LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Wednesday, December 5, 2018

whether - the “manufactured drugs” - the present respondents - should be tried for the violation of provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 but not under sec.22 of NDPS Act. ? Apex court held - No - While suspending the sentence pending appeal, the High court made unnecessary observation which was against settled law and as such set aside the order of High Court and held that we are unable to agree on the conclusion reached by the High Court for reasons stated further. First, we note that Section 80 of the N.D.P.S Act, clearly lays down that application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is not barred, and provisions of N.D.P.S. Act can be applicable in addition to that of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The statute further clarifies that the provisions of the N.D.P.S Act are not in derogation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. - Additionally, it is the prerogative of the State to prosecute the offender in accordance with law. In the present case, since the action of the accused­Respondents amounted to a prima­facie violation of Section 8 of the N.D.P.S Act, they were charged under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S Act.

whether - the “manufactured drugs” - the   present   respondents -   should   be   tried   for   the   violation   of provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 but not under sec.22 of NDPS Act. ?
Apex court held - No - While suspending the sentence pending appeal, the High court made unnecessary observation which was against settled law and as such set aside the order of High Court and held that  we are unable to agree on the conclusion reached by the High Court for reasons stated further. First, we note that Section 80 of the N.D.P.S Act, clearly lays down that application of the Drugs   and   Cosmetics   Act   is   not   barred,   and   provisions   of N.D.P.S.   Act   can   be   applicable   in   addition   to   that   of   the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The statute further clarifies   that   the   provisions   of   the   N.D.P.S   Act   are   not   in derogation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. - Additionally, it is the prerogative of the State to prosecute the offender in accordance with law. In the present case, since the action of the accused­Respondents amounted to a  prima­facie violation of Section 8 of the N.D.P.S Act, they were charged under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S Act.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1512  OF 2018
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 4762 OF 2018)
STATE OF PUNJAB …APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAKESH KUMAR         …RESPONDENT
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 1514  of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4816 of 2018)
Criminal Appeal No. 1515 of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4817 of 2018)
Criminal Appeal No. 1517 of 2018
(Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.4869 of 2018)
Criminal Appeal No. 1516 of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4818 of 2018)
Criminal Appeal No. 1513  of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4796 of 2018)
Criminal Appeal No. 1518 of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4881 of 2018)
1
REPORTABLE
Criminal Appeal No. 1521 of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5032 of 2018)
Criminal Appeal No. 1530 of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5897 of 2018)
Criminal Appeal No. 1520 of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4968 of 2018)
Criminal Appeal No. 1526  of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5893 of 2018)
Criminal Appeal No. 1525 of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5892 of 2018)
Criminal Appeal No. 1519 of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4953 of 2018)
Criminal Appeal No. 1528  of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5895 of 2018)
Criminal Appeal No. 1523  of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5886 of 2018)
Criminal Appeal No. 1527  of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5894 of 2018)
Criminal Appeal No. 1524  of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5891 of 2018)
Criminal Appeal No. 1529  of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5896 of 2018)
Criminal Appeal No. 1522 of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5877 of 2018)
2
Criminal Appeal No. 1533  of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7223 of 2018)
Criminal Appeal No. 1532 of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7222 of 2018)
Criminal Appeal No. 1536 of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7228 of 2018)
Criminal Appeal No. 1531 of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7221 of 2018)
Criminal Appeal No. 1534  of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7225 of 2018)
And
Criminal Appeal No. 1535  of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7227 of 2018)
JUDGMENT
N.V. RAMANA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals are filed by the State having been aggrieved
by the common judgment and order dated 29th  January, 2018
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, allowing the
applications   for   suspension   of   sentence,   preferred   by   the
accused­respondents   herein   under   Section   389   Cr.P.C.   and
3
directing to release them on bail, while the Appeals are pending
in the High Court.
3. In   order   to   appreciate   the   merits   of   theseappeals,   brief   facts
which have emerged from the case of the prosecution need to be
noted   at   the   outset.   In   all   these   appeals,   the   accusedrespondents
were apprehended with“manufactured drugs” and
convicted   by   the   Trial   Court   for   offences   committed   under
Section   21   or   Section   22   of   the   Narcotic   Drugs   and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as
“N.D.P.SAct”). The alleged offences and conviction recorded by
the Trial Court against the respondents are listed below:
S.NO.
CASE
NO.
NAME OF
ACCUSED
RECOVERY CONVICTION
JUDGMENT
BY & DATE
1.
CRAS­840­
SB2015
Rakesh
Kumar
3500 tablets of
Microlit containing
Diphenoxylate salt
U/s 22 of
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Special
Judge, Sri
Muktsar
Sahib –
18.11.2014
2.
CRAS­227­
SB2015
Anwar
Khan @
Soni
3.900 kgs of
intoxicating powder
containing
Dexiropropoxyphen
e salt
U/s 22 of
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Judge,
Special
Court,
Sangrur –
17.11.2014
3. CRASMonnu
81.76 gms salt
Diphenoxylate
U/s 22 of
NDPS Act
Special
Judge,
4
3148­
SB2015
Hydrochloride
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Ferozepur –
04.06.2015
4.
CRAS4134­
SB2015
Dharmu
Diphenoxylate
powder in
commercial quantity
U/s 22 of
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI
&Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Judge,
Special
Court,
Ludhiana  –
25.05.2015
5.
CRAS5246­
SB2015
Gurwinder
Singh
70 gms containing
Diphenoxylate salt
U/s 22 of
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Judge,
Special
Court,
Ludhiana –
10.11.2015
6.
CRAS­71­
SB2016
Mohd.
Akhtar @
Soni
19110 mls of
intoxicating liquid
10 capsules of
Parvon Spas, 10
tablets of Euphoria
U/s 22 (a)
& 2(c) of
NDPS Act
– 1 year
RI &
Rs.5000/­
fine and
10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Judge,
Special
Court,
Sangrur –
09.12.2015
7.
CRAS­323­
SB2015
Munish
Kumar 15 Vials of Rexcof
U/s 22 of
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Judge,
Special
Court,
Bathinda –
09.01.2015
8.
CRAS­200­
SB2017
Gudawar
Ram @
Gabbu
60 gms intoxicating
powder containing
Diphenoxylate salt
U/s 22 of
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Judge,
Special
Court, SBS
Nagar –
09.12.2016
9. CRA­ Baljinder 7500 mls of Corex U/s 22 of Judge,
5
S­766­
SB2017
Singh @
Banty
syrup containing
Codeine phosphate
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Special
Court,
Sangrur –
20.12.2016
10.
CRAS1413­
SB2017
Sukhraj
Kaur @
Raj
120 bottles of
Rexcof containing
Codeine phosphate
U/s 22 of
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Judge,
Special
Court,
Sangrur –
08.03.2017
11.
CRAS4055­
SB2016
Gurpreet
Singh @
Gopi
25 gms Heroin &
250 gms
intoxicating powder
containing
Alprazolam
U/s 21 of
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Judge,
Special
Court,
Amritsar –
06.09.2016
12.
CRAS2933­
SB2016
Salwinder
Singh @
Shinda
320 gms
intoxicating powder
containing
Diphenoxylate
U/s 22 of
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Judge,
Special
Court, Tarn
Taran –
09.08.2016
13.
CRAS­985­
SB2017
Karamjit
Singh @
Karma
10 Vials of Rexcof
containing Codeine
Phosphate
U/s 22 of
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Judge,
Special
Court,
Faridkot –
04.01.2017
14.
CRAS­723­
SB2016
Mandeep
Singh @
Mani
300 gms
intoxicating powder
containing
Diphenoxylate
Hydrochloride
U/s 22 of
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Addl.
Sessions
Judge,
Amritsar –
23.12.2015
15. CRAS1531­
SB2016
Jagmohan
Singh @
Mithu
100 gms
intoxicating powder
containing
Diphenoxylate
Hydrochloride
U/s 22 of
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
Judge,
Special
Court,
Amritsar –
10.03.2016
6
lac fine.
16.
CRAS2398­
SB2017
Nachhatar
Singh @
Sonu
60 gms intoxicating
powder containing
Diphenoxylate
U/s 22 of
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Judge,
Special
Court, Tarn
Taran–
16.05.2017
17.
CRAS1972­
SB2017
Gaurav
Bajaj (the
other
appellant
Manpreet
Singh)
50 bottles of Rexcof
syrup & 250 tablets
of Carisona from
Gaurav Bajaj 45
bottles of Rexcof
syrup & 200 tablets
of Carisona from
Manpreet Singh
U/s 22 of
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Judge,
Special
Court,
Fazilka–
17.03.2017
18.
CRAS3921­
SB2013
Gurpreet
Singh
19 vials of Rexcof,
1200 tablets of
Pinotil and 450
tablets of
Alprazolam
U/s 22 of
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Judge,
Special
Court,
Bathinda –
24.10.2013
19.
CRAS1529­
SB2017
Jaspal
Singh
12 vials of Rexcof
containing codeine
Phosphate
U/s 22 of
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Judge,
Special
Court,
Sangrur –
07.03.2017
20.
CRAS­750­
SB2014
Sanjiv
Kumar &
Paramjit
Singh @
Pamma
1300 tablets
weighing 101, 400
gms from Sanjiv
Kumar; 400 tablets
weighing 31.200
gms from Paramjit
Singh @ Pamma
U/s 22 of
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Judge,
Special
Court­III,
Ferozepur –
27.01.2014
21.
CRAS4894­
SB2015
Akash
Kumar
3500 mls containing
Codeine Phosphate
U/s 22 of
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Judge,
Special
Court,
Sangrur –
16.10.2015
7
22.
CRAS2574­
SB2017
Satnam
Singh
20 vials of Rexcof
containing
Dextropropoxyphene
U/s 22of
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Judge,
Special
Court,
Faridkot –
06.07.2017
23.
CRAS1616­
SB2017
Amit
Kumar
Mehta
2000 tablets
containing
Diphenoxylate
Hydrochloride
U/s 22 of
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Judge,
Special
Court,
Patiala –
01.03.2017
24.
CRAS­185­
SB2017
Gurjant
Singh @
Janta
60 gms intoxicating
powder containing
Diphenoxylate
U/s 22 of
NDPS Act
– 10 years
RI &
Rs.1.00
lac fine.
Addl.
Sessions
Judge, Tarn
Taran –
20.10.2016
25.
CRMM23054­
2017
Gurpreet
Singh @
Tuli
100 tablets marka
Alprazolam in 5
strips, 12 injections
Buprenorphine 2
ml, 2 bottles of
injections Avil 10 ml
& 116 gms
intoxicant powder
U/s
22/61/85
of NDPS
Act
Judge,
Special
Court,
Jalandhar
4. Aggrieved by the Judgment and conviction by the respective Trial
Courts, the accused­respondents approached the High Court
through various appeals. The accused­respondents, during the
pendency   of   the   appeals,   preferred   an   application   seeking
suspension of sentence. Since a common question of law was
involved in the above appeals, the High Court heard the matters
8
together   and   passed   a   common   order   dated   29.01.2018,
allowing the applications for suspension of sentence preferred
by   the   accused­respondents.   The   High   Court   observed   that
manufactured   drugs,   be   it   containing   narcotic   drugs   or
psychotropic substances, if manufactured by a manufacturer,
must   be   tried,   if   violation   is   there,   under   the   Drugs   and
Cosmetics Act and not under the NDPS Act, except those in
loose form by way of powder, liquid etc.   Dissatisfied by the
above   order   dated   29.01.2018,   the   State   has   preferred   the
present appeals.
5. The counsel on behalf of the appellant­State, while criticizing the
impugned order passed by the High Court, drew our attention
to the relevant provisions of the N.D.P.S Act and Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940, and submitted that, the N.D.P.S Act, itself
does not bar the application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
1940. Further, the counsel  also  argued that, the  impugned
judgment   is   in   gross   violation   of   the   decision   rendered   in
Inderjeet  Singh  v. State  of  Punjab  2014 (3) RCR (Criminal)
953, by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court. The counsel also relied upon the decision rendered by
9
this Court in Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014)
13 SCC 1, wherein it was clearly held that dealing in narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances is permissible only if it is
for   medical   or   scientific   purposes.   But   even   the   usage   for
medical and scientific purposes is not restriction free, as it is
subject to rules under the N.D.P.S Act.
6. On   the   contrary,   the   counsel   on   behalf   of   the   accusedrespondents
has supported the reasoning of the High Court
while stating that it is very farfetched to presume that, any
person who is apprehended with bulk quantity of manufactured
drug, without having a license for the same, has committed an
offence which is liable to be prosecuted under the N.D.P.S Act.
The counsel further submitted that, the High Court was correct
to conclude that, it can be considered as a violation of the
provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Therefore,
there   was   no   error   in   granting   the   relief   of   suspension   of
sentence,   considering   that   the   appeals   are   not   going   to   be
adjudicated in the near future.
7. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
8. At the outset it is essential to note the objectives of the two
10
legislations before us, i.e., the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
and the N.D.P.S Act. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was
enacted   to   specifically   prevent   sub­standard   drugs   and   to
maintain high standards of medical treatment. (See Chimanlal
Jagjivandas  Sheth  v.  State  of  Maharashtra  AIR  1963  SC
665) The Drugs and Cosmetics Act,1940 was mainly intended
to   curtail   the   menace   of   adulteration   of   drugs   and   also   of
production, manufacture, distribution and sale of spurious and
sub­standard drugs. On the other hand, the N.D.P.S Act is a
special law enacted by the Parliament with an object to control
and   regulate   the   operations   relating   to   narcotic   drugs   and
psychotropic substances. After analyzing the objectives of both
the Acts, we can safely conclude that while the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act deals with drugs which are intended to be used
for   therapeutic   or   medicinal   usage,   on   the   other   hand   the
N.D.P.S Act intends to curb and penalize the usage of drugs
which are usedfor intoxication or for getting a stimulant effect.
9. At   this   juncture,   it   is   also   pertinent   to   note   the   relevant
provisions under the N.D.P.S Act. Section 8 of the 1985 Act, is
the   prohibitory   clause   whose   violation   would   lead   to   penal
11
consequence:
Section 8. Prohibition of certain operations.
­No person shall­
(a)   cultivate   any   coca   plant   or   gather   any
portion of coca plant; or
(b) cultivate the opium poppy or any cannabis
plant; or
(c)   produce,   manufacture,   possess,   sell,
purchase,   transport,   warehouse,   use,
consume,   import   inter­State,   export   interState,
import into India, export from India or
transship   any   narcotic   drug   or   psychotropic
substance,
except for medical or scientific purposes and in
the manner and to the extent provided by the
provisions of this Act or the rules or orders
made thereunder and in a case where any such
provision, imposes any requirement by way of
licence,   permit   or   authorization   also   in
accordance with the terms and conditions of
such licence, permit or authorization:
Provided   that,   and   subject   to   the   other
provisions of this Act and the rules made there
under, the prohibition against the cultivation
of   the   cannabis   plant   for   the   production   of
ganja   or   the   production,   possession,   use,
consumption,   purchase,   sale,   transport,
warehousing,   import   inter­State   and   export
inter State of ganja for any purpose other than
medical and scientific purpose shall take effect
only   from   the   date   which   the   Central
Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, specify in this behalf.
10. Further, Section 21 provides for punishment for contraventions in
12
relation to manufactured drugs and preparations and Section 22
provides   for   punishment   for   contraventions   in   relation   to
psychotropic substances. Both the above provisions provide for
the imposition of rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years,
and the imposition of a fine which shall not be less than one lakh
rupees but which may be extended to two lakh rupees, if the
recovered substance amounts to commercial quantity. However,
the   proviso   appended   thereto   empowers   the   Court,   with   a
discretionary power to impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees
for reasons to be recorded in the judgment.
11. In the present case, the accused­respondents were found in bulk
possession   of   manufactured   drugs   without   any   valid
authorization. The counsel on behalf of the appellant­State has
extensively stressed that the actions of the accused­Respondents
amounts to clear violation of Section 8 of the N.D.P.S Act as it
clearly   prohibits   possession   of   narcotic   substances   except   for
medicinal or scientific purposes. In furtherance of the same, the
counsel on behalf of the appellant­State has put emphasis on the
judgment rendered by this court in the case of Union of India
13
vs. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra), wherein it was held that:
“25.  In other words, DEALING IN narcotic
drugs   and   psychotropic   substances   is
permissible only when such DEALING is for
medical   purposes   or   scientific   purposes.
Further, the mere fact that the DEALING
IN   narcotic   drugs   and   psychotropic
substances   is   for   a  medical   or   scientific
purpose does not by itself lift the embargo
created Under Section 8(c). Such a dealing
must be in the manner and extent provided
by the provisions of the Act, Rules or Orders
made thereunder. Sections 9 and 10 enable
the   Central   and   the   State   Governments
respectively   to   make   rules   permitting   and
regulating   various   aspects   (contemplated
under Section 8(c), of DEALING IN narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances.
26.The Act does not contemplate framing of
rules for prohibiting the various activities of
DEALING IN narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances.   Such   prohibition   is   already
contained   in   Section   8(c).  It   only
contemplates  of  the  framing  of Rules  for
permitting  and  regulating  any  activity  of
DEALING   IN   narcotic   drugs   or
psychotropic substances…”
(emphasis supplied)
12. In the present appeals before us, the trial courts after analyzing
the evidence placed before them, held the accused Respondents
guilty beyond reasonable doubt and convicted them for offences
committed under Section 21 and Section 22 of the N.D.P.S Act.
14
13. The   counsels   for   the   accused­respondents   have   strongly
supported the judgment of the High Court wherein it was held
that, since the present matters deal with “manufactured drugs”
the   present   respondents   should   be   tried   for   the   violation   of
provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
14. However, we are unable to agree on the conclusion reached by the
High Court for reasons stated further. First, we note that Section
80 of the N.D.P.S Act, clearly lays down that application of the
Drugs   and   Cosmetics   Act   is   not   barred,   and   provisions   of
N.D.P.S.   Act   can   be   applicable   in   addition   to   that   of   the
provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The statute further
clarifies   that   the   provisions   of   the   N.D.P.S   Act   are   not   in
derogation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. This Court in
the case of Union of India vs. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra),
has held that,
“35.   …essentially the Drugs & Cosmetics Act,
1940   deals   with   various   operations   of
manufacture,   sale,   purchase   etc.   of   drugs
generally  whereas   Narcotic   Drugs   and
Psychotropic   Substances   Act,   1985   deals
with   a   more   specific   class   of   drugs   and,
therefore,   a   special   law   on   the   subject.
Further the provisions of the Act operate in
addition to the provisions of 1940 Act.”
15
(emphasis supplied)
15. The   aforesaid   decision   further   clarifies   that,   the   N.D.P.S   Act,
should not be read in exclusion to Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
1940.  Additionally, it is the prerogative of the State to prosecute
the offender in accordance with law. In the present case, since the
action of the accused­Respondents amounted to a  prima­facie
violation of Section 8 of the N.D.P.S Act, they were charged under
Section 22 of the N.D.P.S Act.
16. In light of above observations, we find that decision rendered by
the High Court holding that the accused­respondents must be
tried under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 instead of the
N.D.P.S   Act,   as   they   were   found   in   possession   of   the
“manufactured drugs”, does not hold good in law. Further, in the
present case, the accused­respondents had approached the High
Court seeking suspension of sentence. However, in granting the
aforesaid relief, the High Court erroneously made observations on
the merits of the case while the appeals were still pending before
it. 
17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and
16
the gravity of offence alleged against the accused­respondents,
the order of the High Court directing suspension of sentence and
grant of bail is clearly unsustainable in law and the same is liable
to be set aside.
18. Accordingly the impugned order passed by the High Court is
hereby set aside and the concerned authorities are directed to
take the accused­respondents herein into custody forthwith.
19. Lastly, the counsels for respondents in Appeals arising out of SLP
(Crl) No.4816/2018 and SLP (Crl) No.4817/2018 have specifically
pleaded   that   the   respondents   have   already   undergone   a
considerable period under incarceration. In light of the same, we
request the High Court to expedite the hearings and dispose of
the   appeals   accordingly.   It   is   needless   to   observe   that   the
observations made during the course of this order are only for
deciding these appeals.
20. The   appeals   stand   allowed   in   aforesaid   terms.   As   a   sequel
pending applications, if any shall also stand disposed of.
17
……………………………..J.
(N. V. Ramana)
……………………………..J.
(Mohan M. Shantanagoudar)
……………………………..J.
(M.R. Shah)
NEW DELHI,
DECEMBER 03, 2018
18