr. B.S. Rathore, Mr. T.S. Rathore, learned counsel representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. They urged that the witnesses pertaining to the circumstance of last seen, i.e. P.W.1 Asif Khan, P.W.4 Subhan Khan and P.W.5 Ugrasen @ Lala, were cooked up for giving false evidence with the connivance of the complainant and the Investigating Officer and there is not even an iota of truth in their allegations. He contended that it is an admitted position as emerging from the statement of the first informant Falak Sher (P.W.3), that well before lodging of the FIR, all these three persons had already informed him of the fact that they had seen the accused appellants and the deceased Rani traveling together on the same motorcycle. They urged that Asif Khan is the brother-in-law of the deceased and he was told by Falak Sher regarding the deceased having gone missing two days after he claims to have seen her with the accused. They further contended that Asif Khan claims that he told Falak Sher of the incident of having seen Smt. Rani with the accused on 04.06.2012 just two days thereafter, and thus, as per them, if at all, had there been even a semblance of truth in the statement of Falak Sher, then, there was no reason for him not to have reported the matter to the police immediately thereafter and that he definitely would have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex.P/2). They further urged that the witnesses Subhan Khan (P.W.4) and Ugrasen @ Lala (P.W.5) are not connected with Falak Sher or Smt. Rani in any manner and thus, there was no occasion for Smt. Rani to have struck a conversation with these (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 03:23:20 AM) (6 of 17) [CRLA-912/2013] two witnesses and to apprise rank strangers of the fact that she had entered into a compromise with her husband. They further contended that the witness Subhan Khan also claimed that he informed Falak Sher regarding having seen the two accused taking away Smt. Rani with them and thus, as per him, if at all, this sequence of events was carrying even a semblance of credibility, then Falak Sher would definitely have mentioned these facts in the typed report (Ex.P/1) submitted at the Police Station Gharsana. They further contended that Falak Sher is a history-sheeter of the Police Station and it can be presumed that he would be well- versed with the legal and factual implications of his acts. Thus, the significant material omission by Falak Sher to mention in the report that the three witnesses referred to supra had lastly seen deceased in the company of the accused before she went missing goes to the root of the matter and is fatal to the prosecution case. They further contended that so far as the recovery of the dress and the identity card of the deceased from the motorcycle of the accused Askar Ali is concerned, manifestly, the same is planted. In this regard, their contention was that the dress was not subjected to identification by any witness. Their further contention was that it is impossible to believe that the accused appellant Askar Ali, who was a free bird till 11.06.2012, would retain a worthless piece of incriminating material in the form of the deceased's identity card so that the same could be recovered and used in evidence against him at a later stage. Regarding the call details collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, the contention of learned counsel for the appellants was that no witness of the prosecution gave out the details of the mobiles held by the accused or the deceased. As per them, the (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 03:23:20 AM) (7 of 17) [CRLA-912/2013] CDR is even otherwise inadmissible in evidence because no certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was procured by the Investigating Officer and thus, the call details are inadmissible and loose all significance. They, thus, craved acceptance of the appeal and reversal of the impugned judgment and sought acquittal of the accused appellants.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as Mr. D.S. Gharsana, learned counsel representing the complainant, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants' counsel. They urged that it is an admitted fact that matrimonial strife was prevailing since long between the accused appellant Askar Ali and the deceased Smt. Rani. Askar Ali had been ordered by the competent court to pay maintenance to the deceased and in an endeavour to escape the said liability, the accused appellant Askar Ali hatched a conspiracy with the co- accused Mustaq Khan and called the deceased Smt. Rani to Suratgarh under the pretext of settling the dispute and then abducted her from the Gharsana Bus Stand by giving her a false promise; eliminated her by strangulation and destroyed the evidence by throwing the dead body in the canal. They urged that the evidence of the witnesses of last seen, i.e. Asif Khan (P.W.1), Subhan Khan (P.W.4) and Ugrasen @ Lala (P.W.5), is absolutely natural and believable. The complainant Falak Sher clearly mentioned in the FIR that he came to know that Askar Ali and four to five other people had taken away his sister from the Gharsana Bus Stand. Thus, as per the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant, non-mentioning of names of the witnesses of last seen evidence in the FIR cannot adversely affect their evidentiary worth. They further urged that the (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 03:23:20 AM) (8 of 17) [CRLA-912/2013] recovery of the identity card of the deceased from the motorcycle of the accused appellant Askar Ali is a clinching proof pointing invariably to his guilt. As per learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant, the trial court appreciated the evidence available on record in a just and apropos manner and reached to the only possible and logical conclusion that the accused appellants were undoubtedly the perpetrators of the offences alleged. On these submissions, they sought dismissal of the appeal and affirmation of the impugned judgment.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar, have perused the impugned judgment and threadbare sifted and re-appreciated the evidence available on record. Foundation of prosecution case can be summarized as below :-
1. That Smt. Rani, deceased, and her husband accused appellant Askar Ali were embroiled in a matrimonial strife. She had lodged cases of cruelty and for maintenance about Askar Ali in the courts at Gharsana and had been awarded maintenance. On this ground, the accused appellant Askar Ali was conniving to get rid of the deceased.
2. As culmination of his evil design, the accused appellant Askar Ali called Smt. Rani on her mobile phone and gave her a fraudulent promise to settle all their disputes. For this purpose, she was allegedly called to the Gharsana Bus Stand.
3. That Smt. Rani, who was living at the house of his brother Falak Sher (P.W.3), had gone to her other brother Mohd. Hussain's house. She told Mohd. Hussain that her husband Askar Ali was (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 03:23:20 AM) (9 of 17) [CRLA-912/2013] calling her to settle the strife and despite the reservation and reluctance shown by Shri Mohd. Hussain, she left his house and went to the Gharsana Bus Stand with Mohd. Hussain at 3 o'clock in the afternoon on 04.06.2012. At that time, Smt. Rani was carrying a plastic bag having her suit, mobile, identity card and the photograph of herself and Askar Ali.
4. Falak Sher tried to call Smt. Rani in the night on 04.06.2012, but got no response on her mobile, which was switched off.
5. That Asif Khan (P.W.1), Subhan Khan (P.W.4) and Ugrasen @ Lala (P.W.5) told Falak Sher (P.W.3) of the fact that they had seen the deceased going with the accused nearby Suratgarh, which is at a distance of 80 kms. from Gharsana on 04.06.2012 between 9.30 p.m. and 10.00 p.m, and Smt. Rani allegedly apprised these witnesses that she and her husband Askar Ali had compromised their disputes and that she was going to the matrimonial home.
The accused also stated so before the witnesses.
6. The FIR was lodged on 08.06.2012, in which a suspicion was cast against the accused Askar Ali @ Asgar.
7. The dead body of Smt. Rani was recovered from Indira Canal on 10.06.2012.
8. That the accused Askar Ali @ Asgar and Mustaq Khan were arrested on 11.06.2012 and 12.06.2012 respectively. In furtherance of the information provided by the accused Askar Ali (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 03:23:20 AM) (10 of 17) [CRLA-912/2013] @ Asgar, the bag containing the suit and the identity card of the deceased was recovered tied to his motorcycle vide recovery memo Ex.P/21.
We shall now sift and appreciate the testimony of the prosecution witnesses in order to find out whether their evidentiary worth is such that the above circumstances can be considered as proved beyond all manner of doubt and whether the claim of circumstances is complete in all aspects so as to affirm the conviction of the accused as recorded by the trial court or whether they are entitled to acquittal by extending to them the benefit of doubt.
It is the admitted case of the prosecution that Smt. Rani was embroiled in a matrimonial dispute with her husband Askar Ali @ Asgar, the appellant herein, and that she was living at the house of her brother Falak Sher (P.W.3) for last few years. Falak Sher (P.W.3) is reportedly a history-sheeter of the Police Station Gharsana and thus, he can be expected to be having good knowledge of nitty gritty of legal procedures. P.W.1 Asif Khan, the first and prime prosecution witness about the circumstance of last seen, also happens to be the brother-in-law of the deceased as well as Falak Sher and thus, it can be concluded with all sense of certainty that had he really seen the deceased going with the accused on 04.06.2012 and if she was reported to be missing thereafter, then the first reaction of the witness would have been to disclose this significant fact known to him (regarding the circumstance of last seen) to the family members especially Falak Sher. The witness claimed in his examination-in-chief that two (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 03:23:20 AM) (11 of 17) [CRLA-912/2013] days after 04.06.2012, Falak Sher called him and told him about Rani's disappearance. He told Falak Sher and other family members that he had seen Smt. Rani going with Askar Ali and Mustaq Khan on 04.06.2012 and that she, Askar Ali and Mustaq told him of the compromise. Had there been any truth in this version of Asif Khan (P.W.1), the following two consequences were bound to follow :
1. That the matter would have been reported to the police immediately, and
2. That it would have definitely been mentioned in the report that Asif Khan had seen the deceased being taken away by the accused on 04.06.2012 and that she was missing thereafter.
However, even in the belated report dated 08.06.2012 (Ex.P/1) lodged by Falak Sher, the fact regarding Asif Khan, his own brother-in-law, having told him regarding the circumstance of deceased being lastly seen in the company of the accused appellants is missing. This fact is also not stated by Falak Sher in his evidence. The witnesses Subhan Khan (P.W.4) and Ugrasen (P.W.5), who too were examined by the prosecution so as to prove the circumstance of last seen, are not related to Falak Sher in any manner. Both of them claim that they were waiting at the Indira Circle, Suratgarh and were on the look out for a vehicle. Both the witnesses are are residents of Gharsana and thus, their presence at 9.30 p.m. in the night at Suratgarh, which is at a distance of 80 kms. is by itself highly doubtful. It appears that the Investigating Officer created these witnesses and made them to stand in as persons who had lastly seen the deceased in the company of the accused appellants so as to lend credence to the flimsy (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 03:23:20 AM) (12 of 17) [CRLA-912/2013] prosecution story. Both the witnesses claim that on seeing them, the accused appellants and the deceased, who were traveling on the motorcycle, stopped and engaged in a conversation with them and told them of the compromise. It is beyond comprehension as to why the accused and the deceased, who had no intimacy or close terms with these two purely chance witnesses, would take trouble of casually stopping the motorcycle and enter into a conversation about their personal details with random bystanders. Thus, the evidence of these two persons is totally unbelievable and they are manifestly cooked up witnesses. That apart, Subhan Khan claims to have told Falak Sher of this sequence of events, but despite that, Falak Sher did not mention in the written FIR that Subhan Khan and Ugrasen @ Lala had also seen the deceased going on a motorcycle with accused on 04.06.2012. This omission is far too significant so as to be ignored and goes to the root of the matter discarding the trustworthiness of the evidentiary worth of this witness.
We are also compelled to hold that the significant delay of four days in lodging the FIR is also a circumstance, which completely demolishes the veracity of the prosecution story. Admittedly, the deceased Smt. Rani and the accused appellant Askar Ali were at loggerheads with each other owing to ongoing matrimonial strife. Cases had been instituted between them and were pending in the courts. Thus, if the deceased Smt. Rani had actually been taken away by the accused and if her mobile phone was responding as switched off on 04.06.2012 itself, as claimed in the FIR and the evidence of the first informant, then there was no reason as to why Falak Sher would keep quiet and refrain from (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 03:23:20 AM) (13 of 17) [CRLA-912/2013] immediately approaching the police for lodging at least a Missing Person Report. Falak Sher's conduct comes under a graver cloud of doubt because despite P.W.1 Asif Khan having apprised him about having Smt. Rani and the two accused going together two days after 04.06.2012 and despite the family members of the accused Askar Ali having given him evasive replies on the day next to 04.06.2012, he did not approach the police for reporting the matter. Thus, we do not find it safe to rely upon the testimony of Falak Sher, the first informant, as we do not consider his evidence to be of sterling worth and credibility. He has created a totally fictitious story with the sole objective of wreaking vengeance upon the accused by falsely implicating them for the murder of Smt. Rani. For similar reasons, the statement of P.W.2 Mohd Hussain is also unreliable. Neither of the two brothers made a disclosure in their statements about the number of mobile phone being used by Smt. Rani. Once the evidence of witnesses of last seen Asif Khan (P.W.1), Subhan Khan (P.W.4) and Ugrasen (P.W.5) and the evidence of first informant Falak Sher (P.W.3) and Mohd. Hussain (P.W.2) is excluded from consideration, only the evidence of motive and recovery remain in the hands of the prosecution so as to bring home the charges against the accused.
So far as the evidence of motive is concerned, suffice it to say that the cases instituted inter se between the spouses were going on since long and thus, this fact could not have provided instant motive to the appellant Askar Ali for murdering Smt. Rani. Thus, we are not satisfied that the evidence of motive attributed to the accused appellant Askar Ali can convince the court to draw an inference that he might have murdered his wife. (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 03:23:20 AM)
(14 of 17) [CRLA-912/2013] The only remaining circumstance on the record is that of recovery of a suit and identity card of Smt. Rani allegedly made from the motorcycle of the accused appellant Askar Ali in furtherance of the information provided by him to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Suffice it to say that the suit was not subjected to identification by either Mohd. Hussain (P.W.2) or Falak Sher (P.W.3) and thus, its recovery loses significance. So far as the identity card is concerned, it does not stand to reason that the accused Askar Ali, who was arrested as late as on 11.06.2012 and was a free bird for a significant period of 7 days, would retain the worthless incriminating articles and keep the same tied destroying on to his motorcycle, rather than to destroy the same, so as to create evidence against himself. Thus, the recovery of the identity card and the suit appears to be planted one.
The mobile call details of the deceased could have given significant in-sight to unfold the true story. However, rapt silence of Mohd. Hussain (P.W.2) and Falak Sher (P.W.3) in not disclosing the mobile number of their own sister convinces the court that they hatched a conspiracy to somehow or the other create evidence for falsely implicating the accused for the murder of Smt. Rani. If the mobile number of Smt. Rani had been disclosed, then her corresponding calls with the accused Askar Ali could have given significant corroborative evidence for establishing his guilt. However, reluctance of the prosecution in disclosing the mobile number of the deceased, creates a strong doubt in the mind of the court that the call details were not corroborating and matching with the prosecution hypothesis and (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 03:23:20 AM) (15 of 17) [CRLA-912/2013] that is why, intentionally, this aspect was left unclarified. As the prosecution failed to give any evidence to pin-point the mobile number of the deceased, the mobile call detail records collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation lose their credibility.
Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with almost a similar fact scenario in the case of Ashish Jain Vs. Makrand Singh & Ors. [2019 Cr.L.R. (SC) 98] held as below :-
"18. As mentioned supra, the present case of circumstantial evidence primarily hinges on two main aspects, which is the last seen evidence and the recovery of stolen property.
PW12 and PW20, as discussed above, are the last seen witnesses who saw the entry and the exit of the Accused persons from the crime scene, respectively. It has been deposed by the witnesses that soon after the bodies were found, they had discussed amongst themselves about the participation of the Accused persons based on the fact that PW12 saw them enter the house of the deceased at around 06:30 p.m. on the preceding day, and that PW20 saw them coming out of the house and leaving the area in a hurried manner at around 09:00-09:30 p.m. These two witnesses have categorically stated that they had conveyed this piece of valuable information to the complainant PW26 right before he filed the first information. However, there is no whisper of such an important fact anywhere in the first information, Ex. P5 nor the FIR arising from it, Ex. P6. It is only stated in these documents that there was a suspicion that the Accused might have caused the said incident as they were seen loitering around the house of deceased Premchand at around 9:00 p.m. of the night of the incident. PW26 has also stated that he (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 03:23:20 AM) (16 of 17) [CRLA-912/2013] learnt about the presence of the Accused persons from the verbal dialogue between him and the said witnesses. If PW12 and PW20 had really seen the Accused as deposed, the same would have been reflected in the FIR, and the absence of such a crucial piece of information that PW26 learnt right before filing the first information casts a dark shadow of suspicion over the testimony of the last seen witnesses. Moreover, PW12 and PW20 have deposed that they were present at the spot when the bodies were found. However, their statements were not taken by the police on the same day, rather they were taken subsequently on the next day. Considering the fact that the details of the last seen circumstance as deposed by PW12 and PW20 are not found in the first information (though PW26, the informant was informed about the same by PW12 and PW20 before filing the First Information Report), we are of the opinion that PW12 and PW20 did not see the Accused entering or exiting the house of the deceased, as is sought to be made out by the prosecution. Moreover, there was deliberate delay in recording the statements of these important witnesses with regard to the last seen circumstance. Hence, the statements of PW12 and PW20 were clearly an afterthought."
In the wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm opinion that the trial court fell into a grave error while appreciating the evidence available on record and holding the same to be credible and pointing beyond all manner of doubt and unflinchingly towards the guilt of the accused. As per us, none of the circumstances led by the prosecution to bring home the charges against the appellants was established by leading evidence, which could be termed as convincing and rather the (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 03:23:20 AM) (17 of 17) [CRLA-912/2013] entire case appears to be based on fabricated and manufactured evidence.
Thus, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 22.10.2013 passed by learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.79/2012 is quashed and set aside. The accused appellants Askar Ali @ Asgar and Mustaq Khan are acquitted of all the charges. They are in custody. They shall be released from custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC, each of the accused appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellants shall appear before the Supreme Court.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
4-Pramod/-
(Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 03:23:20 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)