advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Saturday, March 29, 2014

Bail petition in offences under sections 120B read with Sections 302, 364, 365, 368, 193, 197, 342, 420, 384, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) and Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and he was arrested on 24.04.2007 and since then is in custody. - High court dismissed the bail applications - Apex court granted conditional bail on the grounds that even after 7 years trial not completed , co accused were on bail =Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar .... Appellant(s) Versus Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. .... Respondent(s)= 2014 (March . Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41351

   Bail petition in offences under sections 120B  read  with  Sections 302, 364, 365, 368, 193, 197, 342, 420, 384, 201 and 34 of the Indian  Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) and Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27  of  the  Arms Act, 1959 and he was arrested on 24.04.2007 and since then is in custody. - High court dismissed the bail applications - Apex court granted conditional bail on the grounds that even after 7 years trial not completed , co accused were on bail =

High Court of  Judicature  at  Bombay  in  Criminal
Bail Application Nos. 2002 and 1713 of 2012 respectively, whereby  the  High
Court dismissed the bail applications of both the appellants pending trial.=

The appellant - Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar  (Accused  No.  2),  an  IPS
Officer, is one of the accused persons in Special Case No.  5  of  2010  (RC
BS1/S/2010/0004-Mumbai dated  01.02.2010),  who  was  charge-sheeted,  inter
alia, for the offences punishable under  Section  120B  read  with  Sections
302, 364, 365, 368, 193, 197, 342, 420, 384, 201 and 34 of the Indian  Penal
Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) and Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27  of  the  Arms
Act, 1959 and he was arrested on 24.04.2007 and since then is in custody.

4)    The other appellant - Balkrishan Rajendraprasad Chaubey  (Accused  No.
6), who was working as a sub-Inspector  of  Police  in  the  Anti  Terrorist
Squad (ATS), Ahmedabad, at the relevant time, is also  one  of  the  accused
persons in the same case arising  out  of  R.C.  No.  BS1/S/2010/0004  dated
01.02.2010 registered with the CBI SCB, Mumbai and  was  charge-sheeted  for
the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 365, 368,  302
and 201 of the IPC and he was arrested on 01.07.2007 and since  then  is  in
custody.=

  

22)   In the light of the details, allegations  in  the  charge-sheet  filed
before the court, many of the co-accused were  granted  bail  by  the  trial
court/High Court and this Court and of the fact  that  both  the  appellants
are in custody for nearly 7 years pending trial and  also  in  view  of  the
fact that it would not be possible for the special  Court  to  conclude  the
trial within a reasonable period as claimed by learned ASG, we  inclined  to
consider their claim for bail.

23)   In the light of the statement made by learned ASG, we direct that  all
the materials pertaining to these cases which  are  lying  in  the  original
Court at Gujarat as well as the records  relating  to  the  same  under  the
custody of the High Court of Gujarat, if any, be transferred to the  Special
Court, CBI, Mumbai within a period of one month from the date of receipt  of
copy of this order.  After  receipt  of  all  the  required  materials,  the
Special Court, CBI at Mumbai  have  to  get  the  relevant  documents  alone
translated within a period of three months thereafter.  The  Special  Court,
CBI at Mumbai is directed to take the assistance of the  Registrars  of  the
High Courts of Bombay and Gujarat for completion of the translation work  as
fixed.  By this order, we also direct  the  Registrars  of  the  Bombay  and
Gujarat High Courts to render all  assistance  to  the  Special  Judge,  CBI
Mumbai for  early  completion  of  the  translation  work  within  the  time
stipulated by this Court.   After  receipt  of  the  required  material  and
completion of translation work, we direct the  special  Judge  to  take  all
endeavor for early completion of the trial.

24)   In the light of what is stated above, we are satisfied that  both  the
appellants have made out a case for  bail  on  executing  a  bond  with  two
solvent sureties, each in a sum of Rs 1 lakh  to  the  satisfaction  of  the
Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai on the following conditions:
(i)   The appellants shall not directly or indirectly make  any  inducement,
      threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the  case
      so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the court  or  to  any
      other authority.
(ii)  The appellants shall remain present before  the  court  on  the  dates
      fixed for hearing of the case,  for  any  reason  due  to  unavoidable
      circumstances for remaining absent they have to give intimation to the
      court and also to the officer concerned of the CBI and make  a  proper
      application for permission to be present through counsel.
(iii) The appellants  shall  surrender  their  passports,  if  any,  if  not
      already surrendered and if they are not holder of the same, that  fact
      should be supported by an affidavit.
(iv)  In case they have already surrendered the passport before the  Special
      Judge, CBI, that fact should be supported by an affidavit.
(v)   On such release, both of them (A-2 & A-6)  have to stay at Mumbai  and
      report at 11.00 a.m. on alternate  working  days  before  the  Special
      Judge, CBI Mumbai.
(vi)  Liberty is given to the CBI to make  an  appropriate  application  for
      modification/recalling  the  present  order  passed  by  us,  if   the
      appellants violate any of the conditions imposed by this Court.
25)   Under these circumstances, the appellants are ordered to  be  released
on bail subject to the conditions mentioned hereinabove to the  satisfaction
of the  court  concerned.   With  the  above  directions,  the  appeals  are
disposed of.
        
2014 (March . Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41351
P SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOI, N.V. RAMANA


                   REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                 1 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  698         OF 2014

              (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 10337 of 2013)

Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar                       .... Appellant(s)

            Versus

Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.           .... Respondent(s)

                             WITH


                 2 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 699          OF 2014

              (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 10600 of 2013)

Balkrishan Rajendraprasad Chaubey              .... Appellant(s)

            Versus

Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.           .... Respondent(s)





                               J U D G M E N T


P.Sathasivam, CJI.



1)    Leave granted in both the appeals.

2)    These appeals are directed against the  orders  dated  20.11.2013  and
10.07.2013 passed by the High Court of  Judicature  at  Bombay  in  Criminal
Bail Application Nos. 2002 and 1713 of 2012 respectively, whereby  the  High
Court dismissed the bail applications of both the appellants pending trial.

3)    The appellant - Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar  (Accused  No.  2),  an  IPS
Officer, is one of the accused persons in Special Case No.  5  of  2010  (RC
BS1/S/2010/0004-Mumbai dated  01.02.2010),  who  was  charge-sheeted,  inter
alia, for the offences punishable under  Section  120B  read  with  Sections
302, 364, 365, 368, 193, 197, 342, 420, 384, 201 and 34 of the Indian  Penal
Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) and Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27  of  the  Arms
Act, 1959 and he was arrested on 24.04.2007 and since then is in custody.

4)    The other appellant - Balkrishan Rajendraprasad Chaubey  (Accused  No.
6), who was working as a sub-Inspector  of  Police  in  the  Anti  Terrorist
Squad (ATS), Ahmedabad, at the relevant time, is also  one  of  the  accused
persons in the same case arising  out  of  R.C.  No.  BS1/S/2010/0004  dated
01.02.2010 registered with the CBI SCB, Mumbai and  was  charge-sheeted  for
the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 365, 368,  302
and 201 of the IPC and he was arrested on 01.07.2007 and since  then  is  in
custody.

5)    Inasmuch as we are concerned only  with  the  grant  of  bail  pending
trial, there is no need to analyse all  the  factual  details  except  their
involvement in the commission of offence, as  alleged  by  the  prosecution.
In the cases on hand, as per  the  prosecution  story,  three  murders  were
allegedly  committed  inter  alia  by  senior  police  officers   like   the
appellants - Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar (A-2) and  Balkrishan  Rajendraprasad
Chaubey (A-6), whose duty was otherwise to maintain law  and  order  and  to
prevent the commission of offence.

6)    Heard Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel,  Mr.  Sushil  Karanjkar,
learned counsel for the  appellants  (A-2  and  A-6)  respectively  and  Ms.
Indira Jaising, learned Additional Solicitor  General  for  the  respondent-
CBI.



Submissions:

7)    Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the  appellant,  by  taking
us through the allegations against A-2 in  the  charge-sheet  filed  in  the
Special Court, submitted that  there  is  no  direct  evidence  linking  the
present  appellant  with  the  commission  of  offence  as  alleged  by  the
prosecution and the investigation  carried  out  by  the  CBI  suffers  from
serious infirmities.  He further pointed out that  the  materials  shown  to
support  the  prosecution  charges   against   the   appellant   (A-2)   are
characterized with various defects such as lack of spontaneity,  invaryness,
untrustworthiness, hear-say witnesses, inherently impossible  or  improbable
facts and humanly abnormal  conducts  apart  from  the  infirmities  in  the
charges which are yet to be framed by the Court.   He  further  pointed  out
that A-2 is in judicial custody without trial for  almost  seven  years  and
continued incarceration will amount  to  violation  of  Article  21  of  the
Constitution of India.   He also pointed out that  inasmuch  as  either  the
High Court or this Court granted bail to similarly  placed  co-accused,  the
present appellant is also to be released on the ground of parity.   Finally,
he stressed on the fact that there are hundreds of witnesses to be  examined
and voluminous documents exhibited in the  charge-sheet,  it  would  not  be
possible to complete the trial in the near future.

8)    Though Mr. Sushil Karanjkar,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  -
Balkrishan Rajendraprasad Chaubey (A-6) adopted the arguments  made  by  Mr.
U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel, he also submitted that A-6, being a sub-
Inspector, was present in the company of certain officers and  there  is  no
allegation against him having fired at the deceased.  He  also  pointed  out
that even if the Court accepts the prosecution story that he was present  at
the place of firing along with  the  other  police  officers,  there  is  no
specific role attributed to him.  In addition to the same, he  also  pointed
out that the appellant (A-6)  is  in  judicial  custody  without  trial  for
almost seven years.



9)    On the other hand, Ms. Indira Jaising,  learned  Additional  Solicitor
General, by taking us through the relevant  materials  referred  to  in  the
charge-sheet and presented in the court, submitted  that  inasmuch  as  both
the  appellants  were  police  officers,  there  is  every   likelihood   of
influencing the witnesses.  Learned ASG  also  submitted  that  inasmuch  as
there is a  direct  link  in  the  abduction  and  killing  of  Sohrabuddin,
Kausarbi and Tulsiram Prajapati, no case is made out for grant  of  bail  at
this juncture.  She further submitted that by transfer of case records  from
the trial court as well as from the High Court of Gujarat to the  transferee
Court at Mumbai, viz., the Special Court, CBI and after translation  of  the
same, the trial is likely to be concluded within  a  reasonable  time.   She
also pointed out that the grant of bail/anticipatory bail to  certain  other
accused is not a ground for release  of  these  appellants  at  this  stage.
Accordingly, she prayed for dismissal of both the appeals.

10)   We have considered the rival contentions and perused all the  relevant
materials including the charges levelled against the appellants.

Discussion:

11)   Before considering the claim of the parties and materials relied  upon
for and against the grant of bail, it is  necessary  to  highlight  the  law
relating to grant of bail in non-bailable offences.  At  the  foremost,  the
court granting bail should exercise its discretion  in  a  judicious  manner
and not as a  matter  of  course.   Though,  for  grant  of  bail,  detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate discussion on merits of the case  need
not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such  orders  reasons  for
prima facie conclusion why bail was being granted,  particularly,  when  the
accused is charged  of  having  committed  a  serious  offence.   In  Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav  and  Another,  (2004)  7
SCC 528, this Court, while considering Sections 437 and 439 of the  Code  of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, (in short ‘the Code’)  held  that,  amongst  other
circumstances of  the  case,  the  following  factors  are  required  to  be
considered by the court before granting bail:

      “(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment  in  case
      of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

      (b)  Reasonable  apprehension  of  tampering  with  the   witness   or
      apprehension of threat to the complainant.

      (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.”




12)   Keeping the above principles in mind, let  us  discuss  the  stand  of
both  the  sides.   As  observed  in  the  earlier  part  of  our  judgment,
considering the limited issue involved, there  is  no  need  to  elaborately
analyse, assess, the acceptability or otherwise of the prosecution  version,
charges  levelled,  witnesses  examined  and  documents  exhibited  at  this
juncture.  However, in the light of the submissions made by both the  sides,
we have carefully perused the role attributed to  these  appellants  in  the
charge sheet filed in the Court as well as other materials  and  also  taken
note of judicial custody for nearly seven years pending trial and the  rival
contentions.

13)   Coming to the  delay,  it  is  not  in  dispute  that  in  respect  of
abduction  and  killing  of  Sohrabuddin  and  Kausarbi,   after   prolonged
hearings, the trial was transferred to Mumbai, that is, out  of  Gujarat  on
the orders of this Court.  Thereafter, in respect  of  killing  of  Tulsiram
Prajapati, again, on the orders of this Court  dated  08.04.2013,  the  same
was transferred to Mumbai to be heard  along  with  the  trial  relating  to
killing  of  Sohrabuddin  and  Kausarbi.   Taking  note  of  these   aspects
including various orders of this  Court,  it  cannot  be  claimed  that  the
investigating agency was responsible for the delay.

14)   Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for Sanghian  Pandian  Rajkumar
(A-2) asserted  that  not  even  a  single  person  implicated  him  in  the
commission of offences as alleged by the  prosecution.    On  going  through
the allegations pertaining to A-2 in the charge-sheet and the  arguments  of
Mr. Lalit, learned senior counsel as well as  Ms.  Indira  Jaising,  learned
ASG, we are not inclined to express any  specific  opinion  at  this  stage.
However, there is no dispute that A-2 was arrested  on  24.04.2007  and  A-6
was arrested on 01.07.2007 and both of them are in custody since  then.   In
other words, they are in custody nearly for a period of seven years  pending
trial.  Though the prosecution has filed the charges,  admittedly,  so  far,
the same have not been framed by  the  Court.   Both  the  counsel  for  the
appellants pointed out that there is no chance of  completion  of  trial  in
the near future due to voluminous documents and  more  than  600  witnesses.
We have already pointed out that the  charges  have  not  been  framed  even
after seven years.  Per contra, Learned ASG submitted that inasmuch as  both
the  appellants  are  police  officers,  there  is   every   likelihood   of
influencing the witnesses.  She also pointed out that by giving  appropriate
direction for transfer of records from  Gujarat  to  the  transferee  Court,
i.e., special Court CBI at Mumbai, Maharashtra and after completion  of  the
translation work, a direction may be issued to the special court  for  early
completion of the trial.  We also considered the  above  objection.   It  is
clear from the statement of Learned ASG that the relevant  records/documents
are still pending in the original  court  at  Gujarat  as  well  as  in  the
custody of Registrar General, High Court. They are yet to be transferred  to
the transferee court.  It is also evident that voluminous documents  are  to
be translated from Gujarati to Marathi.  There is  no  concrete  information
about the probable duration for  completion  of  the  said  work.   In  such
circumstances, the  completion  of  trial  cannot  even  be  presumed  in  a
reasonable period.

15)   Coming to parity, it is pointed  out  that  some  persons  arrayed  as
accused have been granted either regular  bail  or  anticipatory  bail.   In
order to appreciate the above argument, we culled out the following  details
from the impugned order of the High Court:

      “(A)  Regular Bail

      (a)   Ajay Parmar (accused No. 10), by the High Court of  Gujarat,  in
      Criminal Miscellaneous Application  No.  5703/2012,  by  common  order
      dated 30/07/2012

      (b)   Santram Sharma (accused No. 11), by the Gujarat High  Court,  in
      Criminal Miscellaneous Application  No.  5703/2012,  by  common  order
      dated 30/07/2012.

      (c)   N.K. Amin (accused No. 12), by Bombay  High  Court  in  Criminal
      Bail Application No. 1770/2012.

      (d)   N.V. Chauhan (accused No. 13), by Hon’ble Supreme Court  in  SLP
      (Crl.) No. 1627/2011, by order dated 19/10/2012.

      (e)   V.A. Rathod (accused No. 14) by Hon’ble Supreme  Court,  in  SLP
      (Crl.) No. 8318/2011, by order dated 02/03/2012.

      (f)   Amitbhai Shah (accused  No.  16),  by  Gujarat  High  Court,  in
      Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1770/2012, which order has been
      confirmed by the Apex Court, by rejecting the SLP (Crl.) filed by  CBI
      for cancellation of said bail.

      (B)   Anticipatory bail:

      (a)   Ajay Patel (accused No. 17), by Gujarat High court, which  order
      came to be continued by way of interim order passed by the Apex Court.

      (b)   Yashpal Chudasama (accused No. 18), by Gujarat High Court, which
      order came to be continued by way of interim order passed by the  Apex
      Court.

      (c)   Vimal Pattani (accused No. 20) by Special  Judge,  CBI,  Greater
      Mumbai (Sessions) on 05/07/2013 in Anticipatory bail  Application  No.
      773/2013.

      (d)   Gulabchand H. Kataria (accused No. 21), by Special  Judge,  CBI,
      Greater  Mumbai  (Sessions)  on  05/07/2013   in   Anticipatory   Bail
      Application No. 788/2013.

      (e)   Narasinhulu Balasubramaniam (accused No. 22) by  Special  Judge,
      CBI, Greater Mumbai (Sessions), on  05/07/2013  in  Anticipatory  Bail
      Application No. 781/2013.

      (f)   Ghattamaneni Srinivasa Rao (accused No. 23), by  Special  Judge,
      CBI, Greater Mumbai, on 05/07/2013, in Anticipatory  bail  Application
      No. 781/2013.”



16)   A perusal of the reason(s) for grant  of  bail  or  anticipatory  bail
shows that some of the accused were granted bail  by  the  trial  court  and
some by the High Court and by this Court.  Apart from pointing  out  various
orders, learned counsel for the appellants has brought  to  our  notice  the
order passed by this Court in Naresh Vishnu Chauhan vs. State of  Gujarat  &
Anr. in SLP (Crl.) No. 1627 of 2011  wherein Naresh Vishnu Chauhan, who  was
one of the co-accused, at the  relevant  time  posted  as  sub-Inspector  of
Police and was attached to the Anti-Terrorist Squad,  Ahmedabad.   In  spite
of the fact that the counsel for the State has pointed  out  that  the  case
against the said person (A-13) is not only confined to Section 201  IPC  but
also includes Section 302 read with Section 120B  IPC,  this  Court,  taking
note of the fact that he was in jail for over five years and  three  months,
directed to release him on bail forthwith.

17)   Likewise, another co-accused, viz., Vijay Arjunbhai  Rathod,  who  was
in custody in  connection  with  the  encounter  case  and  whose  name  was
included in the list of the accused, was released on bail by this Court,  by
order dated 02.03.2012,  in Vijay  Arjunbhai  Rathod  vs.  CBI  &  Anr.  SLP
(Crl.) No. 8318 of 2011.

18)   In addition to the same, another co-accused, by  name,  Amitbhai  Shah
(A-16) was granted bail by the High  Court.   This  Court,  by  order  dated
27.09.2012, in Criminal  Appeal  No.  1503  of  2012  –  Central  Bureau  of
Investigation  vs.  Amitbhai  Anil  Chandra  Shah  and  Another  refused  to
interfere with the said order.

19)   It is also brought to our notice  that  another  co-accused  Dr.  N.K.
Amin (A-12) was also granted bail by the High Court  of  Bombay.   According
to the CBI, the said accused was a part of  what  is  called  as  ‘Stage  3’
conspiracy.  According to the CBI, he was sitting in the jeep in  which  the
dead body of Kausarbi was kept.  No doubt, he was granted bail  due  to  his
ailments.

20)   In the case of Balkrishan Rajendraprasad Chaubey (A-6), the  appellant
herein, this Court, by order dated 06.08.2012 in  SLP  (Crl.)  No.  5166  of
2012, granted him interim bail for a  period  of  one  month.   Even  before
that, earlier, on two occasions, he was released on bail for  short  periods
and he never misused the privilege granted to him by the Court.

21) We need not go into the reasonings of  grant  of  anticipatory  bail  to
some of the accused since no serious allegations have been levelled  against
them.

22)   In the light of the details, allegations  in  the  charge-sheet  filed
before the court, many of the co-accused were  granted  bail  by  the  trial
court/High Court and this Court and of the fact  that  both  the  appellants
are in custody for nearly 7 years pending trial and  also  in  view  of  the
fact that it would not be possible for the special  Court  to  conclude  the
trial within a reasonable period as claimed by learned ASG, we  inclined  to
consider their claim for bail.

23)   In the light of the statement made by learned ASG, we direct that  all
the materials pertaining to these cases which  are  lying  in  the  original
Court at Gujarat as well as the records  relating  to  the  same  under  the
custody of the High Court of Gujarat, if any, be transferred to the  Special
Court, CBI, Mumbai within a period of one month from the date of receipt  of
copy of this order.  After  receipt  of  all  the  required  materials,  the
Special Court, CBI at Mumbai  have  to  get  the  relevant  documents  alone
translated within a period of three months thereafter.  The  Special  Court,
CBI at Mumbai is directed to take the assistance of the  Registrars  of  the
High Courts of Bombay and Gujarat for completion of the translation work  as
fixed.  By this order, we also direct  the  Registrars  of  the  Bombay  and
Gujarat High Courts to render all  assistance  to  the  Special  Judge,  CBI
Mumbai for  early  completion  of  the  translation  work  within  the  time
stipulated by this Court.   After  receipt  of  the  required  material  and
completion of translation work, we direct the  special  Judge  to  take  all
endeavor for early completion of the trial.

24)   In the light of what is stated above, we are satisfied that  both  the
appellants have made out a case for  bail  on  executing  a  bond  with  two
solvent sureties, each in a sum of Rs 1 lakh  to  the  satisfaction  of  the
Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai on the following conditions:
(i)   The appellants shall not directly or indirectly make  any  inducement,
      threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the  case
      so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the court  or  to  any
      other authority.
(ii)  The appellants shall remain present before  the  court  on  the  dates
      fixed for hearing of the case,  for  any  reason  due  to  unavoidable
      circumstances for remaining absent they have to give intimation to the
      court and also to the officer concerned of the CBI and make  a  proper
      application for permission to be present through counsel.
(iii) The appellants  shall  surrender  their  passports,  if  any,  if  not
      already surrendered and if they are not holder of the same, that  fact
      should be supported by an affidavit.
(iv)  In case they have already surrendered the passport before the  Special
      Judge, CBI, that fact should be supported by an affidavit.
(v)   On such release, both of them (A-2 & A-6)  have to stay at Mumbai  and
      report at 11.00 a.m. on alternate  working  days  before  the  Special
      Judge, CBI Mumbai.
(vi)  Liberty is given to the CBI to make  an  appropriate  application  for
      modification/recalling  the  present  order  passed  by  us,  if   the
      appellants violate any of the conditions imposed by this Court.
25)   Under these circumstances, the appellants are ordered to  be  released
on bail subject to the conditions mentioned hereinabove to the  satisfaction
of the  court  concerned.   With  the  above  directions,  the  appeals  are
disposed of.






                                                         ………….…………………………CJI.

                                   (P. SATHASIVAM)
























                            [    .………….……………………………J.


                                   (RANJAN GOGOI)






                               .………….……………………………J.


                                   (N.V. RAMANA)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 28, 2014.


-----------------------
16


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.