Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat (Thro'Nitinkumar ... vs Bhovanbhai Gigabhai Patel (Vendor & ... on 21 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1274/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1274 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
STATE OF GUJARAT (THRO'NITINKUMAR JASHWANTLAL
GANDHI)
Versus
BHOVANBHAI GIGABHAI PATEL (VENDOR & OWNER)
=============================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DK MODI(1317) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MD MODI(1318) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 21/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the order dated 04.02.2011 in Criminal Case No.906 of 1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Keshod (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court'), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents - accused from the offences Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1274/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined punishable under Sections 2(i-a)(a), 2(i-a)(b), 2(i-a)(c) and 2(i-a)(m) read with Rules 23 and 5 and also Sections 7(1), 7(5) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
1.1. The respondent is hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as he stood in the rank and file in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
2.1. The accused Bhovanbhai Gigabhai Patel was doing the business of grains and groceries in the name and style of Patel Bhovanbhai Gigabhai Grains Groceries Merchant, Near Vegetable Market, Keshod and the complainant Nitinkumar Jashwantlal Gandhi was working as a Food Inspector in the Office of the Assistant Director, Food and Drugs Control Administration, Junagadh. On 28.01.1997 at around 11.00am, the complainant Nitinkumar Jashwantlal Gandhi visited the shop of the accused and purchased 450grams chilli powder from the packet Mahavir Masala Agmark Chilli Powder and made three parts of the sample, Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1274/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined sealed and seized it. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Food and Drugs Laboratory, Vadodra, and as per the report of the Public Analyst, No.Q-1/648/97 dated 19.02.1997, the sample had non-permitted oil soluble synthetic pink and orange color, and had the presence of wheat starch. The sample was adulterated and the complainant filed the complaint under Sections 2(i-a)(a), 2(i-a)(b), 2(i-a)(c) and 2(i-a)(m) read with Rules 23 and 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The sample was prohibited from sale under Sections 7(1) and 7(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the accused had also committed an offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and hence, the complaint was filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Keshod, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 906 of 1997.
2.2. The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copy of the complaint and relevant papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. After the pre-charge evidence was recorded, a charge Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1274/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.62 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.63, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution examined 2 witnesses and has produced 34 documentary evidences in support of the case.
2.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP Exh.69, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has acquitted the accused for the aforesaid offences.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record. The learned Trial Court has has not properly appreciated the oral as well as Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1274/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined documentary evidence on record it its true spirit and has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence in the form of report of Public Analyst and also the evidence of the complainant which clearly connects the accused with the crime and the offences registered against him. The learned Trial Court has erred in holding that the sanction given seems to be given without any application of mind and without appreciating the papers on record and therefore, it cannot be valid and legal as per Section 20 of the Act and hence, the accused is entitled to get the benefit. The learned Trial Court has also erred in screening the set of documentary evidence which gets corroboration with the evidence of the complainant. The learned Trial Court has erred in appreciating the fact that the offence under the Act is directly connected with health of the public at large and in the present case, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant and the contents of the panchnama as both the evidence are supported from the documentary evidence. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, invalid, improper, perverse and bad in law Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1274/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant -
State and learned advocate Mr.D.K.Modi for the respondent No.1. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant - State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the case and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by Judge is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption, not permitted by law. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1274/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for the said offence. Learned APP has urged this Court to allow the present appeal and impose maximum sentence on the accused.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 :
AIR 2006 SC 831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the learned Trial Court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the learned Trial Court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the learned Trial Court". (emphasis supplied) ........ From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;] (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1274/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the learned Trial Court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court.
7. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality of perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1274/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e.
(i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the learned Trial Court has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
8. In light of the above, the evidence produced by the prosecution on record is appreciated and the prosecution has examined PW-1 Nitinjumar Jashwantlal Gandhi at Exh.23 and the Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1274/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined witness has narrated the entire procedure undertaken by him for taking the sample as per the complaint. The complainant had stated that the accused was present in the shop and he had stated that he was the owner of the shop and the complainant had identified and introduced himself as a Food Inspector. The accused had given the PFA license of Keshod Nagarpalika and the signature of the panch was taken on the same and the license is produced at Exh.26. That there was a 5kg. packing of chili powder and the accused was informed that the sample was to be taken to be sent to the Public Analyst and the 5kg. packing plastic bag, which was stitched by machine stitching, was opened and with a dry, clean steel spoon, the chili powder was mixed and 450grams chili powder was taken on a dry clean paper, weighed and an amount of Rs.18/- was paid towards cost of the same to the accused in cash. The accused gave the bill for the sale, which is produced at Exh.29. The accused had stated that he had purchased the packed chili powder from Jain Spices, Bhadrod Gate, Mahuva Bandar, District Bhavnagar, vide bill No.235 dated 26.12.1996 and the packing was kept in the same manner and the bill, by which, the chili powder was purchased, was also given to the Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1274/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined complainant, which is produced at Exh.30. On the packing of the bag, Mahavir Masala Chili Powder, in mark Standard Grade, Jain Spices, Mahuva Bandar, District Bhavnagar and an agmark slip, on which, Jain Spices net 5kg., Lot No.05 Standard Grade Manufacturer 11.12.1996, Expiry Date 10.08.1997, Turmeric powder, etc. was written. The chili powder was emptied and the packing bag was also seized and sealed, and the same is produced before the learned trial Court at Exh.31. That the chili powder was partitioned in three equal portions and three glass jars, which were dry, clear, transparent and without any smell, were taken and they were wiped and cleaned on the spot with a dry clean cloth and after verification of the same by the panch and the accused, the chili powder was placed in the jars and closed and sealed with lac seals. All the glass jars were placed in brown paper and sealed with gum and the signatures of the authorities was takne on the paper. They were tied with thread and four lac seals were placed on each bottle and the panchnama regarding the same was drawn, which is produced at Exh.33. Memorandum Form No.7 was also filled-up and the same was sent to the Public Analyst, Food and Drugs Laboratory, Vadodara for analysis. The Memorandum Form Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1274/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined No.7 is produced at Exh.34, the letter, by which, this sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Vadodara is produced at Exh.35 and the sample was sent through ST parcel and the forwarding letter is produced at Exh.36. The specimen seal impression outer cover is produced at Exhibit 37. A receipt was sent by the Local Health Authority, that it was received by them and the same is produced at Exh.39 and the seller Jain Spices, Mahuva was given a Notice of Form No.6, which is produced at Exh.40. The notice was duly served to the manufacturer and the registered post acknowledgment slip is produced at Exh.41. After the report of the Public Analyst was received, it was found that the sample had non-permitted pink and orange oil soluble synthetic color and there was the presence of wheat starch, which was not as per rules and the sample was adulterated and the information was sent to Jain Spices, Mahuva and the same is produced at Exh.47. A reply was filed sent by Jain Spices, Mahuva, which is produced at Exh.49. On perusal of the report, the offense under Sections 2(i-a)
(a), 2(i-a)(b), 2(i-a)(c) and 2(i-a)(m) read with Rules 23 and 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Sections 7(1) and 7(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was found, Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1274/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined and hence, after the sanction, which is produced at Exh.54 was received, the complaint was filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Keshod. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that at the time of taking the sample, helper N.V.Porania was with him. That near the shop of the accused, there were other shops, which were selling non-edible items also and there were a number of persons around. That he tried to get another panch witness, but he could not find any panch witnesses as they had refused, but he did not inform them that refusal to be a panch witness would constitute an offense. The sample that was taken was in a machine sealed stitched pack of 5kg. and the packing was purchased by the accused from Jain Spices, Mahuva. The bill for purchase of the same was also given by the accused and on the bag, Mahavir Masala Chili Powder, agmark Jain Spices Standard Grade was written. The sample, that was purchased from Jain Spices, was kept in the same manner by the accused and on 28.01.1997, one of the sample was sent by ST parcel to the Public Analyst. That he does not know the situation of the sample till it reached the office of the Public Analyst, Vadodara, and in the report of the Public Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1274/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined Analyst produced at Exh.46, it is not mentioned that the sample was harmful to public health. That the report at Exh.46 does not show the procedure. by which, the analysis was done and he does not remember whether the spoon, by which, the sample was made homogeneous was the one that was being used by the accused. That in the panchnama, it is not mentioned that the spoon was cleaned on the spot and the bottles, in which, the samples were taken, were not made clean and dry in a scientific manner. That the bottles, in which, the samples were filled were empty for about one inch deep and air could be filled in this empty space. The panchama was written by him in his own handwriting and as the procedure was taking place and the samples were sealed and packed by him. That the accused was not given the notice under Section 13(2) by the Local Health Authority. 8.1. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Narsinhbhai Vashrambhai at Exh.68 and the witness is the panch witness who has stated that he was called to be a panch witness on 28.01.1997 at the shop of Bhuvanbhai Gigabhai near Keshod Vegetable Market. That when he went to the shop, Bhuvanbhai Gigabhai, the Food Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1274/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined Inspector and one another person was present and Bhuvanbhai had opened one chili powder packet, measured the same and gave it to the Food Inspector, who packed it in glass bottles, sealed it and made the necessary papers and had asked him to affix his signature. He does not know what was written on the bag, from which, the chili powder was taken and he does not know whether the amount for the chili powder was paid. The witness has identified his signature on all the documents and during the cross- examination, he has stated that his shop is situated exactly opposite the shop of Bhuvanbhai. There are a number of shops surrounding the shop of Bhuvanbhai and the vegetable market is in the same area and is constantly teeming with people. The shop has also many other non-edible items and the Food Inspector did not ask him to call another panch witness. The chili powder was weighed by the accused and it was not mixed by the Food Inspector or any other person or Bhuvanbhai before weighing the same. The chili powder was taken with a steel spoon, which belonged to Bhuvanbhai and was generally being used by Bhuvanbhai to measure items. That the glass bottles were not cleaned by the Food Inspector or the other person or by Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1274/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined Bhuvanbhai in his presence and before using the spoon, no one had cleaned the same. The panchanama was not given to him to read and it was not read over and explained to him. 8.2. The prosecution has examined PW-3, Lalitkumar Lakshmi Shankar at Exh.73 and the witness has given the sanction for filing the complaint. The witness has stated that he was working as the Drugs Inspector in the Food, Drugs and Control Administration and had the additional charge of the Local Health Authority and his original post was not of the Assistant Commissioner. The post of the Assistant Commissioner and Senior Drug Inspector are different and he was having the additional charge and was the In-charge Commissioner. During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that in the documents where he has signed, the word in- charge is not mentioned.
9. On minute perusal of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it has come on record that PW-3 Lalitkumar Lakshmi Shankar was not the authorized person to grant the sanction and the sanction was not properly given by the Competent Authority Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1274/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined to grant sanction. The manner, in which, the sample was taken, is also not proper and the panch witness, who is an independent witness, has stated that the sample was measured by the accused with the same spoon, which was being generally used by him for other products. That prior to taking the sample, it was not properly mixed and the jars as well as the spoon were not cleaned by the Food Inspector or the person, who was accompanying him or the accused prior to placing the sample in them. The manner, in which, the samples were dispatched, is also not done in the proper manner and Rule 17(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 states that the two parts of the sample must be sent in a sealed packet to the Local Health Authority immediately, but not later than the succeeding working day by any suitable means, but it appears that the sample was taken on 28.01.1997 and it was sent on 31.01.1997. The learned trial Court has discussed all these aspects in the judgment and has discussed about Rules 14, 17 and 20, which were not clearly and properly followed and there was a breach of all the rules and the accused was entitled to the benefit under Section 19(2) of the Act. That in the entire evidence, it was not proved that the sample was properly taken and the sealing of Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1274/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined the sample was also not done in the proper manner, which has also been discussed by the learned Trial Court. Admittedly, the sample has been collected after a sealed bag was opened and the accused had purchased the sealed bag from the manufacturer and had given the bill, from whom, the chili powder was purchased, which is produced at Exh.30, and the bag, in which, the chili powder was packed, is also produced at Exh.31. Hence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of Section 19(2) of the Act. Moreover, the report of the Public Analyst produced at Exh.47 does not state the method, by which, the analysis was done and the sanction has not been granted by the Competent Authority.
10. In view of the above, the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1274/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
11. The impugned judgment and the order dated 04.02.2011 in Criminal Case No.906 of 1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Keshod is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned learned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) F.S.KAZI Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:24 IST 2025