Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Kumar & Another vs State Of Haryana on 13 September, 2013
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Fateh Deep Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 13.09.2013
CRA No.225-SB of 2001
Anil Kumar & another ...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
Present: Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Addl. AG, Haryana,
for the respondent - State.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The instant appeal came up for hearing before the learned Single Bench of this Court on 01.12.2010, when an argument was raised that the Police officials have no power to search and seizure and it is only the officials of Food & Supplies Department or the officials authorized by the Government, who could make a search under Clause 7 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply & Distribution) Order, 1988. The Learned Single Judge expressed disagreement with the view expressed in judgments reported as Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 1991 (2) RCR (Crl.) 140, Harpal Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab 1991 (3) RCR (Crl.) 307, Raj Kumar Vs. State of Punjab 1994 (3) RCR (Crl.) 254, Kala Devi @ Kala Vs. State of Haryana 1995 (2) RCR (Crl.) 427, Raj Narain @ Kuka Vs. State of Punjab 2003 (2) RCR Kumar Vimal 2013.09.17 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.225-SB of 2001 2 (Crl.) 88, Karam Chand & another Vs. State of Haryana 2003 (4) RCR (Crl.) 622, State of Haryana Vs. Mahiender Kumar 2004 (1) RCR (Crl.) 124 and State of Haryana Vs. Ram Niwas 2004 (1) RCR (Crl.) 693 and expressed concurred with the judgment rendered by another Single Bench in Shiv Kumar Vs. State of Punjab & another 2002 (4) RCR (Crl.) 536. In view of such conflicting opinion, the matter was referred to the larger Bench and that's how we are seized of the present appeal.
Before we advert to the arguments addressed by the parties, relevant statutory provisions from the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') and the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply & Distribution) Order, 1988 (for short 'the Order') are required to be extracted. The same are as under:
Code of Criminal Procedure
4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws -
(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.
5. Saving - Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force.
41. When police may arrest without warrant - (1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person -
(a) who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a cognizable offence;
Kumar Vimal
xx xx xx 2013.09.17 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.225-SB of 2001 3
156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case - (1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
xxx xxx xxx Essential Commodities Act, 1955
3. Powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc. of essential commodities - (1) If the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, or for securing any essential commodity for the defence of India or the efficient conduct of military operations, it may by order, provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein;
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub-section (1), an order made thereunder may provide-
xx xx
(j) for, any incidental and supplementary matters, including in particular, the entry, search or examination of premises, aircraft, vessels, vehicles or other conveyances and animals and the seizure by a person authorised to make such entry, search or examination:
(i) of any articles in respect of which such person has reason to believe that a contravention of the order has been, is being, or is about to be committed any packages, coverings or receptacles in which such articles are found;
(ii) of any aircraft, vessel, vehicle or other conveyance or animal used in carrying such articles, if such person has reason to believe that such aircraft, vessel, vehicle or other conveyance or animal is liable to be forfeited under the provisions of this Act;
(iii) of any books of accounts and documents which in the opinion of such person may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceedings under this Act and the person from whose Kumar Vimal 2013.09.17 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and custody such books of accounts or documents integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.225-SB of 2001 4 are seized shall be entitled to make copies thereof or to take extracts therefrom in the presence of an officer having the custody of such books of accounts or documents.
6. Effect of orders inconsistent with other enactments: Any order made under section 3 shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act, or any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act.
11. Cognizance or offences: No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person who is a public servant as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any person aggrieved or any recognized consumer association, whether such person is a member of that association or not.
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply & Distribution) Order, 1988
7. Power of entry, search and seizure - (1) An Officer of the Department of Food and Civil Supplies of the Government, not below the rank of an Inspector authorized by such Government and notified by the Central Government or any Officer not below the rank of a Sales Officer of an Oil Company, or a person authorized by the Central Government or a State Government and notified by the Central Government may, with a view to ensuring compliance with the provisions of this Order, for the purpose of satisfying herself that this Order or any order made thereunder has been complied with:
(a) Stop and search any vessel or vehicle which the Officer has reason to believe has been, or is being or is about to be used in the contravention of this Order;
(b) enter or search any place with such aid or assistance as may be necessary.
xx xx
(2) The provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) relating to search and seizure shall, so far as may be, apply to searches and seizures under this Order.
The aforesaid Order issued in the year 1988 was superseded by Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply & Distribution) Order, 1993, the relevant provisions of which are pari Kumar Vimal 2013.09.17 10:28 materia with the Order issued in the year 1988.
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document Subsequently, the Chandigarh CRA No.225-SB of 2001 5 Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply & Distribution) Order, 2000 has been promulgated. It is Clause 13 of the 2000 Order, which deals with power of entry, search and seizure. The same is as under:
13. Power of entry, search and seizure - (1) Any officer of the Central or the State Government not below the rank of Inspector duly authorized by a general or a special order, by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be or any officer of a Government oil company not below the rank of Sales Officer, authorized by the Central Government, may, with a view to securing due compliance of this Order or any other order made thereunder:
(a) stop and search any vessel or vehicle used or capable of being used for the transport or storage of any petroleum product.
(b) enter and search any place.
(c) seize stocks of liquefied petroleum gas alongwith
container and/or equipments, such as cylinders, gas cylinder valves, pressure regulators and seals in respect of which he has reason to believe that a contravention of this Order has been, or is being, or is about to be made.
(2) The sales officer of a Government oil company shall be authorized to secure compliance of this Order by the distributors appointed under the public distribution system and or by the consumer registered by them.
Learned counsel for the appellants relies upon Nilratan Sircar Vs. Lakshmi Narayan Ram Niwas AIR 1965 SC 1 as well as the judgments referred to by the learned Single Judge in the order referring the matter to the larger Bench. Learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the same arguments, as were raised before the learned Single Bench.
On the other hand, Mr. Poonia relies upon Pravin Chandra Mody Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1185. It is argued that the Order issued under Section 3 of the Act does not supersede the Kumar Vimal provisions of the Code. It is contended that the Code and the Act, both 2013.09.17 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.225-SB of 2001 6 are Central Statutes. The Act is a Special Statute and will prevail over the General Statute but only in case of any inconsistency in the substantive and procedural aspects in the special law with the provisions of general law. To the same effect is Section 6 of the Act. It is contended that the provisions of the Act and that of Order issued under the said Act are not in any way inconsistent with the powers of search and seizure conferred on the Police Officer under the Code. The powers conferred on the Officers of the Food & Supplies Department or on the Officer of the Central or the State Government is an additional power conferred on the Officers of the State Government to effect search and seizure for the effective implementation of the Statute, the purpose of which is distribution of the essential commodities at a controlled prices. Such powers are not exclusively vested in the Officers, so notified, but are in addition to the powers conferred on the Police Officials under the Code.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and found that the earlier judgments of the learned Single Benches of this court holding that the Police has no power to carry search and seizure operations of the premises of the dealer or any person to examine the violation of the Order, do not lay down a correct law.
In Nilratan Sircar's case (supra), the Supreme Court was examining the question as to whether the Magistrate issuing the search warrant has control over the disposal of the articles seized in execution of the warrant. The Court held that in view of the specific provisions for issuance of a search warrant under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, the Sections 96 & 98 as well as Form 8 of Schedule V of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 will not operate in connection with Kumar Vimal 2013.09.17 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.225-SB of 2001 7 searches under sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the said Act. The relevant extract from the judgment reads as under:
"11. The first question to determine is whether Magistrate issuing the search warrant has control over the disposal of the articles seized in execution of the warrant. The provisions of the Code relating to searches apply to search warrants issued under sub-section (3) of Section 19 but only in so far as they be applicable. The provisions dealing with the circumstances in which, and the authorities by which, search warrants can be issued cannot apply, in view of the specific provision for the issue of a search warrant under the Act in sub-section (3) of Section 19. Sections 96, 98 and Form 8 of Schedule V, do not therefore operate in connection with searches under sub-section (3) of Section 19. It is therefore the provisions which deal with what is done after the issue of a search warrant which have been made applicable to searches under the Act and such provisions therefore would be the provisions relating to the mode of conducting searches. The object of the aforesaid provision in sub- section (3) of Section 19 is to provide how the searches are to be conducted as it deals with the issue of search warrant in sub-section (3) of Section 19. It is only with respect to the intervening stage, that is the stage of actual search that no specific Provision is made in the Act. We are therefore of opinion that, the provisions under sub-
section (3) of Section 19 are the provisions relating to the conduct of searches and that these provisions are Sections 101, 102 and 103 of the Code. What is to be done with the articles seized does not strictly come within the expression 'searches'. It is dealt with in Section 19- A. It is therefore not correct for the appellant to say that the Magistrate can exercise his powers under the Code in connection with property seized tinder sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act." On the other hand, the Supreme Court judgment in Pravin Chandra Mody's case (supra) deals with the right of police to investigate an offence under Sections 7 & 11 of the Act. Examining Section 11 of the Act and Section 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Supreme Court held that where the information discloses a cognizable as well as a non-cognizable offence, the police officer is not debarred from investigating any non-cognizable offence Kumar Vimal 2013.09.17 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.225-SB of 2001 8 which may arise out of the same facts. He can include that non- cognizable offence in the charge-sheet which he presents for a cognizable offence. Both the offences cognizable and non-cognizable offence could be investigated together under Chapter XIV of the Code.
The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are rendered by the learned Single Benches of this Court. The reasoning given is that only the Officers mentioned in the Order are competent to enter upon or search any premises of the dealer or any other premises of which such officer has reason to believe for the reason that the special statue will prevail over the general statute. However, in Shiv Kumar's case (supra), the learned Single Bench of this Court found that the judgment in Pravin Chandra Mody's case (supra) has not been referred by any of the learned Single Benches, whereas in Nilratan Sircar's case (supra), the separate procedure for investigation was laid down under Sections 19 & 19A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, therefore, the police officials are not debarred from search and seizure of the premises under the Order.
In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shiv Shankeer 1971 (1) SCC 422, the Supreme Court was examining Fruit Products Order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 vis-à-vis the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It was held that it needs to be examined as to whether the cumulative effect of the provisions of the two Statutes can stand together and in case they cannot, which provision has the overriding or controlling effect. It was held to the following effect:
"9. The object and purpose of the Adulteration Act is to eliminate the danger to human life and health from the sale of unwholesome Kumar Vimal articles of food. It is covered by Entry 18, List III of the 7th Schedule 2013.09.17 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document to the Constitution. The Essential Commodities Act on the other Chandigarh CRA No.225-SB of 2001 9 hand has for its object the, control of the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in essential commodities and is covered by Entry 33 of List III. In spite of this difference in their main objects, control of production and distribution of essential commodities may, to an extent from a broader point of view, include control of the quality of the essential articles of food and, thus considered, it may reasonably be urged that to some extent it covers the same field as is covered by the provisions of the Adulteration Act. The two provisions may, therefore, have within these narrow limits co-terminus fields of operation. On this premise we have to see if the two provisions can stand together having cumulative effect and in case they cannot, which provision has the overriding or controlling effect. It is needless to point out that they can stand together if the powers are intended to be exercised for different purposes without fatal inconsistency or repugnancy."
The Supreme Court also held that the provisions of the Adulteration Act and of the Fruit Order are supplementary and complimentary in their operation and no provision of the Fruit Order is shown to be destructive of or fatal to any provision of the Adulteration Act or the Rules made thereunder so as to compel the Court to hold that they cannot stand together. It was observed as under:
"9. ...... The provisions of the Adulteration Act and of the Fruit Order to which our attention was drawn seem to be supplementary and cumulative in their operation and no provision of the Fruit Order is shown to be destructive of or fatal to any provision of the Adulteration Act or the Rules made thereunder, so as to compel the court to hold that they cannot stand together. If the Adulteration Act or Rules impose some restrictions on the manufacturer, dealer and seller of vinegar then they have to comply with them irrespective of the fact that the Fruit Order imposes lesser number of restrictions in respect of these matters. The former do not render compliance with the latter impossible, nor does compliance with the former necessarily and automatically involve violation of the latter. Indeed, our attention was not drawn to any provision of the Adulteration Act and Rules, compliance with which would result in breach of any mandate, whether affirmative or negative, of the Fruit Order. We are, therefore, unable to find any cogent or convincing reason for holding that the Parliament intended by enacting the Essential Commodities Kumar Vimal 2013.09.17 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and Act or the Fruit Order to impliedly repeal the provisions of the integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.225-SB of 2001 10 Adulteration Act and the Rules in respect of the vinegar in dispute. Both the statutes can function with full vigour side by side in their own parallel channels."
In M/s Ram Chandra Mawa Lal Varanasi & others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others 1984 (Supp.) SCC 28 the Supreme Court was examining the validity of a notification issued by the State Government under the Defence of India Rules in view of the notification issued by the Central Government under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, inter alia, on the ground of inconsistency between the two notifications. The Court found that the State's notification is on a refinement of the subject about which the Central notification is silent. The two do not overlap. The Court observed as under:
"48. The Centre can object to the State speaking on the same channel, or sitting on its shoulders, and perhaps, even override the State. But the Centre and the State can certainly accommodate each other in a friendly spirit in the overall National Interest when both of them are trying to supplement each other. In the present case both notifications can safely be construed as supplementary and friendly rather than inconsistent or hostile. The Centre does not question the authority of the State speaking on the nuance on which the Centre has maintained silence. There is therefore no real element of inconsistency in the two notifications. The following passage extracted from Sutherland's Statutory Construction, Third Edition, Vol.1, page 488 (para 2022) shows that the aspect relating to 'refinement' is a well recognized factor and that the State law can be treated as an exception when the inconsistency is not irreconcilable :-
"A general statute applies to all persons and localities within its jurisdictional scope, prescribing the governing law upon the subject it encompasses, unless a special statute exists to treat a refinement of the subject with particularity or to prescribe a different law for a particular locality. Likewise where a later statute adapted for a particular locality conflicts with a general law of state-wide application, the special or local law will supersede the general enactment. Where, however, the later special or local statute is not irreconcilable Kumar Vimal 2013.09.17 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and with the general statute to the degree that both statutes cannot integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.225-SB of 2001 11 have a coterminous operation, the general statute will not be repealed, but the special or local statute will exist as an exception to its terms." (Emphasis added)
49. Assuming for the sake of argument that it is considered to be an inconsistency, it does not appear to be an irreconcilable or intolerable one so as to invalidate it, as will be presently shown."
The Supreme Court in a judgment reported as Harshad S. Mehta & others Vs. State of Maharashtra (2001) 8 SCC 257 dealt with the scope of Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. The question for determination was; whether the pardon provision as contained in Sections 306 and 307 of the Code apply or not to the proceedings before the Special Court under the Act. The Supreme Court held that though the Special Court is not a Magistrate falling in any of the categories of Magistrates as enumerated in Section 306 of the Code and also that it is not a Court to which the commitment of a case is made, but it does not necessarily follow there from that power to tender pardon under Sections 306 and 307 has not been conferred on the Special Court. The Court held that the presumption is that the Legislature while enacting a law has a complete knowledge of the existing law on the subject matter. When the subsequent legislation does not provide a repealing provision, or it gives out an intention not to repeal the existing legislation, it cannot be presumed that the earlier provisions are repealed. The Court held to the following effect:
"30. The reason for the presumption as aforesaid is that the legislature while enacting a law has a complete knowledge of the existing laws on the subject matter and, therefore, when it does not provide a repealing provision, it gives out an intention not to repeal the existing legislation. The burden to show that there has been a repeal by implication lies on the party asserting it. Relying upon statutory interpretation by Francis Bennion (1984 Edition), counsel Kumar Vimal 2013.09.17 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document contends that where, as in the present case, the provisions of the later Chandigarh CRA No.225-SB of 2001 12 enactment (the Act) are contrary to those of the earlier (the Code), the later by implication repeals the earlier in accordance with the maxim leges posteriors priores contrerios abrogant (later laws abrogate earlier contrary laws). This is, however, subject to the exception embodied in the maxim generatia specialitous non derogant (a general provision does not derogate from a special one).
31. One of the important tests to determine the issue of implied repeal would be whether the provisions of the Act are irreconcilably inconsistent with those of the Code that the two cannot stand together or the intention of the legislature was only to supplement the provisions of the Code. This intention is to be ascertained from the provisions of the Act. Courts lean against implied repeal. If by any fair interpretation both the statutes can stand together, there will be no implied repeal. If possible implied repeal shall be avoided. It is, however, correct that the presumption against the intent to repeal by implication is overthrown if the new law is inconsistent with or repugnant to the old law, for the inconsistency or repugnancy reveals an intent to repeal the existing laws. Repugnancy must be such that the two statutes cannot be reconciled on reasonable construction or hypothesis. They ought to be clearly and manifestly irreconcilable. .....
38. It is understandable that if powers wider than the one contemplated by the Code are intended to be conferred, a provision to that effect will have to be made. It does not follow therefrom that in an altogether different statute, if no special provision is made, an inference can be drawn that even where the powers under the Code and not wide powers were intended to be conferred, save and except where it is so stated specifically, the effect of omission would be that the Special Court will not have even similar power as are exercised by the ordinary criminal courts under the Code."
Applying the principle of harmonious construction and to read 'Special Court' for the expression 'Magistrate' in the Court, it was held that provision of the Act and Code makes the Act work. It was held that it is only in the event of inconsistency that the provisions of the Act would prevail and any other interpretation will make the provision of Act unworkable which could not be the intention of the Legislature. The Court held that there is no provision in the Act, which Kumar Vimal 2013.09.17 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.225-SB of 2001 13 negates the power of the Special Court to grant pardon. It observed as under:
"50. After the pronouncement of a Constitution Bench decision in A.R.Antulay Vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, 1984 (2) SCC 500, there can now be no doubt that the Special Court under the Act will enjoy all powers which a Court of original criminal jurisdiction enjoys whether of a Magistrate or a Court of Session, save and except the one specifically denied. ...
xxx xxx xxx
55. In the present case, we are unable to find either any inconsistency or any provision which may indicate expressly or by necessary implication the exclusion of the provision of the Code empowering grant of pardon."
In view of the above judgments, we find that clause (j) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act empowers the Central Government to promulgate an Order contemplating incidental and supplementary matters including the entry, search or examination of premises or other conveyances and the seizure by a person authorized to make such entry. The Act does not empower the delegation of the powers of the investigations or trial of the violations of the Orders issued under Section 3 of the Act. For investigation and trial in any case, the power is vested with the Police Official. There is nothing in the Act, which prohibits the investigation or trial by the Police Officer. The power of search and seizure conferred on the departmental officials does not exclude the power of search and seizure vested with a Police official. The Order issued under the Act and the power of search and seizure conferred on a Police official are not inconsistent in any manner. The power of search and seizure conferred on the Officers of the State Government is an additional provision and, thus, both the Order and the Code can be harmoniously construed. For such harmonious Kumar Vimal 2013.09.17 10:28 construction, reliance can be placed on Section 11 of the Act. A reading I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.225-SB of 2001 14 of Section 11 of the Act prohibits the Court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence by a person, who is a public servant. The Police Officer is a 'public servant' in terms of Section 21 of the IPC. Therefore, Section 11 of the Act does not exclude the search and seizure or submission of report by the Police Officer, a public servant. Such power is conferred on the Police Officer in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 4 and Sections 41 and 156 of the Code. In the absence of any inconsistent provision in the Act, the empowerment of a specified Officer to conduct search and seizure is for effective implementation of the provisions of the Act and does not oust the jurisdiction of the Police Officer to search, seize & investigate or of trial under the Act.
Offence under Section 11 of the Act is cognizable. Even sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Code provides that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained in the Code subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner of place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Thus, an authorized officer under the Order has power only to search and seizure for implementation of the special Statute, but power to investigate and for trial into the offences even under the Act is that of a Police Officer. The Act has not made any provision for investigation, submission of report and trial in respect of the offences notified under the Act. The Act is not the complete statute providing for complete machinery for investigations and trials of the offences committed under the Act. Thus, the provisions of the Code in respect of the offences under the Act will be applicable.
Kumar Vimal2013.09.17 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.225-SB of 2001 15
In view of the above discussion, the judgments of this Court taking contrary view, as mentioned by the learned Single Judge, do not lay down correct law and are overruled.
Consequently, the question of law is answered holding that the police have the power to carry search and seizure in respect of the violations under the Act and the Order. Consequently, having answered the question framed, the matter be placed before the learned Single Bench for decision of appeal on merits in accordance with law.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
13 .09.2013 (FATEH DEEP SINGH)
Vimal JUDGE
Kumar Vimal
2013.09.17 10:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh