Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ratubha Bechubha Parmar on 29 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 16/04/2026
Pronounced On : 29/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 219 of 2016
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RATUBHA BECHUBHA PARMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. DEVENDRA G RANA(6997) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.10.2015, passed by the learned Special Judge and 3 rd Additional Session Judge, Jamnagar in Special (GEB) Case No.506/2014, for the offences punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the lower Court is that the case pertains to an inspection conducted on 25.04.2012 at Digvijay Plot, Jamnagar by Mr. A.J. Dave, Deputy Engineer, along with his team. During the inspection, it was found that the respondent, Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined owner of Raviraj Electronic and Atul Auto, had committed theft of electricity by tampering with the M.M.B. seal and bypassing the meter using a wire. It was alleged that the respondent had illegally consumed electricity amounting to 3.5385 kilowatt. Consequently, a supplementary bill of Rs. 1,54,263.18 was issued by the electricity company, which remained unpaid and therefore, the complaint was filed against the respondent-accused.
3. After usual investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Special Court, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Special Court where it came to be registered as Special (GEB) Case No.506 of 2014. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and also produced 7 oral evidence and 17 documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment as under: Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined Oral Evidences Exh.
No. Name of Witness Role
No.
Amrutlal Amarshibhai
1 Complainant 7
Chhatrola
Panch Witness (Independent
2 Soyab Kadarbhai Makwana 14
Witness)
Sahdevsinh Pravinsinh Panch Witness (Independent
3 16
Chauhan Witness)
Ashokkumar Jerambhai
4 Witness 18
Dave
Kamlesh Kishorchandra
5 P.S.O. (Police Station Officer) 23
Raval
Rameshbhai Vashrambhai
6 Witness 27
Rathod
7 Bhimsinh Udesinh Jadeja Investigating Officer 28
Documentary Evidences
Type of
No. Description of Document Exh. No.
Copy
1 Calculation Sheet True Copy 8
2 Supplementary Bill issued to the Accused True Copy 9
3 Notice issued to the Accused True Copy 10
4 Letter seeking permission to file a complaint True Copy 11
5 Approval Letter True Copy 12
6 Original Complaint of the Complainant Original 13
Original Panchnama of the scene of electricity 7 Original 15 theft 8 Inspection Report True Copy 19 True copy of the Site Rojkam (Daily 9 True Copy 20 proceedings/log) 10 True copy of Annexure-4 True Copy 21 Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined Type of No. Description of Document Exh. No. Copy 11 Entry from Station Diary (Page No. 64) True Copy 24 Outward letter by P.S.O. handing over case 12 Original 25 papers to Head Constable Shri Jadeja 13 Copy of F.I.R. (First Information Report) Copy 26 Muddamal Rojkam (Property/Evidence log) by 14 Original 29 I.O.15 Voter ID Card of the Accused Photocopy 30
16 Ration Card of the Accused Photocopy 31
Property Tax bill from Jamnagar Municipal 17 Photocopy 32 Corporation
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which they were charged, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Learned APP for the appellant - State has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the evidence produced on record is reliable and believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence in question. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.
7. As against that, learned advocate for the respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court.
Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined
8. I have heard the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and also gone through the oral and documentary evidence, independently and dispassionately, and considering the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with the Court:
8.1. As per the complaint produced at Exhibit-13, on 25-04-2012, the Deputy Engineer of Rajkot City Division No. 2, A.J. Dave, along with Lineman R.V. Rathod, carried out an inspection at the premises of Raviraj Electronics and Atul Auto situated at Digvijay Plot, Jamnagar. During the inspection, it was found that despite being registered consumers of the electricity company for commercial purposes, the accused had tampered with the MMB seal and directly connected the phase to the board. Further, by using yellow-
coloured twin-core wires, a direct connection was given to the switch in the shop, thereby preventing the meter from recording consumption. In this manner, the accused was found to have dishonestly abstracted electrical energy by connecting a load of 3.585 kilowatts. On the basis of the said inspection, the Deputy Engineer of the Industrial Sub- Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined Division, Jamnagar, prepared a supplementary bill for theft of electricity amounting to Rs. 1,54,263.18/-, and forwarded the same to the accused. As the said amount remained unpaid, the Deputy Engineer, Amrutlal Amarsibhai Chhatrola, lodged a complaint before the Police Station on 01-02-2013 on behalf of the Electricity Board.
8.2. P.W-1, Amrutlal Amarsibhai Chhatrola, in his deposition at Exhibit-7, had stated that on 25-04-2012, he was present on duty near the place of office and at that time, Deputy Engineer A.J. Dave, Lineman Rathod and other staff members were carrying out checking. During the course of checking at the shop of Ratubha Parmar, it was found that the consumer had taken direct power supply from the main service line. Pursuant to the said checking, the meter and service wire were seized from the premises of the consumer. The checking officer prepared the site rojkam and filled in the checking sheet at the spot and also prepared a seizure memo of the articles seized. Thereafter, for the purpose of assessment, a supplementary bill for theft of electricity was issued to the consumer. The witness has identified his signature and seal on the true copy of the said Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined electricity bill, which is produced at Exhibit-9. Further, a notice was issued to the accused by the Electricity Board for payment of the said bill, and the witness has also identified his signature on the said notice, which is produced at Exhibit-10. Despite service of the notice, the accused failed to pay the amount of the supplementary bill. Therefore, permission was sought from the Executive Engineer to initiate criminal proceedings by lodging a complaint. The witness has identified his signature and designation on the said application seeking permission, which is produced at Exhibit-11. Thereafter, sanction/permission was granted by the Executive Engineer, and the same is produced at Exhibit-12. 8.3. In the cross-examination, the said witness admitted that he had not personally visited the spot and, therefore, he is not in a position to depose about the actual condition prevailing at the site. He has further admitted that the rojkam of site was not prepared in his presence. It is also admitted that the police did not record his statement. The witness has further admitted that no muddammal was forwarded along with the complaint and that no panchnama regarding seizure of the muddammal was prepared by him. Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined He has also admitted that no documentary evidence regarding the ownership or possession of the premises where the checking was carried out has been produced along with the complaint. Thus, as the complainant had not visited the place of incident, he cannot have any personal knowledge of the condition at the site. It is further evident that the complaint came to be filed after a delay of about nine months from the date of the incident, and no explanation for such delay has been provided either in the complaint or in the deposition of the said witness. Moreover, no documentary evidence has been produced to establish that the shop in question was in possession of the accused at the time of the alleged raid. 8.4. P.W-4 Ashok Kumar Dave (Exh-18) has deposed that on 25-04-2012, while carrying out checking at Digvijay Plot, Jamnagar along with Lineman R.V. Rathod, he inspected the shop of consumer Ratubha V. Parmar (Raviraj Electronics). During inspection, the plastic seal of the meter box was found tampered. On further checking, it was noticed that the main service phase and neutral wires were cut and a yellow twin-core wire was connected, thereby bypassing the meter and supplying electricity directly to three shops, Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined preventing recording of consumption. An unauthorized load of 3.585 KW was found connected. The checking sheet and site rojkam were prepared in presence of the consumer's representative, Narendrasinh and the tampered meter and wire were seized and sealed.
8.5. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that no prior permission for checking was obtained from higher authority and that the muddammal was not seized in presence of panch witnesses. He further admitted that no statements from neighbouring witnesses were recorded and no documentary evidence regarding ownership or possession of the premises by the accused was collected. The witness also admitted that no proof of his appointment/authorization by the Government was produced. He stated that he cannot confirm that the premises belonged to the accused. 8.6. P.W-6 Rameshbhai Rathod (Exh-27), in his examination-in-chief, has deposed that on 25-04-2012, while serving in the I.C. Squad, he carried out checking at the shop of Ratuba in Panakhan Udyognagar, Ward No. 49, and found theft of electricity. He identified his signature as well as that of Narendra on the checking report (Exh-19) and the Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined site rojkam (Exh-20). In cross-examination, the witness stated that he does not clearly remember whether any independent persons, apart from the checking staff, were present at the time of checking. Though he stated that a panchnama of seizure was prepared and photographs were taken at the site, no such panchnama or photographs have been produced by the prosecution. It is further admitted that the checking report does not mention the time of commencement or completion of checking, no statements of neighbouring witnesses were recorded, and no documentary proof regarding ownership of the premises was collected. 8.7. Panch witness Soyab Makwana (P.W-2, Exh-14) and Panch witness Sahadevsingh Chauhan (P.W-3, Exh-16) were examined on oath in respect of the panchnama of the place of offence produced at Exhibit 15. Both the panch witnesses have not supported the contents of the said panchnama. Hence, they were declared hostile. 8.8 P.W-5, P.S.O. Kamlesh Kishorchandra Rawal (Exh-
23), deposed that on 02-03-2013, while he was on duty at Rajkot GEB Police Station, a written complaint was received from the Engineer of GIDC Sub-Division, Jamnagar. He Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined registered the complaint, made an entry in the station diary, and forwarded the papers of the offence for investigation to Head Constable B.U. Jadeja. He has identified his signature on the relevant documents produced at Exhibit-25. In cross- examination, the witness stated that except registering the complaint, he had not carried out any further investigation. Thus, his role is limited to registration of the offence and forwarding it for investigation.
8.9. P.W.7 B.U. Jadeja (Exh-28), the Investigating Officer, has deposed that after registration of the offence, P.S.O. K.K. Rawal entrusted him case papers for further investigation. He recorded statements of witnesses, carried out rojkam at the office of the Deputy Engineer, and prepared the panchnama of the place of offence (Exh-15), identifying his signature as well as those of the panchas. He has also produced documents of the accused, namely election card, ration card, and property tax receipts (Exh's-30, 31, 32). In cross-examination, the witness admitted that no independent witnesses were examined and that he was not present at the time of checking; hence, he has no personal knowledge of the actual condition at the spot. He further admitted that no detailed statement of the complainant was recorded. It is Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined evident that the investigation is mainly based on documents and actions carried out by the checking staff. Though he prepared the panchnama of the place of offence, both panch witnesses have not supported the same; therefore, the said panchnama cannot be said to be duly proved. Moreover, no statements of independent persons residing near the place of incident were recorded during investigation. 8.10. Upon appreciation of the evidence of all the witnesses, it appears that the complaint has been filed after a delay of about nine months, for which no satisfactory explanation has been given by the complainant. The Investigating Officer, B.U. Jadeja, has carried out rojkam during the course of investigation, which is produced at Exhibit-29. However, on perusal of the said rojkam, it is evident that no signatures of panch witnesses are found on it, thereby affecting its evidentiary value. 8.11. The complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish that the shops where the raid was conducted were in possession of the accused. Neither the investigation report nor the site rojkam discloses any details regarding the ownership of the premises where Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined the alleged theft of electricity was taking place. Though the Investigating Officer has produced property tax receipts in the name of the accused (Exh-32), the same do not establish that the premises mentioned therein are the very same premises where the alleged theft occurred, as no such correlation is reflected in the checking report (Exh-19) or the site rojkam (Exh-20). Hence, the Trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged place of theft belonged to or was in possession of the accused, and that the present respondents are accused of the offences under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act.
9. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order.
10. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined connecting the accused with the incident and there are contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive of the accused behind the incident is not established. The trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.
11. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:
"... This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."
12. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.
13. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as under:
"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal."
14. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined taken a different view.
15. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the 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 Criminal Procedure Code, 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 Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined 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 emphasise 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 is 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.
Page 19 of 21 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined (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."
16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
17. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents - accused for the elaborate reasons stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the acquittal.
18. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Criminal Appeal fails to prove its case and the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined accordingly. Record & Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) ADITYA SINGH Page 21 of 21 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:58 IST 2026