Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Patel Ramanbhai Becharbhai on 24 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2129 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PATEL RAMANBHAI BECHARBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AMIT M BAROT(5868) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 24/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity), Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Electricity Case No. 13/2009 on 15.09.2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined punishable under Sections 332, 504 and 506(2) of IPC. 1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as "the accused" as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1 The accused - Ramanbhai Becharbhai Patel residing at Bhanpur, Taluka, Vijayapur, District Mehsana was a consumer of electricity of UGVCL and was given consumer no. 21703/0021/8. On 24.01.2008, Junior Engineer -
Ashwinkumar Roopsinh Solanki, Junior Engineer - Meethabhai R. Patel, Lineman - Maganbhai G. Katara, Helper - Jayeshbhai V. Pandya and Helper Prakashbhai I. Patel had gone to village Bhanpur for checking electricity connections and they had gone to the house of the accused. On checking the electricity connection, they found that even though the accused was a consumer of electricity, he had bypassed the meter by joining a black colour wire directly from the electricity pole and was consuming electricity. That as the team members had conducted the checking, the Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined accused started abusing them and threatened to kill them and tried to lock them in the house and obstructed the public servants from discharging their duty. The complaint was filed by the complainant - Ramanbhai Joytabhai Patel at Vijapur Police Station which was registered as Vijapur Police Station I - C.R. No. 24 of 2008 under Sections 332, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC and Section 39(2) of the Indian Electricity Act.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge- sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vijapur and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Special Court, Mehsana as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Electricity Case No. 13/2009.
2.3 The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 4 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 5 wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution produced ten oral evidences and ten documentary evidence to bring home the charge against the accused. After the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on his behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against him. After the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit the accused from the charges levelled against him.
Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favor of the respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondent and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Amit Barot for the respondent. Perused the impugned judgement and order of Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the complainant has fully supported the facts of his complaint. The impugned judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the respondent guilty for the offences.
5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Amit Barot has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in proper perspective and no interference is required in the impugned judgement and order.
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 regarding the scope of interference in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under: Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313, 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 trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the 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 trial court".
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;
(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 Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined 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 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 trial court.
7. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
8. In light of the above settled principle of law, the evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the prosecution has examined PW1 - Ramanbhai Joytabhai Patel at Exh. 15 and the witness is the complainant who has supported the contents of the complaint. The complainant has stated that after checking the electricity connection, Checking Sheet No. 0298 dated 24.01.2008 was prepared and it was signed by all connected persons and the Rojkaam was also prepared. The muddamaal was Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined seized and the complaint is produced at Exh. 16. The bill of theft of Rs. 18,393.41/- was given to the accused - Becharbhai Ramdas Patel and the bill was paid and they had also filed a case under the Electricity Act for theft of electricity at the Sabarmati Police Station. The muddamaal was kept in his custody. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he does not have any personal knowledge about the incident and he had given the complaint on the basis of the information given by his subordinates. The information was given on the same day at around 08.30 and he did not visit the place of incident before giving the complaint. The electricity connection was in the name of Becharbhai Ramdas who has expired and he did not inquire how many sons Becharbhai Ramdas had and the case of theft of electricity was compromised.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Ashwinkumar Roopsinh Solanki at Exh. 17 and the witness was working as a Junior Engineer in UGVCL on the date of the incident. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined during the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he has not produced any evidence to show that he had the right to check the electricity connection. The Deputy Engineer would be the main authority of the Subdivision and at that time R.J. Patel was the Deputy Engineer. The Superior Officer had intimation to go for electricity checking and they had gone in a contract vehicle for the checking. They are given identity cards by the electricity company which have to be worn and in the statement before the police, they did not mention that the identity cards were worn in such a manner that they could be seen. The Superior Officer did not tell them to put on the identity cards in such a manner that it could be seen and at the time of the checking, it was the month of January and it was cold and all of them had worn sweaters. He does not remember the number of the vehicle or the name of the driver who had gone along with them and when they went for electricity checking, they did not disclose their identity to the person at whose place they had gone for checking. They had gone and halted the Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined vehicle at the house of Ramanbhai Becharbhai and there are a number of houses surrounding the place. There is a 10 to 12 feet wide road between both the houses and they had taken information about the owner of the house. The accused and his family members were present but he does not know the exact number of persons that were present. They did not collect any documentary evidence regarding the ownership of the house and all the necessary procedure was done at the spot. That in the statement before the police, he did not state that the accused had threatened to lock them in the house and had created an atmosphere that would create a sense of insecurity and that the accused had threatened to remove the air from the vehicle. 8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Ramanbhai Mohanbhai Patel at Exh. 21 and PW4 - Shivabai Revabai Patel at Exh. 22. Both the witnesses are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 33. Both the witnesses have merely stated that the police had called them and had asked them to affix their signature but they did not read the panchnama and Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined nobody had showed them the place of offence. The witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and have been cross- examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. 8.3 The prosecution has examined PW5 - Mithabhai Ramanlal Patel at Exh. 23 and the witness was a member of the checking team on the date of the incident. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that about 25 to 30 persons had gathered there and the atmosphere became tense and they immediately left the place and came to Vijapur. When they had gone to the place of checking, the person in whose name the electricity connection was existing, was not present and they did not inquire as to who had the actual physical possession of the house. The accused had told them that he does not know them and they had filled up the Checking Sheet at the place and had done the rojakam at the office.
Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined 8.4 The prosecution has examined PW6 - Maganbhai Galjibhai Katara at Exh. 28 and the witness was the Lineman of UGVCL on the date of the incident and was a member of the checking team that had gone to the house of the accused. The witness has stated that they had checked the whole village and the Checking Sheet was filled up by his Superior Officer and signed; and thereafter they came to the office and did the other procedure. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined by the learned advocate for the accused. The witness has stated that when they had gone for checking they did not verify as to in whose name the electricity connection was existing and his officers did not verify whether the house belonged to the accused. His Superior Officers had told the accused to affix his signature and they had disconnected the meter connection and taken the same. There were a number of persons residing besides the place where they had gone for checking and the accused did not affix his signature and hence, they went and informed their Superior Officer - R.J. Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined Patel about the same and R.J. Patel told them that as the accused had refused to affix his signature, they were to file a complaint against him. The complaint in the name of Ashwinbhai was prepared at the office and they were all instructed to give their statements to the police as per the complaint. That he had stated the correct facts in his examination in chief.
8.5 The prosecution has examined PW7 - Prakashbhai Ishwarbhai Patel at Exh. 29 and the witness was working as the Helper in UGVCL on the date of the incident. The witness has stated that on 24.01.2008 they had gone for checking along with the other members of the team and the accused had signed the Checking Sheet and the Rojkaam and they had gone to the office thereafter. During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that five of them had gone from the office in the vehicle of the GEB and on the day of checking they had conducted the checking at four places. Their leader was Ashwinbhai Solanki and M.R. Patel and the house where they had checked was a veranda and two Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined rooms. He does not know how many points and how many plugs were there in the house and four to five persons were present in the house at that time. They had parked the vehicle on the road and the checking was done in the veranda. He does not know whether they had completed the procedure and the place was in a residential area and there were a number of residences surrounding the place and a huge crowd had gathered at the time of the checking. The accused had refused to sign the Checking Sheet and his Superior Officer had told the accused that he had committed a theft of electricity and to sign the paper or they would disconnect his electricity connection. That after they came to the office it was decided to file the complaint. 8.6 The prosecution has examined PW8 - Jayeshkumar Bachubhai Pandya at Exh. 30 and the witness was working as a Helper in UGVCL and has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that a number of persons had gathered at the place while they were conducting the checking and they did not verify as to Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined in whose name the electricity connection was existing. They did not verify about the owner or possessor of the house and after the entire procedure was concluded, the Checking Sheet was remaining to be signed. The accused had refused to sign the Checking Sheet and they had all returned to the office and met R.J. Patel who told them to file the case. They all went to the Police Station and gave the complaint and they were told to give their statements as per the complaint.
8.7 The prosecution has examined PW9 - Laxmanbhai Nemaji at Exh. 31 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation of the offence. During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the complaint was given with an outward number from the office of the complainant and there were allegations that the accused had deterred the public servant from discharging their duty. He had only received the complaint at about 11.30 and the incident had occurred between 07.00 to 07.15 hours. He had gone to the Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined place of incident and prepared the panchnama but he did not investigate as to in whose name was the electricity connection and who was the owner of the house. He had recorded the statement of Kachrabhai Becharbhai - the elder brother of the accused but he did not state in whose name was the electricity connection and who was in possession of the house. When he had gone to the place of incident, two ladies were present but he did not record their statements and he did not mention in the staion diary that they had refused to give their statements. No evidence regarding the ownership or possession of the house was collected by him during investigation and he did not inquire the same from the surrounding neighbours. He did not inquire as to why the accused had refused to sign the Checking Sheet and besides the employees of the GEB, no other independent witnesses had supported the case of the complainant. During investigation, it was also found that the vehicle by which the employees had gone for raid was a vehicle which was taken on contract but he did not record the statement of the driver of the vehicle. Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined 8.8 The prosecution has examined PW10 - Rameshbhai Bhalabhai at Exh. 36 and the witness was working as an ASI at the Vijapur Police Station when he had received the written complaint of Deputy Engineer - A. R. Patel of Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited and he had registered the complaint at Vijapur Police Station I - C.R. No. 24 of 2008.
9. On minute examination of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the evidence that has emerged on record is that the complainant was not present at the place of checking and was not an eyewitness to the incident. The incident has occurred on 24.01.2008 and in the entire evidence, there is no iota of evidence that the house that was checked by the checking members of the UGVCL belonged to the accused. As per the say of the complainant, the electricity case was compounded and all the witnesses have stated that at the time of the checking, which was in a residential area and there were many residences surrounding the place of checking and a number of persons had gathered at that place but there are no independent witnesses examined by the prosecution. Moreover, all the Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined team members, as per the rules, were to have their identity cards in such a manner that their identity would be known but they did not have the identity cards and as it was winter, they all were wearing sweater. In the evidence, it has also emerged that the accused asked them who they were and PW6 - Maganbhai Galjibhai Katara has categorically stated that as the accused did not sign the Checking Sheet, they returned to the office and told their Superior Officer that the accused had refused to sign the Checking Sheet and hence, the complaint was filed and they all were instructed to record their statements as per the complaint. Moreover, in the evidence of the Investigating Officer, it has also emerged that two ladies were in the house but their statements have not been recorded during investigation and it has also emerged on record that the jeep by which the team members for checking had gone was a jeep that was on contract basis with the UGVCL but the jeep driver who was an independent witness has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. Moreover, the witnesses have stated Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined that the muddamaal was seized but no muddamaal has been produced before the learned Trial Court and there is no iota of evidence that the place where the checking was conducted belonged to the accused.
10. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Chandrappa (supra), 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 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 Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity), Mehsana in Special Electricity Case No. 13/2009 on 15.09.2010, is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 22 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025