Gujarat High Court
Nagarbhai Maganbhai Ravat vs State Of Gujarat on 16 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 09.07.2025
Pronounced On : 16/10/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 217 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NAGARBHAI MAGANBHAI RAVAT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KH BAXI(150) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS JYOTI BHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 16/10/2025
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The present Revision Application has been preferred by the applicant - original accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 24.03.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Appeal No.56 of 2001, whereby the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to confirm the judgment and order of conviction dated 01.09.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana in Criminal Case No. 5827 of 1995, convicting the present applicant under Sections 416 and 419 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the applicant - accused to undergo two years' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present revision application is that an FIR came to be registered at Mehsana Police Station on 08.02.1995 by one Laxmanbhai Mohanbhai Panchal for offences punishable under Sections 416 and 419 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code against accused No.1 - Nagarbhai Maganbhai Ravat. The present applicant - accused No.1 along with accused No. 2 - Jagdishbhai Parmar were named in the said FIR, which was registered as C.R.No.I-48 of 1995. Thereafter, the Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined investigation was carried out and after the investigation was completed, a charge-sheet was filed before the learned Magistrate, which was numbered as Criminal Case No.5827 of 1995.
3. In the nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that accused No. 1 - Nagarbhai Maganbhai Ravat, who was serving as a Class-IV employee with the Union Postal Department, had applied for the post of Postman, for which a competitive examination was held on 10.04.1994 at T.J. High School, Mehsana City, conducted by the Post and Telegraph Department. Further, as per the case of the prosecution, accused No. 1 - Nagarbhai Maganbhai Ravat was one of the candidates, who was required to appear in the said written test for the post of Postman, and his candidature was duly recognized and confirmed by the Department. Accordingly, he was allotted Roll No.147 for the examination and permission to appear in the written test was granted and a Hall Ticket was issued in his favour by the Department.
Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
4. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that though the written test came to be conducted on 10.04.1994 and accused No.1 was supposed to appear therein, accused Nos. 1 and 2 - Mr. Nagarbhai Maganbhai Ravat and Mr. Jagdishbhai Parmar - entered into a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, accused No. 1 persuaded accused No. 2 to appear in the written test in his place, impersonating accused No.1. Accused No.2, in order to achieve the unlawful object, appeared in the said examination and wrote the answer-sheets as if they were written by accused No. 1.
5. As per the case of the prosecution, before the result of the said examination could be declared, one P.W. 2 - Jashvantbhai Ratilal Naik - Exh.24 submitted an application to the Post and Telegraph Department, disclosing the prosecution version and alleging that accused No.1 had not appeared in the written test held on 10.04.1994 and that, accused No. 2 had appeared on his Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined behalf and succeeded in the said examination. Subsequently, the Department conducted an inquiry against accused No.1 and found that there was some substance in the allegations made in the said application of Jashvantbhai Ratilal Naik. Thereafter, the FIR came to be lodged on 08.02.1995 at the instance of P.W.1 - Laxmanbhai Mohanbhai Panchal - Exh. 12, who was discharging his duties as Assistant Superintendent of Post and Telegraph Department of Mehsana Division.
6. Further, the investigation was carried out and the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet against both the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 416 and 419 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, to prove its case, the prosecution has examined, in all, 12 witnesses and also relied upon various documentary evidences. After the prosecution closed its evidence, the statements of both the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
7. Thereafter, upon hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties, the learned trial Court was pleased to convict both the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 416 and 419 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo two years' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month, vide judgment dated 01.09.2001.
8. Against the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court, both the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2001 before the Sessions Court, Mehsana, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 24.03.2005, confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, the present revision application has been preferred by the original Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined accused No. 1.
9. Heard learned advocate Mr.K.H. Baxi for the applicant
- original accused. Learned advocate Mr.Baxi has already placed on record the written submissions and has submitted that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse and contrary to the settled principles of law and, therefore, require to be quashed and set aside. Further, it is submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record. It is further submitted that the FIR came to be lodged on 08.02.1995, after a delay of about seven months, which has not been properly explained by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged at the instance of one Mr.Jashvantbhai Ratilal Naik, with whom, the applicant had strained relations. It is further submitted that the examination was conducted on 10.04.1994, but on 09.04.1994, the present applicant - accused No. 1 had informed the Department that his hall ticket had been lost and that he was unable to appear in the Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined examination. The said intimation was communicated by U.P.C. and the same was produced in his further statement. It is further submitted that no evidence has been produced before the Court to establish any connection between the present applicant and co-accused - Jagdishbhai Parmar and no nexus has been proved from which, it could be inferred that there was any meeting of minds between them for the alleged offence. Therefore, the presumption drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act is unsustainable. The learned appellate Court, in paragraph No.18 of the judgment, has recorded the findings based on such presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, which, according to the learned advocate, is not tenable in law. Further, it is submitted that the candidate, holding Hall Ticket No.146 and was examined at Exh. 21, has deposed that he did not know Jagdishbhai Parmar and also stated that he did not know, who was sitting near him during the examination. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court on page No.10 is erroneous. It is further submitted that the original accused No.2 has expired. It also Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined submitted that at the time when the FIR came to be lodged, the age of accused No.1 was about 39-40 years and at present, he is around 59-60 years old. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present revision application deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction is required to be set aside.
10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. Ms.Jyoti Bhatt for the respondent - State has vehemently opposed the present revision application and submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by both the learned Courts below, after properly appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record. It is further submitted that no case has been made out by the applicant to show that any illegality or perversity has been committed by the Courts below. Hence, no interference is warranted by this Court and the present revision application is required to be rejected.
11. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Perused the impugned judgments passed by the learned Magistrate Court and the learned Sessions Court.
12. So far as the proceedings under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are concerned, the Court is vested with the power to call for and examine the record of any inferior Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order recorded as to the regularity of any proceedings of such Court. The object of this provision is to correct any patent defect, error of jurisdiction, or perversity which may have crept into the proceedings.
13. However, the High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, acts in a supervisory capacity of a restricted nature. It cannot reappreciate the evidence as if it were a second appellate Court for the purpose of determining whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge are Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined correct or not. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 452, wherein it is observed as under:
"5. Having examined the impugned Judgement of the High Court and bearing in mind the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that in the case in hand, the High Court has exceeded its revisional jurisdiction, In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re- appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinizing the impugned Judgement of the High Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by re-appreciating the oral evidence. The High Court also committed further error in not examining several items of evidence relied upon by the Additional Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction of the respondent. In this view of the matter the impugned Judgement of the High Court is wholly unsustainable in law and we, accordingly set aside the same. The conviction and sentence of the respondent as passed by the Magistrate and affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal is confirmed. This appeal is allowed. Bail bonds furnished stand cancelled. The respondent must surrender to serve the sentence."
14. In the case of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Malkeet Singh Gill Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 204, the Apex Court has observed as under:
"10. Before adverting to the merits of the Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined contentions, at the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two courts after detalled appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short "CrPC") vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such Inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings."
15. In light of the aforesaid proposition of law, the facts and circumstances of the present case are required to be examined.
Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
16. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that the present applicant, who was serving in the Postal Department, was to appear in the written test conducted by the Department for the post of Post-man on 10.04.1994, which was held at T.J. High School, Mehsana. The present applicant - accused No. 1 had sought permission from the Department to appear in the said examination and a hall ticket was also issued in his favour, bearing Roll No.147.
17. So far as the case of the prosecution is concerned, the prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses. Complainant
- Laxmanbhai Mohanbhai Panchal, was examined at Exh.12 as P.W. 1. At the relevant time, he was serving as Assistant Superintendent, Post and Telegraph Department, Mehsana Division. From his deposition, it emerges that on 10.04.1994, the departmental written test was conducted at T.J. High School, Mehsana and in that examination, accused No. 1 was to appear, as the hall ticket was issued in his name. However, in place of accused No. 1, accused No. 2 appeared in the examination. Subsequently, the Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Department granted permission on the application being made, which has been produced at Exh.17 and an FIR came to be lodged against both the accused persons on that basis. The said witness was cross-examined by the learned advocate for the applicant, but no material or beneficial emerged from the said cross-examination.
18. Further, the entire evidence produced before the learned trial Court has been carefully considered by this Court, and it emerges from the evidence that accused No. 1
- Nagarbhai Maganbhai Ravat, who was a candidate to appear in the examination, scheduled to be held on 10.04.1994, was allotted Roll No. 147. It is also established from the record that on 10.04.1994, accused No. 1 - Nagarbhai Maganbhai Ravat had not appeared in the written test, and it is an admitted position that in his place, accused No. 2 appeared in the examination, and the answer-sheet pertaining to Roll No.147 was written by accused No. 2.
Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
19. Further, from the evidence of P.W. 10 - Ishwarbhai Chaturbhai Patel at Exh. 51 and P.W. 7 - Amthabhai Motibhai at Exh. 46, it emerges that the candidate bearing Roll No. 147 had appeared in the examination and written the answer-sheet. Both these witnesses, P.W. 10 and P.W. 7, were discharging their duties as Supervisors or Invigilators during the written test. From their deposition, and from the record relied upon by them, it clearly appears that one person had appeared and given the written test for Roll No. 147.
20. Thus, from the overall evidence and even from the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is prima facie established that the defence of accused No.1 is that he had not appeared in the written test on 10.04.1994, as his hall ticket had been lost, and therefore, he had communicated about the loss of his hall ticket to the Department by sending a letter through U.P.C. (Under Postal Certificate). However, it emerges from the other evidence on record that somebody did appear in Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined the examination using Roll No. 147, which was allotted to accused No. 1.
21. So, considering the evaluation and appreciation of the evidence of P.W. 3 - Revabhai Shankarbhai at Exh. 25, P.W. 10 - Ishwarbhai Chaturbhai Patel at Exh. 51 and P.W. 7 - Amthabhai Motibhai at Exh. 46, it is established that accused No. 1 had not appeared in the examination. However, in place of accused No. 1, somebody else appeared and wrote the examination under Roll No. 147. It is also not in dispute that, as per the hall ticket, Roll No.147 was allotted to accused No. 1.
22. Further, before the learned trial Court, the prosecution has produced the answer-sheet which, as per its case, was written by accused No. 2. For this purpose, the prosecution examined P.W. 11 - Pratapbhai Ketaniyabhai Vasava at Exh. 52, who happens to be the handwriting expert and has sufficient experience in examining questioned documents. The said witness examined the answer-sheet belonging to Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Roll No.147. Upon scientific examination of the said questioned document, P.W. 11 - Pratapbhai Ketaniyabhai Vasava arrived at the conclusion that the answer-sheet pertaining to Roll No. 147, which was written by accused No. 2 and also pointed out certain peculiarities and similarities in the handwriting, which matched with that of accused No. 2.
23. However, no witness has directly stated that accused No.2 had actually appeared in the examination under Roll No.147. Nevertheless, accused No.1 made a confession or admission before witness Mr.Jashvantbhai Ratilal Naik that he had managed to get a dummy candidate to appear and write the examination in his place. This conversation took place prior to the registration of the FIR.
24. From the evidence, it is also established through the report of the handwriting expert that the signature of accused No. 1 - Mr. Ravat, appearing on the examination form, did not match with the signature obtained when he Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined appeared before the authority. Thus, it is established that accused No. 1 had not appeared in the examination, and the handwriting on the answer sheet of Roll No.147 matched with that of accused No. 2. Therefore, it stands proved that accused No. 2 had appeared in place of accused No. 1.
25. In this regard, it is required to consider the findings recorded by both the Courts. From the findings recorded by both the Courts, the following facts have been established by the prosecution and duly recorded by both the Courts:
i. That, accused No. 1 had not appeared in the examination.
ii. That, someone else had appeared and written the answer-sheets belonging to Roll No.147, which was allotted to accused No. 1.
iii. That, accused No.2 had written the answer-sheet pertaining to Roll No.147, which was allotted to accused No. 1.
26. In this regard, the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court show that when the aforesaid facts were Page 19 of 21 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act was rightly drawn that it was accused No.2, who appeared on behalf of accused No.1 and wrote the answer-sheet pertaining to Roll No. 147.
27. Considering the above, the findings recorded by both the Courts below are just and proper. The prosecution has proved its case against the present applicant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I do not find that any illegality committed by either of the Courts below. The findings recorded by both the Courts are based on the evidence produced by the prosecution and no perversity or illegality is found therein. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Application No. 217 of 2005, being devoid of merits, is hereby rejected.
28. The judgment and order dated 01.09.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana in Criminal Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/217/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Case No. 5827 of 1995, convicting the present applicant under Sections 416 and 419 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the applicant - accused to undergo two years' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month and the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2001, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana, dated 24.03.2005 are hereby confirmed.
29. The period of sentence already undergone, if any, shall be given set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant is granted four weeks' time from today to surrender before the concerned Court for serving the sentence.
30. Rule is discharged.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J) Hitesh Page 21 of 21 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:08 IST 2025