Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjay Goel Etc. on 27 September, 2012
1 IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI State Vs. Sanjay Goel Etc. FIR No. 307/03 PS: DBG Road U/s 338/325/34 IPC Case ID No. 02401R1380922008 JUDGEMENT
A) Sl. No. of the case : 695/2
B) The date of commission : 27.09.03
of offence
C) The name of the complainant : Ms. Saroj Gupta w/o Sh. Anil Kumar
Gupta
r/o H.No. 151/AMIG Flats Block
A/2B, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
D) The name & address of accused : 1. Sanjay Goel
s/o Sh. Amar Singh
R/o H.No. 5665, Kucha Khem Chand,
Nai Sarak, Delhi.
2. Deepak Goel
S/o Sh Amar Singh
R/o H.No. 5665, Kucha Khem Chand,
Nai Sarak, Delhi.
E) Offences complained of : U/s 338/325/34 IPC
F) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
G) Final order : Convicted U/s 323/34 IPC
FIR No. 307/03 Page No. 1/19
2
H) The date of such order : 27.09.2012
Date of Institution: 15.09.2012
Judgment reserved on: 18.09.2012
Judgment announced on: 27.09.2012
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGEMENT:
1. Both the accused persons namely Sanjay Goel and Deepak Goel had been sent to face trial in respect of offences u/s 338/325/34 IPC by the prosecution on the allegations that both of them in furtherance of their common intention
2. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 27.09.03, on receipt of DD no. 31 PP Shidipura from Jeewan Mala Hospital regarding admission of one lady in injured condition, ASI Chandgi Ram alongwith Ct. Udai Bhan went to the said hospital where MLC of injured namely Smt Saroj Gupta was obtained wherein nature of injuries was opined to be grievous. ASI Chandgi Ram recorded the statement of complainant/injured Smt. Saroj Gupta who stated that she alongwith her son namely Nitish were going towards their house on two wheeler scooter bearing no. DL4SAB 1079 and when they were passing in front of shop no. 8092 Rani Jhansi Road, two persons came from their back side on two wheeler scooter and after over taking them, she was pushed due to which she fell down and suffered injuries on her body. On the basis of said statement, FIR in respect of offences u/s 325/338/34 IPC was got registered and investigation was entrusted to ASI Chandgi Ram who recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared site plan and also arrested the accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was FIR No. 307/03 Page No. 2/19 3 prepared and filed in the Court. Accordingly, cognizance was taken by my Ld. Predecessor.
4. Both the accused were supplied with the copies of the challan in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C and charge in respect of offences u/s 325/338/34 IPC was framed against them on 16.12.04 by Ld Predecessor of this Court to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses namely PW1 Smt Saroj Gupta/complainant, PW2 Sh. Nitish Kumar, PW3 ASI Rajbir Singh, PW4 Ct. Uday Bhan, PW5 ASI Chandgi Ram and PW6 Dr. Amber Agarwal towards PE.
6. After closing of the prosecution evidence, the statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C of both the accused were recorded on 08.02.11 wherein all the incriminating evidence that has come on record, were put to them whose stand was of general denial. Both the accused stated in their respective statements that they have been falsely implicated in this case and are innocent. They further stated that complainant pressurized them in order to get further payment as there was one matter between their father and the complainant in which payment of Rs. 75,000/ was paid by their father to complainant. Both the accused also opted to lead defence evidence and have examined three DWs namely DW1 Sh. Anil Khetan, DW2 Sh Amar Singh Goyal and DW3 Sanjay Goel towards DE.
7. I have already heard Ld. APP on behalf of State and Ld. Counsel Sh Sanjay Dalal adv on behalf of both the accused persons. I have also carefully perused the FIR No. 307/03 Page No. 3/19 4 material available on record.
PW1 namely Smt Saroj Gupta/complainant as well as PW2 Sh. Nitish Kumar entered into witness box and deposed on the lines of prosecution story during their chief examination. PW1 proved her statement Ex PW1/A recorded by the police. She deposed that signatures were put by her with her left hand as her right hand was got fractured.
PW2 further deposed during chief examination that he could not tell as to which of the accused had pushed her mother(PW1) as he did not see them while pushing his mother as his attention was towards the road. He also stated that he had noticed the accused persons only when his mother had fallen down and accused were running from the spot. He himself did not get any injury. He could not note down registration number of the two wheeler scooter driven by the accused as he was trying to save his mother. He had accompanied Ct. Chander Bhan and Ct. Udai Bhan to the spot where site plan was prepared at his instance. His statement was also recorded by the police.
During cross examination, PW1 testified that both accused were known to her as they were previously on friendly terms and the accused had owed Rs. 3,00,000/ from her and her husband which was advanced as loan at interest @ 2 %. She had left the Court premises between 3 to 4 P.M on that day after attending one matter and the accused were not present in the Court at that time. There was light traffic on Rani Jhansi Road and many public persons had collected on the spot but she did not know as to whether police had recorded statement of any other public FIR No. 307/03 Page No. 4/19 5 person. She admitted that several complaints had been made by her against the accused for not returning her money to the police authorities and she had also requested several times on telephone to the accused for returning the money. She also admitted about filing of complaint case for money against the accused in the Court of law. However, she denied the suggestion that she had given threats to the accused persons on telephone.
PW2 also admitted during his cross examination that his mother had made various police complaints for recovery of money against accused persons and also that a complaint case was pending against accused persons in the Court of law. There was light traffic at the time of incident and distance between spot to the hospital was about 33 ½ km. In reply to the Court question put to the said witness, he claimed that IO did not record his statement as stated by him during chief examination.
PW3 ASI Rajbir Singh is the formal witness who was posted as DO in PS DBG Road on the day of incident. He has proved copy of FIR no. 307/03 with PS DBG Road as PW1/A and his endorsement Ex PW1/B on the rukka. He has not been cross examined by the accused despite grant of opportunity.
PW5 ASI Chandgi Ram is the IO of this case who alongwith PW4 Ct. Udai Bhan deposed about the investigation conducted in this case, on identical lines during their chief examination. PW4 proved arrest memos and search memos of both the accused as PW4/A to PW4/D respectively. PW5 also proved site plan Ex PW5/B during his chief examination. He also deposed that he had obtained opinion FIR No. 307/03 Page No. 5/19 6 on MLC no. 4045 of injured Smt Saroj Gupta which was grievous.
PW4 testified during cross examination that Rani Jhansi Road where the incident allegedly took place, was busy place. No public person had collected in his presence at the spot and claimed that distance between spot and Jiwan Mala Hospital was about 500 meters.
PW5 testified during cross examination that Nitish Kumar(PW2) had accompanied him when he had left the hospital for the spot. He could not give any satisfactory reply about the pendency of proceedings between the complainant and the accused party. However, he stated that no public person joined the proceedings despite request.
PW6 Dr. Amber Aggarwal is the Orthopedic Surgeon of Jeewan Mala Hospital under whose supervision, injured Smt Saroj Gupta(PW1) was examined on 27.9.03 by casualty doctor. Said witness has proved MLC in respect of injured Smt Saroj Gupta as Ex PW6/A. He claimed that the nature of injury was given by him as grievous due to fracture. During his cross examination, he claimed that he did not bring xray report on the basis of which nature of injury was opined as grievous. He also could not tell about the manner in which fracture was suffered by injured. He admitted that MLC Ex PW6/A did not bear the name and signature of Casualty Medical Officer namely Dr. Jagat. However, he explained that Dr. Jagat was not in the services of said hospital and he did not have knowledge about the present whereabouts of said doctor.
DW1 Sh. Anil Khetan deposed that accused Deepak had attended his FIR No. 307/03 Page No. 6/19 7 birthday party on 27.9.03 i.e the date of incident between 1.30/2.00 P.M till morning of the next day. He deposed that accused Deepak remained with him throughout the said period in his house. He had also accompanied accused Deepak to PS DBG Road on Monday/Tuesday and told the police that said accused was with him on that day but police asked him to give the statement in the Court.
During his cross examination by Ld APP for the State, he produced his original PAN Card bearing his date of birth as 24.09.1971. However, it was claimed by him that birthday party was celebrated on Sunday being holiday but could not produce any document to show that his birthday was actually celebrated on 27.09.03 i.e on the date of incident. He admitted that no statement in writing was given by him to the police with regard to false implication of accused Deepak in this case. He also could not disclose the name of police officer who met him in PS DBG Road on his visit alongwith the accused.
DW2 is the father of both the accused. He claimed that accused Sanjay was present alongwith him in his shop situated at Chandni Chowk throughout the day on 27.09.03 and the complainant had been making false and frivolous complainants against him as well as his sons due to financial transactions between them.
During his cross examination, he admitted that he cannot produce any cash memo/invoice prepared by accused Sanjay on 27.09.03. He had taken loan of Rs. 50,000/ to Rs. 60,000/ from complainant about 23 years prior to the date of incident and the said amount had reached up to Rs. 3,00,000/. He also deposed about the complaint case pending against him as well as against his sons at the FIR No. 307/03 Page No. 7/19 8 instance of complainant. Although, he claimed that written complaints were made to police officials against complainant but admitted that no complaint case was filed before any Court of law.
DW3 is the accused Sanjay Goel who entered into witness box and deposed on the lines of statement given by DW2 discussed herein before. He claimed that several police complaints were made by him against complainant and proved copies of said police complaints as DW3/A and DW3/B, three postal receipts as DW3/C collectively and two original AD cards as Ex DW3/D and E. During his cross examination on behalf of State, he testified that his father issues cash memos in the shop and he has no documentary proof to show that he had been assisting his father in his business. He was not being paid any salary or monetary consideration by his father and could not tell the details of money transactions between his father and the complainant. He admitted that he had no money transaction with the complainant. He also admitted that no FIR was registered by police on his complaints Ex DW3/A and DW3/B but denied the suggestion that FIR was not registered as both the said complaints were found to be without any substance.
8. While opening the arguments, Ld APP for the State fairly conceded that offence U/s 338/34 IPC is not made out against the accused persons. It is no where the case of prosecution that accused had caused injury to the complainant while driving their scooter in rash and negligent manner. Even otherwise, the prosecution has failed to lead any cogent or sufficient evidence during trial to prove FIR No. 307/03 Page No. 8/19 9 the said offence against either of the accused persons. Consequently, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons in respect of offence U/s 338/34 IPC. Now, it has to be seen as to whether prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of accused in respect of accused U/s 325/34 IPC or not.
Ld. APP for the State submitted that both the material witnesses namely PW1 Smt Saroj Gupta and PW2 Nitish Kumar have fully supported the case of prosecution on material points and therefore, prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Ld APP also relied upon MLC Ex PW6/A as well as the testimony of PW6 Dr. Amber Aggarwal in support of her contention that ocular evidence coupled with the medical evidence proved on record, clearly establishes the guilt of accused in respect of offence U/s 325/34 IPC.
9. On the other hand, Ld defence counsel argued that there are many lacunas in the prosecution story which creates doubt in the case of prosecution and therefore, both the accused should be acquitted in this case. Ld defence counsel argued that in their entire testimonies as well as in police statement Ex PW1/A, PW1 and PW2 did not tell the registration number of two wheeler scooter which was allegedly being driven by accused persons at the time of incident in question. He referred to the relevant portion of cross examination of PW1 wherein she testified that she had left the Court premises between 3 and 4 P.M as well as to the prosecution story which claims that the incident in question occurred at about 6 P.M FIR No. 307/03 Page No. 9/19 10 in support of his contention that distance between Tis Hazari Courts and the spot situated at Rani Jhansi Road was not too long and thus, it cannot be believed that complainant (PW1) and her son (PW2) would have taken about two hours in reaching the spot.
10. However, Court does not find any force in the said argument at all. No question whatsoever was put during cross examination of PW1 or PW2 as to whether they had directly went to the spot from Tis Hazari Court premises on the date of incident. It cannot be presumed that complainant and her son would have directly gone to the spot from there. There was no occasion for PW2 to note down the registration number of two wheeler scooter being driven by accused. This fact has also been clearly explained by PW2 during his chief examination itself by testifying that he could not note down the registration number of said scooter as he was trying to save his mother at that time. Same is the position with the complainant/injured namely Smt Saroj Gupta(PW1) who had fallen down from the scooter after being pushed and received injuries on several parts of her body.
11. Another submission raised on behalf of accused persons is that no independent public person was joined during investigation. In other words, Ld defence counsel argued that independent corroboration to the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 is missing in this case. It has been argued that PW1 and PW2 both are interested witnesses who were having grudge against the accused persons on account of financial disputes pending between the complainant and the father of accused persons. Ld APP, on the other hand, submitted that no independent FIR No. 307/03 Page No. 10/19 11 corroboration is required in the facts and circumstances of the case and the testimonies of both the material witnesses (PW1 and PW2) examined by prosecution are natural and trustworthy.
12. Although, it has come on record during the cross examination of PW1 that public persons had collected at the spot but at the same time, it cannot be over looked that no public person was present at the spot when police reached there. This fact is established during the testimonies of PW4 and PW5. Moreover, the incident would have taken place spontaneously in fraction of minutes and therefore, no public person would have the occasion to see the incident. There was no possibility for the IO to ascertain the particulars of public persons would have collected at the spot immediately after the incident as none was present at the spot when police reached there. Thus, no fault can be found on the part of investigating agency in not joining independent public person during the investigation.
13. No doubt, it has come on record that there were financial disputes between complainant and the father of accused persons. Not only this, complaint case was also pending between the parties in a Court of law. However, it is appropriate to note that in case complainant had any propensity to falsely implicate the accused in criminal case on account of financial dispute then she would have done so against the father of the accused with whom financial disputes wee going on which is not the case herein. As rightly submitted by Ld APP, enmity cannot always be cause for false implication. The testimonies of PW1 and PW2 nowhere suggest or point out that they had any ill will or motive to falsely implicate the accused persons in this FIR No. 307/03 Page No. 11/19 12 case. Rather, testimonies of both the said witnesses are found to be trustworthy and natural. PW1 has fairly admitted during her cross examination that she had made several police complaints against the accused for not returning her money and had also made several telephone calls to the accused for the said purpose. In case, the complainant (PW1) had intention to falsely implicate the accused then she could have denied having made any telephone calls to the accused persons. Likewise, both the said witnesses could have easily disclosed the registration number of the two wheeler scooter used by the accused in case they had any intention to falsely implicate the accused as both the parties were previously known to each other.
14. In a decided case, it has been held as under: " 28. Where our criminal justice system provides safeguards of fair trial and innocent till proven guilty to an accused, there it also contemplates that a criminal trial is meant for doing justice to all, the accused, the society and a fair chance to prove to the prosecution. Then alone can law and order be maintained. The Courts do not merely discharge the function to ensure that no innocent man is punished, but also that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties of the Judge. During the course of trial, the learned Presiding Judge is expected to work objectively and in a correct perspective. Where the prosecution attempts to misdirect the trial on the basis of a perfunctory or designedly defective investigation, there the Court is to be deeply cautious and ensure that despite such an attempt, the determinative process is not subserved. For truly attaining this object of a 'fair FIR No. 307/03 Page No. 12/19 13 trial', the Court should leave no stone unturned to do justice and protect the interest of the society as well.
29. This brings us to an ancillary issue as to how the Court would appreciate the evidence in such cases. The possibility of some variations in the exhibits, medical and ocular evidence cannot be ruled out. But it is not that every minor variation or inconsistency would tilt the balance of justice in favour the accused. Of course, where contradictions and variations are of a serious nature, which apparently or impliedly are destructive of the substantive case sought to be proved by the prosecution, they may provide an advantage to the accused. The Courts, normally, look at expert evidence with a greater sense of acceptability, but it is equally true that the courts are not absolutely guided by the report of the experts, especially if such reports are perfunctory, unsustainable and are the result of a deliberate attempt to misdirect the prosecution. In Kamaljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab {2004 Cri. LJ 28}, the Court, while dealing with discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, held, "It is trite law that minor variations between medical evidence and ocular evidence do not take away the primacy of the letter. Unless medical evidence in its term goes so far as to completely rule out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner stated by the eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eyewitnesses cannot be thrown out". FIR No. 307/03 Page No. 13/19 14
30. Where the eye witness account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities may not be accepted as conclusive. The expert witness is expected to put before the Court all materials inclusive of the data which induced him to come to the conclusion and enlighten the Court on the technical aspect of the case by examining the terms of science, so that the Court, although not an expert, may from its own judgment on those materials after giving due regard to the expert's opinion, because once the expert opinion is accepted, it is not the opinion of the medical officer but that of the Court. ( Plz. See. Madan Gopal Kakad Vs. Naval Dubey & Anr.( 1992)_ 2 SCR 921:
(1992) 3 SCC 204)."
15. There is no merit in the argument advanced on behalf of accused that entire prosecution story should be doubted on the ground of non seizure of two wheeler scooter allegedly used by accused at the time of incident in question. Firstly, there was no requirement for seizure of said two wheeler scooter as it was not the case property which was required to be seized in this case. The case of prosecution is that both the accused in furtherance of their common intention pushed the complainant(PW1) from running two wheeler scooter as a result of which she received injuries on her body. That being so, non seizure of two wheeler scooter of the accused is immaterial.
16. Ld defence counsel argued that PW2 Sh. Nitish Kumar did not suffer any injury at all which is quite unbelievable. He argued that PW2 would have also FIR No. 307/03 Page No. 14/19 15 suffered certain injury on his body in case the accused persons had pushed the complainant(PW1) from running scooter driven by her son(PW2). However, the said argument was countered by Ld APP by submitting that complainant (PW1) could have orally lost her control on being pushed by accused as she was sitting as pillion rider and thus, it was not necessary that PW2 would have also received injuries during the incident.
17. It is a matter of common knowledge that a lady who sits as a pillion rider on two wheeler vehicle, takes position in such a manner that her both the legs are on one side of the vehicle. Thus, in case of lady being pillion rider on two wheeler vehicle, there is every possibility that she would loose her control on being pushed by some other person while such two wheeler vehicle is in running position. However, position of the driver of two wheeler vehicle is such that his/her legs are put on both the sides and. In such an eventuality, the driver can still maintain his/her balance. Therefore, it is not always necessary that driver would also suffer any injury on his/her person. Moreover, no question was put by accused during cross examination of PW2 as to how he did not receive any injury and what were the reasons for which he managed to save himself during the incident in question.
18. Ld defence counsel also referred to the testimonies of defence witnesses in support of his submission that accused have proved their plea of alibi. He therefore, submitted that the prosecution story should be disbelieved. He also referred to the relevant portion of the statement of the PW2 wherein he claimed that he had accompanied Ct. Chander Bhan and Udai Bhan to the spot where site plan was FIR No. 307/03 Page No. 15/19 16 prepared at his instance. Ld counsel submitted that Ct. Chander Bhan has neither been cited as a prosecution witness in the list of witnesses filed with the charge sheet nor he has been produced during trial.
19. Per contra, Ld APP submitted that the name of IO Chandgi Ram has been inadvertently disclosed as Chander Bhan by the said witness and there is no lapse on the part of investigation on this count.
20. After considering the material available on record, Court does not find any substance in the said argument raised by defence counsel. Firstly, the possibility of PW2 disclosing the name of Chandgi Ram as Chander Bhan cannot be ruled out. Secondly, it was for the accused to put relevant questions during cross examination of said witness in order to bring on record the fact as to whether Ct. Chander Bhan was different person from IO Chandgi Ram. Thirdly, even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that Ct. Chander Bhan had also associated during investigation of this case but not examined by prosecution, still, the entire prosecution case cannot be thrown away on this count. The accused has failed to point out as to what prejudice has been caused to him due to non examination of Ct. Chander Bhan, by the prosecution and as to how non examination of Ct. Chander Bhan if any, could have put any dent on the prosecution story.
21. So far as the plea of Alibi taken by accused during their statements recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC as well as during statements of defence witnesses is concerned, Court agrees with the submission made by Ld APP that said defence remained unproved and cannot be accepted. The accused nowhere put their plea of Alibi FIR No. 307/03 Page No. 16/19 17 during the cross examination of prosecution witnesses. The accused also did not put any suggestion about police complaints Ex DW3/A and DW3/B during the cross examination of prosecution witnesses more particularly PW1 and PW2. In order to rely upon their plea of Alibi, it was incumbent upon the accused to put their defence during cross examination of prosecution witnesses. Having not done so, Court is of the view that the said defence cannot be taken into consideration. Even otherwise, the testimonies of defence witnesses examined by accused, do not inspire confidence, DW1 Sh. Anil Khetan could not produce any document to show that he had actually celebrated his birthday party on 27.9.03 i.e on the day of incident. It th has been clearly established on record that his date of birth was 24 September. It is quite unbelievable that a person would celebrate his birthday on a day other than his birthday. In case, any person celebrates his birthday with pump and show by inviting his friends also then the entire party would have been covered by video graphy or atleast by photographer but no photograph of the birthday party has been produced or proved by DW1 before the Court. Likewise, DW2 although claimed that his son namely Sanjay (accused) had been assisting him in his shop situated at Chandni Chowk but could not produce any document to show that any cash memo/invoice prepared or signed by accused Sanjay on 27.9.03. No document whatsoever was produced before the Court which may show that accused Sanjay had been assisting his father in his absence as accused Sanjay ( examined as DW3) admitted during his cross examination that he was neither receiving any salary nor any monetary consideration from his father for assisting him in his FIR No. 307/03 Page No. 17/19 18 business. It is quite unbelievable that the person aged about 34 years of age, would not be getting any monetary consideration despite assisting in the business of his father. As rightly submitted by Ld APP, DW2 seems to be an interested witness being fadther of accused persons and DW1 seems to have deposed in favour of accused Deepak being on good friendly relations with him.
22. Ld defence counsel argued that MLC Ex PW6/A should not be read as it has not been properly proved by prosecution as per law of evidence. In this regard, he referred to the statement of PW6 Dr. Amber Aggarwal wherein he admitted that said MLC was prepared by casualty medical officer on duty namely Dr. Jagat whose name and signature do not appear on the said MLC. However, Ld APP submitted that MLC Ex PW6/A was prepared under the supervision of Dr. Amber Aggarwal (PW6) whose signature also appears at points A and B thereupon and therefore, MLC has been properly proved.
23. After considering the respectful submissions made on behalf of both the sides, Court agrees with the submission made by Ld APP that MLC Ex PW6/A has been properly proved by Dr. Amber Aggarwal(PW6) who has identified his signatures at points A and B there upon. He categorically deposed that MLC was prepared under his supervision. Not only this, he also explained that Dr. Jagat was not in the services of Jeewan Mala Hospital and his present whereabouts were not known.
24. However, Court finds considerable force in the submission made on behalf of accused persons that nature of injuries suffered by complainant Smt. Saroj FIR No. 307/03 Page No. 18/19 19 Gupta(PW2) as grievous, could not be proved by prosecution during trial. Reason being that the opinion about the nature of injury being grievous, had been given on the basis of fracture allegedly suffered by complainant. However, neither any xray report nor the report of Radiologist has been produced or proved on record by the prosecution. In this regard, PW6 categorically admitted the fact that he has not brought xray report on the basis of which injury was opined as grievous. In the absence of xray report or xray plate, it is not established that complainant had actually suffered fracture and the injuries was grievous. That being so, Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to prove nature of injuries suffered by complainant as grievous. However, perusal of MLC Ex PW6/A shows that complainant had suffered several injuries on her body as mentioned therein. Accordingly, the nature of injuries suffered by complainant are taken to be simple. Accordingly, Court is of the view that prosecution has been able to prove its case in respect of offence U/s 323/34 IPC against both the accused persons on the basis of ocular evidence in the form of testimonies of prosecution witnesses coupled with the medical evidence available on record. Consequently, both the accused persons namely Sanjay Goel and Deepak stand convicted in respect of offence U/s 323/34 IPC.
Announced in the open Court (VIDYA PRAKASH)
today on 27.09.12 CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
DELHI
FIR No. 307/03 Page No. 19/19