record that though PWs 24, 25, 26 and 27 have endeavoured to
prove on the basis of the printed copy of the computer generated call
details kept in usual ordinary course of business and stored in a
hard disc of the company server, to co-relate the calls made from
and to the cell phones involved including those, amongst others
recovered from the accused persons, the prosecution has failed to
adduce a certificate relatable thereto as required under Section
65B(4) of the Act. Though the High Court, in its impugned
judgment, while dwelling on this aspect, has dismissed the plea of
inadmissibility of such call details by observing that all the
stipulations contained under Section 65 of the Act had been
complied with, in the teeth of the decision of this Court in Anvar
P.V. (supra) ordaining an inflexible adherence to the enjoinments of
Sections 65B(2) and (4) of the Act, we are unable to sustain this
finding. As apparently the prosecution has relied upon the
secondary evidence in the form of printed copy of the call details,
even assuming that the mandate of Section 65B(2) had been
complied with, in absence of a certificate under Section 65B(4), the
same has to be held inadmissible in evidence.
This Court in Anvar P.V. (supra) has held in no
uncertain terms that the evidence relating to electronic record being
a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under
Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Act would have to yield
thereto. It has been propounded that any electric record in the form
of secondary evidence cannot be admitted in evidence unless the
requirements of Section 65B are satisfied. This conclusion of ours is
inevitable in view of the exposition of law pertaining to Sections 65A
and 65B of the Act as above.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2539 OF 2014
HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA V STATE OF PUNJAB
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Amitava Roy
Dated:NOVEMBER 21, 2016.
Citation:(2017) 1 SCC 734, 2017 CRLJ 551 SC
The appellants, two out of the six persons, convicted
under Sections 364A, 395, 412, 471, 120B IPC and the
appellant-Harpal Singh @ Chhota in Criminal Appeal No.2539 of
2014 also under Section 25 of the Arms Act, hereby impeach the
affirmation of their conviction by the High Court by the common
impugned judgment and order dated 21.04.2014 rendered in a
batch of appeals. Though eight persons including the appellants
were indicted of the charges corresponding to the offences
proved, one Gurinder Singh @ Ginda died during trial and
Rupinder Singh was exonerated therefrom. Following their
conviction on the aforementioned charges, the appellants and
other similarly situated have been awarded sentences ranging
from one year to imprisonment for life and fine commensurate
therewith. It has been ordered that all the sentences would run
concurrently.
2. We have heard Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel for
the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2539 of 2014, Mr.
Subromaniam Prasad, learned senior counsel for the appellant in
Criminal Appeal number 388 of 2015 and Mr. V. Madhukar,
learned counsel for the State.
3. The records divulge that on 11.01.2008 at about 7.45
p.m., while Inspector/SHO of Nurmahal Police station was on
patrol duty, he received a secret information that on 09.01.2008
at about 10/11 a.m., four persons had kidnapped one Gagan
Mahendru son of Subhash Mahendru, resident of Mota Singh
Nagar, Jalandhar in their Honda City car from near Preet Palace
at gun point, most probably for extracting ransom.
As the input disclosed offence under Sections 364,
364A/34 IPC r/w Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, the
information was forwarded to the police station for its
registration and consequential steps.
FIR No.10 dated 11.01.2008 under the afore-mentioned
provisions of law, accordingly was registered with the Nurmahal
Police Station and investigation was initiated, in course whereof,
the statement of Gagan Kumar Mahendru as aforestated was
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In his statement Gagan,
who claimed to be the victim of kidnapping, stated that on
09.01.2008 Sukhmeet Singh @ Deputy, Gurinder Singh @
Ginda, Jasbir Singh @ Jassi etc. had kidnapped him, tied his
hands and bundled him in the dickey of their car, with the
dishonest intention of realising ransom and took him in the
house of Rupinder Pal Singh from where he was released on
11.01.2008. He claimed to have identified the places where he
had been kept captive and also the places to which he had been
shifted in between.
The statements of the victim and his father SubhashPage 4
4
Mahendru were also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On
pursuing the investigation, the police also visited the place from
where the victim had been kidnapped. The Lancer car bearing
No.PB- 08-BA-4700 of the victim was found parked outside Hotel
Taj, Jalandhar which was recovered and handed over to him.
The accused persons were arrested between 16.01.2008 and
23.01.2008 and the following mobile phones were recovered from
their possession:
Sukhmeet Singh @ Deputy 98553–64086
(appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 388 of 2015)
Gurinder Singh @ Ginda 98148-81082
Jatinder Singh @ Sappi 98151-58151
Jasvir Singh @ Jassi – 98151– 58161
Harpal Singh @ Chhota 98760–87794
(appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 2539 of 2014 )
Harpreet Singh @ happy. 98158- 54784
Surinder Singh @ Manga 98154-03503
On the basis of disclosure statements made by appellant
Sukhbir Singh @ Deputy a sum of Rs.25 lakhs and a point .32
revolver belonging to the victim, Honda City Car bearing number
HR 16F 7337 lying concealed, as well as two iron chains withPage 5
5
which Gagan, the victim had been tied were recovered by the
investigating agency.
On the same day, Gurinder Singh @ Ginda also suffered
a disclosure statement following which an amount of Rs.11 lakhs
was recovered from his room. Similar disclosure statements
were also made by Jatinder Singh @ Jatin, Jasvir Singh @ Jassi
and Harpal Singh @ Chhota, acting whereupon, huge amounts
of cash were recovered together with a country made pistol with
live cartridges.
On 22.01.2008 and 23.01.2008, as well disclosure
statements were made by Harpreet Singh @ Happy and Surinder
Singh @ Manga and pursuing the same, several lakhs of
currency notes were recovered from the almirah/room of these
persons along with one Qualis car bearing number PB 10 AY
4144 said to have been used by the appellant Sukhmeet Singh @
Deputy, in the commission of the crime.
Noticeably, the Honda City car recovered bore engine
number 30125 765 and chassis number 377271 standing in the
name of one Deepak Bhiwani, s/o Raj Singh Bhiwani, resident of
Bhiwani and was of model 2007, as disclosed by the registrationPage 6
6
certificate found inside the vehicle. The documents recovered
also disclosed that the insurance policy of the car stood in the
name of Deepak Bhiwani issued on 18.11.2007. Further from
the dicky of the car, a driving licence of the victim Gagan Kumar
was also retrieved along with one small roll of tape, one scissor
and one black colour rope.
Investigation divulged that the Hona City car did bear
fake number HR 16 F 7337 which was stolen in the intervening
night of 30.11.2007/01.12.2007 from Delhi and for which FIR
number 255 dated 01.12.2007 was registered with Rajinder
Nagar Police Station. Though the Engine number and the chassis
number did match, the actual registration number was DL 4C
AH 4492.
On the completion of the investigative drill, charge-sheet
under Sections 364A, 392, 395, 397, 412, 465, 467, 468, 471,
474, 120B IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act was laid
against the accused persons. As hereto before stated, Gurinder
Singh @ Ginda died during the trial and the accused Rupinder
Pal was acquitted by the trial court. The other co-accused
Prabhijit Singh @ Sonu could not be arrested and was declared aPage 7
7
proclaimed offender. The investigation however revealed that his
mobile number 94636-12914 had been used in the commission
of the offence.
4. Charges were framed against the accused persons
including the appellants under the above Sections of law to
which they pleaded 'not guilty', whereafter the prosecution
examined 27 witnesses. The accused persons in the course of
their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stood by their denial
of the charge. While the appellant Sukhmeet Singh alleged
political vendetta to frame him in the case and that the police
had raided his house and had forcibly lifted Rs. 25 lakhs which
belonged to his father Jarnail Singh and was arranged by him for
the purchase of land, the others generally, but consistently
imputed false implication in the offence. Fourteen witnesses
were also examined in defence. The Trial Court on an
assessment of the evidence on record, to reiterate, convicted the
appellants and their co-accused under the above mentioned
sections of law. By the verdict assailed in the instant appeals,
the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court have
been sustained. Page 8
8
5. It is considered appropriate to revert to the rival
assertions for better comprehension after traversing the evidence
adduced to the extent unavoidable.
PW1 Gagan Kumar, the person kidnapped, testified that
at the relevant time, he was involved in Real Estate Business
with his father Subhash Chandra (PW2). About 15-20 days
before the incident on 09.01.2008, he received a call from mobile
number 9914413696 and the caller introduced himself to be
Ginda and expressed his keenness for effecting a property deal at
Jandiala, District Jalandhar, in course whereof, he offered to
sell the land of his aunt. The witness, though suggested that the
caller ought to get in touch with his father, the latter insisted for
necessary discussion with him. According to the witness, after
2/3 days, another call was made by the same person and
accordingly, they fixed up a time at 9.00 a.m. on the next date,
whereupon the victim along with his friend Chetan Chopra went
to the scheduled place of meeting. The witness stated that at the
time fixed, three persons came in a Innova car and thereafter the
victim and his friend along with two persons proceeded in the car
of the victim to survey the land. After the visit, they parted. ThePage 9
9
witness deposed that thereafter on many occasions, the same
caller made telephone calls to further the deal and eventually,
they decided to meet on 09.01.2008 at 9.00 a.m. for further
discussions.
According to the witness, he was there at the site in his
car bearing no. PB 08 BA 4700 and as stated by him on oath, at
the first instance, two persons came there and boarded his
vehicle. The victim was thereafter asked to proceed to the colony
where the owner i.e the aunt referred to, used to reside. The
witness stated that he took the vehicle to the place as directed.
The person sitting by his side then pointed a revolver on his ear.
Almost immediately thereafter, a Honda City car, driven at a high
speed, pulled up in front of his car, wherefrom 4-5 persons
alighted and attacked the victim. The witness stated that
whereas one person pointed the revolver on his thigh, the other
removed his licenced revolver along with his cell phone, keys of
the car and currency notes amounting to Rs.15,000/-. The
witness stated that thereafter a cap was placed on his face and a
tape was pasted on his mouth. After some time, his hands were
also tied and he was forcibly put into the dickey of the HondaPage 10
10
City car. As the victim resisted, he was threatened to be killed
with his own revolver. After moving the car for some distance,
the abductors burrowed a hole in the rear seat of the car and the
victim was asked to contact his father over a cell phone. Under
compulsion, the victim talked to his father and acquainted him
with his state of distress and requested him to concede to their
request for his safety. The phone was thereafter disconnected.
According to the victim, for the whole day, he remained in the
dicky and could hear the exchanges of the occupants who were
addressing each other as Happy, Jassi, Ginda, Deputy and
Sabbi. He further stated that in the night, he was taken to a
room with an attached bathroom where he was allowed to ease
himself and thereafter was put on chains on his hands and feet
and was blindfolded as well. He was thereafter taken to different
places and was also offered food. Later, he was drugged. On
objection being raised, he was threatened to be killed with his
revolver. The victim stated that in the next morning, he found
himself tied with iron chain, whereafter he was restored in the
dicky of the car and the miscreants wandered around with him.
In between, he was made to talk to his father, whereupon hePage 11
11
repeated his request to do the needful for his release. Later in
the night, the victim was informed by abductors that as the
ransom amount was received, he would be released soon. He was
threatened that in case, after his let off, he would disclose about
the incident to anyone, he would be killed along with his family
members. It was intimated, that they had strong political links
and even if they were arrested, they would come out of custody
soon and appropriately retaliate. The victim was thereafter
dropped at Nakodar Chowk.
The witness identified Sukhmeet Singh @ Deputy,
Ginda, Harpreet Singh @ Happy, Sabbi, Jassa and Harpal Singh
@ Chhota in Court to be those present in the Honda City in the
car and thus the perpetrators of the crime. The witness also
narrated, that on 12th, he was taken by the police to the place
from where he was kidnapped and that his statements were duly
recorded as well. He claimed to have identify the place and also
disclosed that he had dropped his driving licence in the dicky of
the car. He identified as well the driving licence produced in
court along with the iron chains by which his hands were tied
and the tape roll by which his mouth was muzzled. Page 12
12
In cross-examination, this witness admitted that the
appellant Sukhmeet Singh at the relevant time was a Municipal
Councillor and he knew him from before the incident. He
however clarified that he did not have any personal
acquaintance/intimacy with him and that he was also not
conversant with his voice. He admitted as well, that he knew the
full name of the appellant at the time of making of the statement
before the police and the Magistrate. He however elaborated that
as the accused persons used to address him as Deputy, he did
use that name while making the statements. He also claimed to
be unaware then that Sukhmeet Singh and Deputy was one and
the same person. He also conceded qua his earlier statement
that at the time of his release at Nakodar Chowk, he had not
seen the appellant Sukhmeet present there. He also admitted
that there was no test identification parade held and that he as
well did not furnish the physical features of the miscreants to the
police. According to this witness, neither the recovered money
nor the weapons had been shown to him by the police. He
stated that by 24.01.2008, he could come to know the names of
all the accused persons from the newspaper. Vis-a-vis the namePage 13
13
of Harpal Singh @ Chhota, the witness stated in particular that
he did not know him prior to the incident and that he mentioned
his name for the first time in the court.
A perusal of the statement made by the victim under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. demonstrates that the same is substantially
identical to the one on oath at the trial. The sequence of events
are in the same order and in particular, he reiterated the names
of Sonu Bhajji, Happy Bhajji, Ginda, Sabbi and Deputy while
referring to the persons in the car, while he was languishing in
the dickey thereof.
PW2 Subhash Chander, the father of the victim deposed
that at the time of the incident, his son was in real estate
business with him. He admitted that his son had mentioned to
him about the proposed deal which was being promoted by a
party of Jandiala on which he had advised the victim to inspect
the site so that a decision could be taken lateron. The witness
testified that on 9.1.2008, his son informed him that he had
received a telephone call in connection with the deal and that he
had fixed 9.30 in the morning for the said purpose. That on the
same day, his son had left for negotiations in his Lancer car PBPage 14
14
08 BA 4700, was stated by him. According to the witness, at
about 11.45 a.m. on that day, he received a telephone call
conveying to him that his son had been kidnapped and further a
ransom amount of Rs. 5 crores was demanded for his release. The
witness stated that the caller also threatened him that if the
money demanded was not arranged, his son would be killed.
Thereafter, on his entreaties, he was allowed to talk to his son
who pleaded that the ransom amount be paid as otherwise, his
abductors, who were equipped with deadly weapons, may do harm
to him.
The witness stated that thereafter, he received a
telephone call from a mobile phone No. 9814804700 enquiring of
him about the arrangements made about the ransom amount.
According to the witness, subsequent thereto from time to time, he
kept on receiving telephone calls at the interval of 3/4 hours
about the progress in the collection of the ransom amount with
the insistence that the amount should be paid early, if he wished
the welfare of his son. In response to a call received at 9 pm on
the same day and on the expression of his inability to arrange
more than Rs. 1 crore, the caller asked him to await furtherPage 15
15
instructions. By the next phone call at 10 pm, the abductors
informed the witness that no amount less than Rs. 1 crore was
acceptable to them.
The witness further stated that on the next date i.e.
10.1.2008, he received a call from the cell phone of his son at
8.30 a.m., and on the query made, he stated that by then, he
could arrange only 90-92 lakhs with great difficulty. This was
followed by another call at 10/11 a.m. from the same person
enquiring about the amount arranged to which the witness
replied that somehow he had been able to arrange Rs. 1 crore
and requested the abductors to close the deal. Eventually at
4.20 p.m., through another call, the abductors instructed the
witness to fill the money in two bags and take the train
“Shane Punjab” for Delhi . The witness on his request was
allowed to be accompanied by one attendant and he was
instructed to sit in the last compartment of the train with the
caveat that in case he would try to act smart or against the
instructions or inform the police, all his family members would
be eliminated. He was informed as well that he would be under
watch on the train.Page 16
16
According to the witness, he took the money in two bags
and along with his friend Munish Berry boarded the train from
Jalandhar. He stated that on the way, he kept on receiving
telephone calls from the abductors to ascertain the stages of the
journey. He stated that when the train reached near Sirhind
Railway Station, they directed both of them to come near the left
side door of the compartment and wait for a flash signal while
the train would be reaching Raj Pura and to drop the bags when
the train would slow down near an over-bridge, 3/4 k.m. before
Raj Pura so that the same could be collected by them. The
abductors also assured them to release the victim after the money
was received.
The witness stated that as the train slowed down at the
place indicated, they threw away the two bags containing the
ransom money and proceeded towards Delhi. Subsequent thereto,
they took a train back to Jalandhar. Meanwhile, he received a
telephone call from the victim that he had reached home safely.
The witness deposed that on 12.1.2008 he along with victim and
2/3 friends, met the police at Jandiala on their way to police
station and narrated the entire incident. The witness stated thatPage 17
17
on 13.1.2008, he received a call from the police that the Lancer
car No. PB 08 BA 4700 has been located near Taj Hotel, Garha
Road, Jalandhar and thereafter on completion of the formalities,
the vehicle was handed over to his son. The witness in course of
his testimony, identified the two bags in which the ransom
money had been taken i.e. Ex. P9 and P10. He mentioned that
the currency was in the denominations of Rs. 1000, Rs. 500
and Rs. 100. He also clarified that on 5/6 packets of the
currency notes, he had inscribed initials/names like AS, KK, Om
Namah Shivah, Om Sri Ganeshay Namah, and Jai Hanuman.
The witness at the trial, identified the currency notes as a part of
the ransom money. The bundles of currency notes produced in
the court were marked as Ex. P11 to Ex. P68.
In his cross-examination, the witness admitted that
though he knew Sukhmeet Singh at the time of incident as he
was a Municipal Councillor, he clarified that he did not have any
personal relationship with him. He conceded that he had not
informed the police/Magistrate about the initials and names on
the packets of the currency notes. He however claimed that even
in absence of such initials/names, he could have otherwisePage 18
18
identified the currency notes from the denominations thereof. He
however disclosed that his relations from whom money was
collected did inform that such initials/names had been inscribed
on the packets. He admitted that the FIR was registered on
11.1.2008. He elaborated on the names of the persons and
relations from whom different sums of money was taken on loan.
He specified the amounts as well. He stated that his statement
was recorded by the police on 12.1.2008.
PW4 SI Pritam Singh, who at the relevant time, was
posted at the Nurmahal Police Station, deposed that he did
partake in the investigation and had accompanied the I.O.
Inspector Satish Kumar Malhotra. He reiterated that on
11.1.2008, the I.O. received a secret information that the
accused persons Sukhmeet Singh, Gurinder, Jatinder and
Jaspreet had been seen moving near the office of DIG to
surrender before the police whereupon, they were arrested
thereat and cell phones were recovered from their possession
vide Ex. PF/1 to PF/3. He also stated about the disclosures
made by the accused persons following which various amounts
were recovered from the places shown by them. Vis-a-vis,Page 19
19
Sukhmeet Singh, he stated that the revolver of the victim was
also recovered from the living room of the accused. He further
testified that on the disclosure of the accused appellant
Sukhmeet Singh subsequent thereto, along with cash of Rs. 25
lakhs, one revolver of .32 bore bearing No. B-3211 wrapped in a
plastic packet was recovered from the room of his house. The
witness stated that the cash as well as the other articles
recovered/seized were duly deposited in the malkhana.
He further deposed that on the basis of another secret
information received on 18.1.2008, appellant Harpal Singh @
Chhota was arrested and acting on his disclosure statement,
cash together with one country made pistol and one live
cartridge wrapped in a plastic packet was recovered from
underneath a tree on a Jandiala Road as shown by him. The
witness stated as well about further disclosure statements made
by the appellant Sukhmeet following which Honda City car HR
16 F 7337 was recovered from near the well of Gurinder Singh @
Ginda at village Bir Pind kept parked under the cover of standing
maize crop. The witness confirmed the recovery of one driving
licence, registration certificate, tape roll, small scissor and blackPage 20
20
string from the dicky of car which were duly seized vide recovery
memo Ex. PO/2. The witness also identified these items when
confronted therewith. He also stated about the collection of finger
prints on the car by a finger print expert.
He also stated about the arrest of accused Harpreet
Singh and recovery of mobile phone from him. He referred to a
disclosure statement made by said accused person leading to
discovery of Rs. 3.5 lakhs from the almirah of his house. That a
Qualis Car bearing number PB 10 AY 4144 was also recovered
on the disclosure statement made by the accused Harpreet was
stated by the witness.
He did similarly mention about the arrest of accused
Surinder Singh and recovery of Rs. 1,05,000 on the basis of his
disclosure statement, from the roof of motor at village Mullewal
Arian wrapped in a plastic envelope. The witness stated as well
about the arrest of accused Rupinder Pal and the recovery of cash
from him.
In his cross-examination, the witness conceded that the
arrest memo pertaining to Sukhmeet did not contain either his
signature or the signature of any public witness. He howeverPage 21
21
denied that the memo was a forged one. He asserted to have
attested the disclosure statement of the appellant Sukhmeet
Singh which had led to the recovery of the Honda City car,
otherwise kept concealed. His statement made in the course of
his further cross-examination, being neither of any particular
significance nor referred to in course of the arguments, are not
being dilated upon.
PW5 Kashmir Singh, Finger Print Expert and
photographer from Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur, stated that on
21.1.2008, he had taken the photographs of the chance prints on
the window panes of the front door of the Honda city car bearing
HR 16F 7337 and also on the rear mirror fitted thereto. He
claimed to have prepared negatives of the chance prints and had
compiled the report on the basis thereof which he proved Ex.
PW5/A.
In cross-examination, he stated that the prints were
available on the glass surface and he did not rule out any other
type of print. He also stated that the prints collected were of the
palm surface of the hand. He also did not enquire as to who had
marked the chance prints. Page 22
22
PW8 Inspector Satish Kumar Malhotra, S.H.O. P.S.,
Phillaur, is the investigating officer. He testified that on
11.1.2008, he was posted at Police Station Nurmahal and while
on patrol duty, he received a secret information that four persons,
who had kidnapped Gagan Mahendrau at gun point and had
abducted him in a Honda City car with a purpose to extract
ransom. He deposed to have forwarded the information for the
registration of the FIR and thereafter visited the place of
occurrence, where he could not find any one present. According
to him, he visited the same spot with other police personnel on
12.1.2008 and happened to meet, amongst others, the victim and
his father Subhash Mahendru there. On the basis of a secret
information received on 13.1.2008, the witness stated to have
recovered the victim's Lancer Car bearing No. PB 08 BA 4700
parked near Taj Hotel, Garah Road, Jalandhar. He summoned
the finger print expert and on the completion of the exercise
undertaken by the latter, handed over the car to the victim on the
completion of necessary formalities.
The witness stated that on 14.1.2008, from the call
details collected, amongst others the appellant Sukhmeet @Page 23
23
Deputy was a suspect, whereupon he was arrested. The witness
stated that on 16.1.2008, on the basis of a secret information, the
appellant Sukhmeet was arrested along with Jatinder,
whereupon on their search, mobile phones were recovered. He
also referred to the disclosure statements made by the appellant
Sukhmeet Singh and Jatinder, on the basis of which, cash of Rs.
25 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs respectively were recovered from their
residences, kept in the plastic bags. According to the witness,
acting on the disclosure statement of appellant Sukhmeet, one
revolver of the victim was also recovered from his house.
Similarly, after the arrest of Gurinder Singh @ Ginda, Jasbir
Singh @ Jassi, Jatinder Singh @ Sabbi, on the basis of their
disclosure statements, different amounts in lakhs were recovered
from the places indicated by them. A .32 bore revolver bearing
No. B-3211 was also recovered on a later disclosure statement of
the appellant Sukhmeet Singh @ Deputy. Subsequent thereto,
according to the witness, again acting on the secret information,
appellant Harpal Singh @ Chhota was arrested and one mobile
phone was recovered from his possession. These accused persons
also made disclosure statements and acting thereon, currencyPage 24
24
notes were recovered along with a pistol along with a live cartridge
from beneath a tree near canal Jandiala. This witness further
deposed that the appellant Sukhmeet Singh also made a
disclosure statement pursuant whereto, the Honda City car
HR-16-F 7337 used in the commission of offense was recovered
being parked near the well of accused Ginda at Village Beer being
kept camouflage by standing maize crop thereat. The witness
also stated that on the search of the car, two iron chains, a
small scissor, tape roll, a black colour rope and a driving licence
in the name of the victim were recovered from the dickey of the
car. The finger print expert also took the photographs of the
prints available on the car. That a hole was also detected in the
rear seat of the car was mentioned in particular by the witness.
He also stated about the arrest of accused Harpreet Singh and
Surinder Singh as well, following which the phones mobile were
recovered from them. These accused also made disclosures
following which recoveries of huge cash kept in plastic envelopes
was effected. Apart from getting recorded the statement of the
victim and his father Subhash under Section 164 Cr.PC., the
witness claimed to have obtained the call details of mobile phones
of the accused recovered from accused persons. He also identified
the seized articles including the Honda City and Lancer cars at
the trial and identified and exhibited other items like, revolver,
iron chain, tape rolls, currency notes etc. The witness, in course
of his testimony mentioned that on every occasion of seizure, he
had completed the necessary legal formalities in connection
therewith.
In his cross-examination, the witness admitted that the
victim had in his statement before him not mentioned particularly
about Harpal Singh @ Chhota, He also admitted, that no TIP of the
accused persons had been conducted. According to him, he did
make an application for such TIP, but the same was dismissed as
the accused persons refused to participate in the process. He
denied the suggestion, that the appellant Harpal Singh had not
refused to take part in the TIP. He admitted of a press
conference held on 17.1.2008, in which Senior Superintendent of
Police, Jalandhar had participated but expressed his ignorance
as to whether in the news item dated 18.1.2008, it was suggested
that there was a possibility of recovery of a country made pistol.
According to this witness, this news item was got published by thePage 26
26
accused persons. He denied the suggestion that no
pistol/cartridge was recovered from the house of the accused
Harpal Singh @ Chhota. The remaining statements made by this
witness in the cross- examination are not of any added
significance and further have also not been referred to or relied
upon in course of the arguments.
PWs 10, 11, 12, 14, 16 are those, who on oath, stated to
have lent different amounts to the father of the victim to meet the
ransom demand. Of these witnesses, PW 14 in particular,
claimed to have put his identification marks on the packets of
currency notes like KK, AS, Jai Hanuman etc. and on the basis
thereof, he identified at the trial, the same when shown to him.
The common trend of cross- examination of these witnesses had
been to elicit from them that there was nothing in writing to
endorse such loan and that there was no transaction routed
through the bank as evidence thereof.
PW23 H.C. Kamaljit Singh deposed that on 23.1.2008 he
was a member of the police party, in-charge of the investigation of
the case. According to him, appellant Harpal Singh @ Chhota
present in the court and who was then in police custody, made aPage 27
27
disclosure statement signed by him and further led the police
party to the eastern side of Jandiala, Nurmahal Canal, from where
he dug out a country made pistol wrapped in a polythene bag
together with cash amounting to Rs. 65000/-. The witness stated
that the recovered pistol was seized by memo PW23/A on which
he along with others put their endorsements by way of
attestation.
In cross-examination, the witness however admitted
that no independent witness was present when the disclosure
statement was recorded. He however denied that neither such
statement had been recorded nor was any recovery caused on the
basis thereof and in his presence.
PW24 Sumesh Makkar proved the call details of cell
phone number 94636-12914 of Prabhjeet Singh, absconder
accused. In this regard, he amongst others, proved the necessary
documents to establish that the said accused person had applied
for such connection.
PW25 Damandeep Singh, Nodal Officer, Vodafone, Essar
South Limited, Mohali, deposed with regard to the mobile SIM
number 99881-31831 standing in the name of Manjinder SinghPage 28
28
r/o VPO Malsian Patti, Saltan Nagar, Jalandhar. Apart from
proving the documents, on the basis of which the mobile
connection was obtained by the holder thereof as named herein
above, the witness also proved computer generated details of the
said cell phone for the period 9.1.2008 to 16.1.2008 in the form of
a printed copy which, he asserted was the true extract of the
relevant data created in the usual and ordinary course of
business and stored in the hard disc of the company server. He
exhibited the call details as Ex. PW25/C.
Though this witness was formally cross-examined, not
even a suggestion was made that the call details so proved, were
inadmissible in law due to non-compliance of the requirements of
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter to be
called as “the Act”).
PW26 Sunil Rana, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited,
Mohali, aside the necessary records with regard to the
applications pertaining to SIM number 98151- 58151 recovered
from accused Jatinder Singh and standing in the name of Iqbal
Singh, 98154-03503 standing in the name of accused Surinder
Singh, 98150-29026 in the name of Davinder Kumar,Page 29
29
98760-87794 of Jaspal Singh, 98760-63085 of Amrik Singh,
98766-81782 of Pavittar Singh, 98158-54784 of Varinder Singh
and 98723-00707 of Pradeep Singh, also proved the call details
pertaining to these cell phones for the period 8.1.2008 to
31.1.2008 and exhibited the corresponding documents. This
witness stated that the call details proved, were computer
generated and in the shape of printed copy which were true
extracts of the relevant data created in the usual and ordinary
course of business and stored on the hard disc of the company
server.
In cross-examination, the witness expressed ignorance
with regard to the names of the accused persons and further
admitted that though the tower numbers qua the calls were not
mentioned, the tower cell I.Ds. were referred to.
PW27 Soaravdeep Singh, Nodal Officer, Spice
Communications Limited, Mohali proved the location list of all the
towers of his company during January 2008 with the cell I.D. of
various towers and exhibited the said document as Ex. PW27/A. He
also proved the call details for the period 9.1.2008 to 16.1.2008
relating to mobile SIM numbers 98140-60441, 98148-81082Page 30
30
(recovered from accused Gurinder) and 98553-64086 (recovered
from appellant Sukhmeet) and 99144-16396 of Naresh Kumar and
exhibited the documents with regard thereto separately.
In cross-examination, the witness clarified that the cell
numbers 98148-81082 and 98553-64086 functioned between
11.1.2008 to 16.1.2008 whereas the others were not put to use
after 10.1.2008. He further asserted that the call details had been
issued by him from the computer which was under his control and
did bear his signature on each of the pages. He conceded however
that no certificate of correctness was appended thereto. The
witness clarified that the calls were computer generated which did
not admit of any manual intervention. He admitted further that the
call details did refer to cell I.D. indicating the tower location.
According to him, no document was taken into custody by the
police from him under his signature. He admitted as well that the
documents produced by him do not bear the date of their
preparation and further there was no reference of the server therein
as well.
6. To complete the narration of the evidence adduced,
apposite it would be to briefly survey the testimony of the defencePage 31
31
witnesses.
DW1 Gurdeep Singh, who was then the Senior
Assistant, State Bank of India, New Grain Market, Jalandhar
proved the statement of account in the name of Jarnail Singh,
father of appellant Sukhmeet for the period 30.6.2007 to
30.6.2008 which disclosed, amongst others that the holder had
withdrawn Rs. 10 lakhs from his account on 7.11.2007.
DW2 Naginder Singh deposed about the proposed sale
of the land of Jarnail Singh situated at village Rasoolpur for Rs. 32
lakhs and further that on the basis of an written agreement, he
had paid by way of Rs. 8 lakhs by way of advance on 6.12.2007
and further Rs. 6 lakhs on 21.12.2007 to Jarnail Singh. The
witness however admitted that due to some financial compulsions,
the finalization of the deal had to be deferred. In
cross-examination, the witness conceded that the stamp papers of
the agreement had been purchased by Jarnail Singh, 1/2 months
earlier thereto. He however denied the suggestion that the written
agreement Ex. D2 referred to by him was a fabricated document.
DW3 Jarnail Singh, father of the appellant Sukhmeet
Singh in substance testified that the false implication of his son
in the case was motivated by political rivalry. He deposed that on
14.1.2008, the police raided his house and and had taken away
Rs. 25 lakhs which he had kept for purchasing land near
Jalandhar. According to him, out of the said amount, Rs. 10
lakhs had been withdrawn by him from the bank and that the rest
had been deposited with him by way of advance money for selling
his land to Naginder Singh and Manmohan Singh. According to
him, the agreement for sale of his land had been scribed on
6.12.2007 on the stamp paper purchased by him.
DW8 Sushil Kumar on oath stated that he belonged to
the Congress Party and accused Jatinder Singh @ Sabbi was his
supporter. He also referred to recent confrontations with the
members of the rival political party during some elections for
which criminal cases had also to be registered. According to the
witness, accused Jatinder Singh @ Sabbi had been falsely
implicated in the case.
7. Mounting challenge to the decision impugned, Mr. R.
Basant, learned senior counsel arguing for the appellant in
Appeal No. 2539 of 2014, has insistently urged that having regard
to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the complicity of thePage 33
33
accused Harpal Singh @ Chhota remains unproved. According to
him, the charge of this accused being either a part of the alleged
conspiracy or a partner in the execution thereof, is belied by the
materials on record. The learned senior counsel has maintained
that the sequence of events, as sought to be unfolded by the
prosecution, warrant that the roles of the accused persons
allegedly involved be analysed individually in order to determine
the nature and extent of their involvement. Mr. Basant asserted
that not only the evidence forthcoming after the arrest of Harpal
Singh @ Chhota together with the recovery of cash or fire arm and
the Honda City car does not in any way establish any nexus with
him and the crime perpetrated, the calls details of the cell phones
said to have been involved are per se inadmissible in evidence in
the face of apparent non-compliance of the mandatory
prescriptions of Section 65B of the Act. The learned senior
counsel underlined that the finger prints collected from the Honda
City car did not match with that of any of the accused persons
sent up for trial and in absence of the TIP, their identity, as
participants in the offence, has also remained unproved. The
learned senior counsel was particularly emphatic on the aspectPage 34
34
that the victim noticeably did not either name or refer to the
appellant Harpal Singh @ Chhota in his statements under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., which were the earliest in point of
time, to be one of his abductors and that he sought to improve on
him by naming him only at the trial. The learned senior counsel
maintained as well that the inexplicable omission on the part of
the prosecution to examine Chetan Chopra, the friend of the
victim, who had accompanied him in the first round of discussion
on the land deal, laid as a preface according to the prosecution,
culminating in the abduction, renders the charge, doubtful.
According to Mr. Basant, the examination of the appellant Harpal
Singh @ Chhota under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had been general and
omnibus without laying the specific incriminating circumstances
against him, thus, denying him the opportunity to explain the
same. On this count as well, the impugned conviction is
unsustainable in law and is liable to be set-aside, he urged. In
buttressal of the plea against admissibility of the calls details, the
learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this
Court in Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and others (2014) 10 SCC
473.Page 35
35
Mr. Subromaniam Parsad, learned senior counsel for the
appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 2015 in supplementation
repudiated the testimony of the victim in particular in identifying
appellant Sukhmeet @ Deputy to be one of his abductors. He has
urged that it having been admitted by the victim that the appellant
Sukhmeet was known to him from before the incident, reference
about him by his nick-name Deputy, renders his testimony to this
effect wholly untrustworthy. The learned senior counsel has
similarly dismissed the recovery/seizure of currency notes, fire-arms
and the Honda City car in particular, as unworthy of any reliance or
significance, besides being effected without adhering to the legally
prescribed procedure, therefor. Referring to the evidence of DW1,
DW2 and DW3 in particular, about the seizure of cash from the
house of Jarnail Singh, the father of appellant Sukhmeet Singh, Mr.
Prasad has insisted that this amount had no nexus at all with the
ransom money, said to have been paid. He discarded as well the
endeavour on the part of the prosecution through PW14 to identify
some of the currency notes on the basis of initials/names written on
some of the packets containing the same. According to the learned
senior counsel, the prosecution has utterly failed to adducePage 36
36
unimpeachable evidence to establish the culpability of the
appellants and thus the impugned decision, as a whole, is liable to
be set at naught.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State,
has maintained that the evidence adduced when considered in
entirety, does establish the indictment against all the accused
persons convicted, beyond all reasonable doubt. He urged that the
prosecution has been successful in substantiating the involvement
of the accused persons in the nefarious and willful design of theirs
to abduct the victim for ransom and having regard to the gravity of
the proved offences, no interference is called for. In particular, he
has contended that the defence having failed in its endeavour to
de-link the currency notes, seized from the house of Jarnail Singh,
the father of the appellant Sukhmeet Singh from the ransom money
paid, he is not entitled to any benefit therefrom.
8. We have extended our thoughtful scrutiny to the
materials available on record as well as the competing arguments
based thereon. Admittedly, the only eye witness to the actual act of
abduction is the victim himself who had suffered the ordeal. He
thereafter encountered the treatment meted out to him in captivityPage 37
37
and is privy too, to the ransom claim made by his abductors to his
father. The statement made by the victim (PW1) under Section 161
Cr.P.C. though had outlined the whole incident in the bare
essentials, his version under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and at the trial are
adequately elaborate to project the whole gamut of the development,
commencing from his forcible abduction till his release. There is as
such no mutually mutative inconsistency in the three renditions of
his, so as to render the prosecution case untrustworthy and
discardable on all counts. True, it is that the victim in his
statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. did not specifically
name Harpal Singh @ Chhota, while naming the other abductors
who were the occupants as well of the Honda City car in the dickey
of which he was abducted, he did identify and involve this
appellant/accused during his testimony at the trial. Not only, in
our comprehension, it is likely that in his bewildered and perplexed
state of mind at the relevant point of time, he might have omitted to
name Harpal Singh @ Chhota, in the face of the other overwhelming
evidence and materials on record, nothing much turns thereon in
favour of the defence.
The progression of events as unveiled by the testimony,Page 38
38
in particular of the victim and supported by his father PW2, reveals
that the first caller to initiate the negotiations for the land deal to
which the victim was drawn, was Gurinder Singh @ Ginda. The
victim in his deposition has in details narrated the developments
thereafter which do indicate the keenness on the part of the
negotiators to entrap the victim in the bargain, by gradually building
his confidence in the same and in the proponents. These
endeavours, as the prosecution has asserted, really were the build
up steps as a part of the conspiratorial scheme to eventually
culminate in the abduction of the victim for realisation of ransom in
return. Noticeably the perpetrators did not betray any haste on
their part and designedly took their time to strike at the opportune
moment.
The evidence of the victim (PW1) as a whole, in our
estimate, is truthful, having regard to the details provided with
accompanying clarity and conviction. His elaborate testimony not
only has projected the stage-wise developments following his
abduction till his release, the same has remained unshaken
substantially even by his cross-examination. This witness not only
had the opportunity of seeing his abductors but also had heard theirPage 39
39
exchanges by referring to their nick names. He was in their
company and under their surveillance for almost two days in course
whereof they not only interacted with him but also had closely
followed his conversion with his father on more than one occasion
on the aspect of ransom. Apart from the fact that there is nothing
convincing on record to even infer any false implication of the
accused persons, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the mere
omission on the part of the victim to mention at the first instance
the name of appellant Harpal Singh @ Chhota, having regard to the
charge of conspiracy and the concerted steps, to actualise the same
is of no fatal bearing on the prosecution case, more particularly he
having named/identified him at the trial as one of the perpetrators
of the offence. In this perspective, the omission on the part of the
investigating agency to hold the TIP is not fatal, in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
In the face of the overall evidence on record, the above
purported deficiencies do not at all detract from the veracity of the
prosecution case .
The evidence adduced vis-a-vis the stage wise recovery
of the currency notes, fire-arms, the Honda City car etc. from thePage 40
40
successive disclosures made by the accused persons also do
establish their complicity in the offence. The testimony of the
witnesses to the above effect authenticate that the procedure
prescribed by law for effecting such seizures had been complied
with. The factum of each discovery based on the disclosures of the
accused persons is not only a relevant fact under Section 27 of the
Act but also noticeably has not been very seriously disputed by the
defence. These seized articles have been produced and identified in
the court by the witnesses as well. The testimony of the lenders and
that of PW14 in particular, identifying some of the packets of the
currency notes by the initials or the names as labelled by him also
cannot be lightly ignored. PW2, the father of the victim, apart from
stating generally about the abduction of his son and his release has
however in minutest details described the particulars of the ransom
calls received and his desperate endeavours to collect the amount to
the extent possible within the dead line of time to save his son in
distress. The witnesses examined by the prosecution as the lenders
of different amounts not only were referred to by this witness in his
deposition, to reiterate they also endorsed to have responded to his
clarion call.Page 41
41
Having regard to the series of frightful experiences which
the victim had to encounter during his captivity of a period of almost
two days in the scary company of his abductors and the fearful
moments that he had to pass under the constant threat of being
killed by them, as threatened from time to time, it is natural that he
must have had sufficient opportunity to note their features to
enable him to identify them even by their looks at a later point of
time. That the abductors, during the relevant time, had intimidated
the victim as well as his father that if the ransom amount
demanded is not paid in time, the hostage would be done away
with, has been stated on oath by both of them in categorical terms.
The manner in which the victim was abducted and was shifted
from place to place parallely following up the demand of ransom
under the threat of his elimination leaves no manner of doubt that
they had resorted to a plot to extract a handsome amount by way
of ransom under the threat to the life of victim. We are thus left
unconvinced by the defence plea of want of identification of the
abductors including the appellants. The omission on the part of the
victim to refer to the appellant Sukhmeet by his name instead of his
nick-name Deputy also does not appeal to us. The victim in hisPage 42
42
deposition has clarified that though he knew Sukhmeet Singh was
a Municipal Councillor, but had no personal intimacy with him so
as to be able to identify him by seeing him.
9. Noticeably all the recoveries, be it of currency notes,
fire- arms, the cars and the seizures of various articles therefrom
have been on the basis of disclosures made by the accused persons
from time to time which were duly recorded in the presence of the
witnesses, as required in law. Not only the Honda City car proved
to have been used in the commission of the offence was traced out
being parked near the well of the accused Gurinder Singh @ Ginda
under the cover of standing maize crop thereat, the seizure, amongst
others of the driving licence of the victim from the dicky thereof
lends formidable support to the credibility of the prosecution case.
In all the cases of recovery, as the evidence demonstrates, the
accused persons including the appellants after making the related
disclosures had led the investigating agency to the places wherefrom
seizures were made. That the seized articles were duly deposited in
the appropriate custody and were produced at the trial and
identified by the witnesses are also matters of record.
10. It is no longer res integra that the “fact discovered” asPage 43
43
envisaged under Section 27 of the Act, in consequence of any
information received from a person in the custody of a police officer,
embraces the place from which any object is produced and the
knowledge of the accused as to this provided the information given
relate distinctively to the fact, as had been held by the Privy Council
in Pullukuri Kotayya and others vs. King Emperror, AIR 1947
PC 67. This enunciation, hallowed by time, has been oft quoted with
approval by this Court in a plethora of subsequent pronouncements
while interpreting the scope and purport of the above legal
provision.
Amongst others in Bodhraj @ Bodha and Others vs.
State of Jamu & Kashmir (2002) 8 SCC 45, it has been elucidated
that the doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is
discovered in a search made on the strength of any information
obtained from a prisoner, while in the custody of a police officer,
such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by
the prisoner is true. It had been held that the information may be
confessional or non inculpatory in nature, but if it results in
discovery of facts, it becomes a reliable information.
It is unnecessary, in view of such a settled propounded
legal postulation to multiply authorities on the point. Suffice it to
state in the backdrop of the state of law on the admissibility of the
information of a person accused of any offence in the custody of a
police officer so far as it relates distinctly to the fact thereby
discovered, the irresistible conclusion in the facts of the case in
hand is that the disclosures made by the accused persons leading
to the recoveries and seizures are indeed relevant facts in support
of the charge levelled against them.
11. Qua the admissibility of the call details, it is a matter of
record that though PWs 24, 25, 26 and 27 have endeavoured to
prove on the basis of the printed copy of the computer generated call
details kept in usual ordinary course of business and stored in a
hard disc of the company server, to co-relate the calls made from
and to the cell phones involved including those, amongst others
recovered from the accused persons, the prosecution has failed to
adduce a certificate relatable thereto as required under Section
65B(4) of the Act. Though the High Court, in its impugned
judgment, while dwelling on this aspect, has dismissed the plea of
inadmissibility of such call details by observing that all the
stipulations contained under Section 65 of the Act had been
complied with, in the teeth of the decision of this Court in Anvar
P.V. (supra) ordaining an inflexible adherence to the enjoinments of
Sections 65B(2) and (4) of the Act, we are unable to sustain this
finding. As apparently the prosecution has relied upon the
secondary evidence in the form of printed copy of the call details,
even assuming that the mandate of Section 65B(2) had been
complied with, in absence of a certificate under Section 65B(4), the
same has to be held inadmissible in evidence.
This Court in Anvar P.V. (supra) has held in no
uncertain terms that the evidence relating to electronic record being
a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under
Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Act would have to yield
thereto. It has been propounded that any electric record in the form
of secondary evidence cannot be admitted in evidence unless the
requirements of Section 65B are satisfied. This conclusion of ours is
inevitable in view of the exposition of law pertaining to Sections 65A
and 65B of the Act as above.
12 Be that as it may, on an overall assessment of the
entire gamut of evidence, we are of the comprehension that the
charges against the accused persons including the appellants stand
proved beyond reasonable doubt even sans the call details. To
reiterate, the gravamen of the imputations levelled against them
is that of conspiracy and abduction of the victim pursuant thereto
for ransom by detaining him under the threat to cause death or
hurt and thereby to compel his father to meet their demand.
13. As it is, as has been exposited by this Court on
umpteen occasions, conspiracy requires an act i.e. actus reus and
an accompanying mental state i.e. mens rea. Whereas the
agreement constitutes the act, the intention to achieve the unlawful
objectives of the agreement comprises the required mental state.
This Court in Ferozuddin Basheeruddin and Others vs. State of
Kerala (2001)7 SCC 596 held that conspiracy is a clandestine
activity and by the sheer nature thereof, an agreement to that effect
can rarely be established by direct proof and must be inferred from
circumstantial evidence of cooperation between the conspirators. It
has been enunciated that conspiracy is not only a substantive crime
but also serves as a basis for holding one person liable for the crime
of others where application of the usual doctrines of complicity
would not render that person liable and thus the test of the role of
a co-conspirator would be decisively significant in determining the
liability of the others in the face of the supervening fact that the
crime was performed as a part of a larger division of labour to
which the accused had also contributed his efforts. Qua the
admissibility of evidence, it was proclaimed that loosened standards
prevail in a conspiracy trial and contrary to the usual role, in
conspiracy prosecutions, any declaration by one conspirator made
in furtherance of a conspiracy and during its pendency, is
admissible against each co-conspirator. It was thus ruled that
conspirators are liable on an agency theory by the statements of
co-conspirators, just as they are for the overt acts and crimes
committed by their confreres.
In a later pronouncement in Mir Nagvi Askari vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation (2009)15 SCC 643, it was ruled
in the same vein that while drawing an inference from the materials
brought on record to arrive at a finding as to whether the charge of
the criminal conspiracy had been proved or not, it must be borne in
mind that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is difficult, if not
impossible, to obtain direct evidence to establish the same. The
following extract from the decision in Mohd. Amin Vs. CBI (2008) 15
SCC 49 was quoted with approval:
“74. The principles which can be deduced from
the above-noted judgments are that for proving a
charge of conspiracy, it is not necessary that all
the conspirators know each and every detail of the
conspiracy so long as they are co-participators in
the main object of conspiracy. It is also not
necessary that all the conspirators should
participate from the inception of conspiracy to its
end. If there is unity of object or purpose, all
participating at different stages of the crime will
be guilty of conspiracy.”
As would be patent from the above excerpt that qua a charge
of conspiracy, it is not necessary that all the conspirators should
know each and every detail of the plot so long as they are
co-participators in the main object thereof and it is also not
necessary that all of them should participate from the inception of
the stratagem till the end, the determinative factor, being unity of
object or purpose and their participation at different stages. Such
is therefore the encompassing sweep of culpability of an offence of
conspiracy, if proved, even from the established attendant
circumstances.
14. Having regard to the proved facts and the state of law,
adverted to hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the
prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against the
appellants. Both the courts below have analysed the evidence in the
correct perspectives and in the face of the conclusions recorded
on the different aspects of the imputations levelled against them,
we are of the opinion that no interference is called for with the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence recorded against
them. The appeals thus fail and are dismissed. Registry is directed
to transmit the original record to the Trial Court immediately.
…...........................................J.
(A.K. SIKRI)
…..........................................J.
(AMITAVA ROY)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 21, 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment