The comparison can be only between the police report and the complaint under section 2(d) Cr.P.C. As is seen from the relevant provisions quoted above, a complaint is distinct from a police report. The Code of Criminal Procedure makes separate provisions for pursuing the complaint and the police report in a Court of law. The police report, by the very provisions of section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code, includes not just the FIR which may or may not contain all the details of the offence but the several documents collected by the police during the course of investigation including all the statements recorded of the witnesses. The definition of the complaint, on the other hand, under section 2(d) Cr.P.C., does not prescribe its contents at all. The definition does not even contemplate any annexures to the complaint. Section 173(7) Cr.P.C. enables a police officer to furnish copies of the police report together with the relevant documents to the accused. Whereas, section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code mandates that copy of the police report and other documents specified therein are furnished by the court to the accused. Section 208 of the Code puts the same mandate on the Sessions Court when the case is triable by the Court of Sessions. In warrant cases initiated on police report, also the Magistrate at the commencement of the trial has to satisfy himself that the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C., are complied with. For the prosecution on a compliant by a private person or a public officer, the procedure for which has been prescribed in chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no such mandate although on issuance of the process the accused is entitled for a copy of the complaint if made in writing. Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code prescribes that for taking cognizance of a complaint, the Magistrate shall examine upon oath the complainant and the other witnesses for specifying himself for issuance of a process on the complaint. Such examination however can be dispensed with in respect of a complaint made in writing by a public servant acting and purporting to act in discharge of his official duties. The above provisions would make it more than clear that the complaint in writing filed by the factory inspector herein is something apart from the documents accompanying it. The complaint, therefore, has to be complete in every respect as far as disclosure of the offence in it is concerned. The documents annexed to the complaint under section 2(d) Cr.P.C. do not constitute part of the complaint and hence cannot be looked into for making out the offence alleged in the complaint.1
Citation;2013(4)ABR277, 2013(3)BomCR(Cri)510, [2013(138)FLR847] 2013 ALL M R(CRI)3769
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
Decided On: 07.05.2013
Appellants: Shri S.F.J. Vaz and Shri Suresh Krishna
Vs.
Respondent: The State of Goa
Vs.
Respondent: The State of Goa
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:R.P. Sondurbaldota , J.1
- Shri S. F. J. Vaz, Manager, major age, M/s. Zuari Industries Limited,Jaikisaan Bhavan, Zuarinagar-Goa.
- Shri Suresh Krishna,General Manager, major age, M/s. Zuari Industries Limited, Jaikisaan Bhavan,Zuarinagar-Goa. ...... Applicants
V e r s u s
The State of Goa, through its Labour Enforcement Officer (LEO), having office at Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers, Institute of Sagery, Occupational Health and Environment,
Altinho, Panaji, Goa. ...... Respondent
The question of law that arises for consideration in this application is whether the documents annexed to the complaint under section 2(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code constitute part of the complaint and, as such, can be looked into for making out the offence alleged against him.
2. The facts on the background of which the question arises are as follows :
Applicant no.1 is the Manager and applicant no. 2 is the General Manager of a company by name Zuari Industries Limited. The company is into the business of manufacturing fertilizers/manures and other products for which it requires raw materials to be transported to the factory. For that purpose it has engaged services of M/s. Transport Agency. For unloading and stacking of the raw materials, it has engaged the services of M/s. Jyoti Enterprises. Potash is one of the ingredients required in manufacturing fertilizers. That is transported from Verna Rail Head to the factory by trucks hired by M/s. Transport Agency. The trucks are taken into the potash godown where the bags of potash are emptied. On each truck, there are six to seven labourers engaged in unloading of the potash bags. The operation of unloading is supervised by the supervisor of M/s. Jyoti Enterprises which also engages the labourers. At any given point of time, three trucks are allowed to unload potash simultaneously. The trucks enter the godown in a straight line and then are taken back in reverse gear to the unloading point. All the three trucks stand parallel to each other. Out of six labourers, five labourers climb the trucks to remove the bags. The sixth labourer remains down for cutting open the bags with knife and empty the bags in godown. After unloading of all the bags, the empty bags are put in the empty trucks. The entire operation takes about twenty minutes. While three trucks are being unloaded, the fourth truck waits inside the godown for space at the unloading point. There are two supporting columns along the width of the godown constructed which divides the godown into three parts and serves as marker for unloading points. On 22nd August, 2011, at 11.45 a.m., three trucks were being unloaded and the fourth truck bearing registration no. GA-01/U9388 was waiting for unloading at the unloading points. On one of the unloading points becoming vacant, the truck came in reverse direction and unfortunately hit the labourer by name Vikram Bind, who was on the ground to retrieve one empty bag that had remained on the floor. He had come running to pick up that bag to put into the truck that was returning. In the accident, Vikram Bind sustained severe injuries and later on the same day, succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.
3. The company had conducted an internal inquiry about the incident and come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the truck and due to lack of supervision of M/s. Jyoti Enterprises. It submitted the accident details under Rule 132(3) to the respondent-State and also made report to the SDM Mormugao. The company paid compensation to the legal representatives of Vikram Bind under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The respondents issued notices to both the applicants calling upon them to show cause as to why action under section 92 of the Factories Act be not taken against them. The petitioners filed separate replies to the show cause notice. The replies were rejected by the respondent by the order dated 1st November, 2011.
4. The respondent-state has filed prosecution against the driver of truck bearing registration no. GA-01/U-9388 for rash and negligent driving under the Motor Vehicles Act and Indian Penal Code. The petitioners received the summons from Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasco, Goa, in Criminal case no. 70/L/11/A calling upon them to appear before him on 8th of December, 2011. That case has been initiated on the complaint filed by the Factory Inspector alleging violation of section 7-A of the Factories Act, 1948, punishable under section 92 of the said Act. The petitioners challenged the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasco, of issuing process against them by preferring criminal revision application no. 96/2011. The Sessions Court by its Judgment and Order dated 9th October, 2010, dismissed the revision application. Hence the petitioners have approached this Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C. for short).
5. Mr. Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the complaint filed by the respondents is extremely vague and on the basis of such vague complaint no criminal case should be allowed to be continued. He argues that under section 105 of the Factories Act, no Court can take cognizance against the said Act except on a complaint in writing made by the Factory Inspector. Any such written complaint must contain specific allegations to disclose by itself the offence. In the absence of specific allegations in the body of the complaint, no document can be looked into for the purpose of the criminal proceedings. The complaint had as many as twenty documents annexed to it including the report of inspection of accident by the Factory Inspector. The report after giving summary of the accident records contravention of section 7-A of the Factories Act on the part of the Occupier and Manager in ensuring (a) availability of the cleaner on the truck that ran over the deceased, (b) vigilance on the part of the supervisor in attending to his duties and (c) vigilance on the part of the driver of the truck during reversing of the truck. The report states that the driver of the truck M/s. Transport Agency and the supervisor of M/s Jyoti Enterprises are workers under the Factories Act. The report further advised the action that should be taken by the petitioners as “Proper supervision. All trucks should have cleaners to guide the drivers. The supervisor should be present throughout the process of unloading till all the trucks are out from the potash godown”. It is the submission in reply on the part of Ms. Pinto, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that the documents annexed to the complaint should be treated as forming intrinsic part of the complaint and hence their contents should be treated as part of the complaint. According to her, the report of inspection annexed to the complaint sets out all the necessary details. Therefore the complaint does not suffer from the infirmity of vagueness.
6. Ms. Pinto, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Gunnana Pentayya alias Pentadu & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2009) 16 S.C.C. 59 that the FIR is not supposed to be encyclopedia of all details and, therefore, mere non-mention of certain information therein would not render the same vague. The other decision relied upon by her in support of the same submission is also of the Apex Court in Tej Bir & anr. vs. State of Haryana and anr.reported in (2011) 11 SCC 556.
7. Mr. Lotlikar, on the other hand, relies upon two decisions of our High Court in Transport Corporation of India Limited & Ors. vs. R. M. Gandhi & Ors. reported in 1991(3) Bom. C.R. 210 and Keki Bomi Dadiseth & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2002 Bom. C. R. (Cri.) 761 on the requirement of the complaint being specific. The other decisions relied upon by him are of Calcutta High Court in Jitendra Nath Mitra & anr. vs. State reported in 1974 Cri LJ 1441 and of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Amritsar Municipality vs. Labhu Ram& Ors. reported in 1970 Cri. L. J. 553.
8. The two decisions cited by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor are in connection with the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. In Gunnana Pentayya case (supra), the Apex Court held that non-mention as a witness in the FIR of a person whose presence is natural at the place of the incident of the offence, does not render prosecution version fragile. In the case of Tej Bir (supra), the Apex Court was required to consider quashing of charges at the stage of framing of charge and held that the exercise of revisional powers by quashing charges by confining attention only to recitals in the FIR was not proper and that the FIR can never represent the entire evidence of the case.
9 Coming to the decisions cited by Mr. Lotlikar, this Court in Transport Corporation of India (supra), was concerned with the offence punishable under Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, on account of failure to produce statutory returns. The complaint was against the company and its all Directors. The petition had been filed by the Directors in this Court impugning the order of process against them by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the complaint itself did not disclose any offence against the Directors. This court found that the only allegation against the petitioners in the complaint was that they were the persons in charge of the establishment and responsible for the conduct of its business. They were thus required to comply with all the provisions of the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder in respect of the establishment. Since the complaint alleged offences under section 14-A(2) and 14-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and Employees Provident Fund Scheme this court considered the provisions and the definitions of the employer under the Act to hold that that it was difficult to accept that the Provident Fund Authorities could in the complaint filed under the provisions of the Act make a bald averment that some person is in charge of the establishment and that would satisfy the requirements of law. It further held that the facts essential to constitute the offence falling under section 14-A(2) had to be alleged and in the absence of such necessary factual allegations attracting the provisions of section 14-A(2), it cannot be said that the prosecution launched and the cognizance taken thereof by the Magistrate was proper.
10. The second decision cited by Mr. Lotlikar of our High Court was for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in which the Directors of the company had been made accused in the complaint. The petitioners in that case had contended that the complaint was required to allege and disclose that the Directors or such other persons at the relevant time, were in charge of conducting of business of the company or that the offence had been committed with their consent or connivance or negligence. In the absence of such averment in the complaint, no offence could be said to be made out against the Directors of the company. This Court found that the complaint was totally silent as regards the allegations against the Directors and did not even make out a prima facie case of the offences charged. Under such situation, the prosecution against them could not be sustained.
11. In the third decision of Calcutta High Court in Jitendra Nath Mitra (supra), the petitioner was being prosecuted under section 92 of the Factories Act 1948 for contravention of section 21(1)(iv)(b) of the said Act as occupier and manager of a Tea Estate. One of the contentions amongst others raised by the petitioner was that the complaint did not disclose the offence alleged. The Calcutta High Court held that it is for the prosecution to disclose the alleged offence in the petition of the complaint and if the same does not appear in the first blush, the accused in a criminal trial has a right to pray that the relevant proceedings may be quashed as otherwise it would amount to an abuse of process of the court.
12. In the last decision cited by Mr. Lotlikar of Punjab and Haryana High Court, the prosecution launched was for an offence under the Punjab Municipal Act for evasion of octroi duty with intention to defraud the municipality. The complaint had been filed by the municipal committee. The complaint was accompanied by a list of documents. The accused filed an application for copies of all the documents mentioned in the list appended to the complaint. This request was accepted by the trial court and an order in accordance therewith was passed. The municipal committee, however, failed to supply the copies in compliance with the court's order. The trial court then discharged the accused holding that the sole purpose of the prosecution appeared to be to cause harassment to the accused persons. The municipal committee challenged the order before the High Court questioning, not just discharge of the accused persons, but also the direction of the trial court to it to furnish copies of the documents appended to the complaint. It was contended on behalf of the committee that the case dealt with by the trial court was a summons case instituted on complaint and hence the provisions of section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the old Code) were wholly inapplicable. The Code made distinction between cases instituted upon police reports and those instituted upon complaints in the matter of supply of copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution and that such documents could not be considered part of the complaint in the cases of the latter type. The Punjab and Haryana High Court considered the provisions of section 4(1)(h), the definition of complaint, section 173(4), 204(1-B), 251 and 251-A(1) of the old Code for appreciation of the arguments before it and arrived at a finding that the provisions leave no room for doubt that a police report requesting a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence of the Code is treated as something apart from the documents on which that report may be based or which may have been relied upon by the police in support thereof. A special provision had been made in sections 173(4) and 251-A(1) for furnishing copies of such documents to the accused. But a similar provision was not enacted in respect of documents appended to a complaint or relied upon in support thereof by the complainant. Had the legislature intended to treat a complaint at par with a police report in that behalf, there was no reason why similar provision should not have been specifically made part of the Code with regard to cases instituted on complaints. The High Court then considered the definition of the complaint as against the police report and held that the documents appended to the complaint not being the part of the complaint could not be furnished to the accused if objected to by the complainant.
13. The facts of the case on hand are substantially similar to the facts before Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Amritsar Municipality (supra). It is the contention of the petitioners herein that the documents appended to the complaint not forming part of the complaint cannot be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining whether the complaint filed can be said to disclose offence against them. If the documents are to be treated as its intrinsic part the complaint cannot be said to be vague. But, if it is held otherwise the complaint would be rendered vague and hence liable to be quashed on the ground that it does not disclose the offence alleged against the petitioner. It is undisputed position that the complaint filed by the Factory Inspector by itself does not disclose the offence alleged against the petitioners of violation of section 7-A of the Factories Act. Section 7-A(1) provides for general duties of the occupier. It requires every occupier to ensure so far as it is reasonably practicable, the health safety and welfare of all workers while they are at work in the factory. Sub-section (2) of section 7A specifies certain duties without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1). Section 92 of the Factories Act prescribes penalty for contravention of any provisions of the act or of any rules made therein or of any order given in writing therein. The occupier and manufacturer of the factory in such cases is to be held guilty of an offence and punishable with imprisonment of a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both.
14. The complaint filed against the petitioners contain following allegations against them :
“2. The accused are responsible for the following offences:-
a) That they have failed to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable, the health safety and welfare of all workers while they are at work in the factory, by not providing:
- The arrangements in the factory for ensuring safety and absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and substances;
- The information, instruction, training and supervision as are necessary to ensure the health and safety of all workers at work.
Which resulted in accidental death of contract Labourer Shri Vikram Bind on 22.8.2011, thereby violating Section 7A of the Factories Act, 1948.
3. The accused are punishable for the above offences under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948.”Bare reading of the above allegations is sufficient to hold that the same are without the required particulars. The complaint does not specify what arrangements were found missing in the factory for ensuring safety of the workers and what information or instructions or training or supervision was necessary for the purpose. It does state details of the accident in which the labourer died. The complaint is appended by twenty documents, the last document being copy of accident investigation report of the Factory Inspector made on 23rd August, 2011. Ms. Pinto submits that this report gives, in specific terms, the arrangements that were found missing and the preventive measures that ought to have been taken by the petitioners at its para 20 and 21. According to her, since that report has been appended to the complaint itself and the copy of which has been received by the petitioners, they can always look into the document by way of particulars of the offence alleged against them in the complaint. She further submits that it being a complaint by a public servant would be proceeded with under chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. and the complainant can be examined on oath under section 200 of Cr.P.C. In the circumstances, what is now required to be seen is whether a document forming part of the annexures to the complaint can be said to be part of the complaint or whether it is necessary for the complaint itself to be complete in every respect including statement of particulars of the allegations constituting the offence alleged against the petitioner.
15. The Code of Criminal Procedure makes distinction between prosecution on a police report and the prosecution on a complaint filed by the complainant whether a private person or a public officer. It would be convenient to reproduce here the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. relating to the police report, complaint and their contents. Section 2(d), section 173(2)(5),section 200, 207 and 238 of Cr.P.C., reads thus:
“ Section 2(d)
“complaint” means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.
Explanation.- A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant;”
“Section 173 (2) - (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating-
- the names of the parties;
- the nature of the information;
- the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
- whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;
- whether the accused has been arrested;
- whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, weather with or without sureties;
- whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.
(ii) The officer shall also communicate, In such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.
Section 173 (5)
When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate alongwith the report-
- all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation;
- the statements- recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses
Section 173 (7)
Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5) ...
Section 200
Examination of complainant. A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate: Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses-
- if a public servant acting or-purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or
- if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 192: Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re- examine them.
Section 207
Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents. In any case
where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:-
- the police report;
- the first information report recorded under section 154;
- the statements recorded under subsection (3) of section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub-section (6) of section 173;
- the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164;
- any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub- section (5) of section 173: Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused: Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court.
...
Section 238
Compliance with section 207. When, in any warrant- case instituted on a police report,
the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate at the commencement of the trial, the Magistrate shall satisfy himself that he has complied with the provisions of section 207.
16. There can be no difficulty whatsoever to note that FIR is different from the complaint under section 2(d) Cr.P.C. FIR sets the investigation into motion and culminates into the police report with the filing of which the proceedings in the court are initiated. The complaint under section 2(d) Cr.P.C. is also initiation of criminal proceedings in a court of law. Thus, there can be no comparison between an FIR and the complaint under section 2(d) Cr.P.C. Therefore, the citations relied upon by Ms. Pinto on the contents of the FIR would be irrelevant.
17. The comparison can be only between the police report and the complaint under section 2(d) Cr.P.C. As is seen from the relevant provisions quoted above, a complaint is distinct from a police report. The Code of Criminal Procedure makes separate provisions for pursuing the complaint and the police report in a Court of law. The police report, by the very provisions of section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code, includes not just the FIR which may or may not contain all the details of the offence but the several documents collected by the police during the course of investigation including all the statements recorded of the witnesses. The definition of the complaint, on the other hand, under section 2(d) Cr.P.C., does not prescribe its contents at all. The definition does not even contemplate any annexures to the complaint. Section 173(7) Cr.P.C. enables a police officer to furnish copies of the police report together with the relevant documents to the accused. Whereas, section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code mandates that copy of the police report and other documents specified therein are furnished by the court to the accused. Section 208 of the Code puts the same mandate on the Sessions Court when the case is triable by the Court of Sessions. In warrant cases initiated on police report, also the Magistrate at the commencement of the trial has to satisfy himself that the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C., are complied with. For the prosecution on a compliant by a private person or a public officer, the procedure for which has been prescribed in chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no such mandate although on issuance of the process the accused is entitled for a copy of the complaint if made in writing. Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code prescribes that for taking cognizance of a complaint, the Magistrate shall examine upon oath the complainant and the other witnesses for specifying himself for issuance of a process on the complaint. Such examination however can be dispensed with in respect of a complaint made in writing by a public servant acting and purporting to act in discharge of his official duties. The above provisions would make it more than clear that the complaint in writing filed by the factory inspector herein is something apart from the documents accompanying it. The complaint, therefore, has to be complete in every respect as far as disclosure of the offence in it is concerned. The documents annexed to the complaint under section 2(d) Cr.P.C. do not constitute part of the complaint and hence cannot be looked into for making out the offence alleged in the complaint. The two decisions of High Court in Transport Corporation of India (supra) and Keki Bomi Dadiseth (supra) already hold that the complaint must state the necessary factual allegations to make out the offence alleged. In the circumstances, I find substance in the arguments advanced by Mr. Lotlikar, that the complaint filed by the respondent being vague does not disclose the offence alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners cannot be made to answer a vague charge. As regards the submission of Ms. Pinto, on verification of the complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C., in my opinion, such statement of verification cannot come to the rescue of the respondent. The object of recording of statement of the complainant under that provision is to only test whether the allegations make out prima facie case to enable the Magistrate to issue process. In other words, by such examination, the Magistrate has to satisfy himself as to the veracity or genuineness of the complaint. During such examination, the complainant cannot be permitted to improve upon his complaint or to remove any defects/lacunas therein. In any case, the record shows that the order of issuance of process passed by the Magistrate is not after any verification of the complaint. The learned Magistrate has apparently by resorting to the proviso to section 200, dispensed with examination of the complainant on account of he being a public servant and the complaint having been made in writing.
18. Unfortunately, the trial court at the time of issuance of process and also Sessions Court while considering the revision preferred by the petitioners against the order of issuance of process, failed to appreciate the fatal defect in the complaint. Both the Courts did not notice that any written complaint filed must state the necessary particulars of the offence alleged against the accused. In the absence, no other document can be looked into for that purpose in a criminal case. Any document that is relied upon or even annexed to such a complaint, would only be evidence to support the allegations made in the complaint.In thecircumstances, it must be held that the complaint as filed by the respondent is vague in as much as it does not disclose particulars of the offence alleged against the petitioners. Therefore, continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
19. For the reasons above, the revision application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
No comments:
Post a Comment