Kerala High Court
Saji V John vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2025
2025:KER:53940
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 10650 OF 2024
CRIME NO.712/2004 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
CC NO.70 OF 2016 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE
(VIGILANCE), KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
SAJI V JOHN
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.JOHN, VETTUVAZHIYIL HOUSE, ANGADIPURAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM - 679 321., FORMER TEACHER, FATHIMA U.P.
SCHOOL, PARIYAPURAM
BY ADVS.
SHRI.NIRMAL.S
SMT.VEENA HARI
SMT.KEERTHY JOHNSON
SHRI.ABDUL SAHAD M.H.
SMT.MINTU JOSE
SMT.GINI GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, MALAPPURAM.,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI RAJESH.A.,VACB
SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.S., VACB
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.7.2025 ALONG WITH Crl.MC.10620/2024, THE COURT ON 21.07.2025
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:53940
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 10620 OF 2024
CRIME NO.712/2004 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
CC NO.71 OF 2016 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL
JUDGE (VIGILANCE), KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
SAJI.V.JOHN
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.JOHN, VETTUVAZHIYIL HOUSE, ANGADIPURAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM - 679 321., FORMER TEACHER, FATHIMA U.P.
SCHOOL, PARIYAPURAM
BY ADVS.
SHRI.NIRMAL.S
SMT.VEENA HARI
SMT.KEERTHY JOHNSON
SHRI.ABDUL SAHAD M.H.
SMT.MINTU JOSE
SMT.GINI GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS AND STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, MALAPPURAM.,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI RAJESH.A.,VACB
SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.S., VACB
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.7.2025 ALONG WITH Crl.MC.10650/2024, THE COURT ON 21.07.2025
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 &
10620 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:53940
CR
COMMON ORDER
Dated this the 21th day of July, 2025 Crl.M.C.No.10650/2024 has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the petitioner is the 2nd accused, Sri.Saji.V.John in C.C.No.70/2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode. The prayers are as under:
1. Quash the Final Report 1/15 dated 23/01/2015 on FIR VC 8/2005/MPM dated 18/08/2005 and all further proceedings, which is now pending as CC 70/2016 before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge Kozhikode and all further proceedings pursuant it.
2. To set aside the order dated 13-09-2021 in CMP.150/2021 in C.C.70/2016 and C.C.71/2016.
2. The same petitioner, Sri.Saji.V.John, who is arrayed as CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 & 10620 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:53940 the 2nd accused in C.C.No.71/2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode, has filed Crl.M.C.No.10620/2024 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the following prayers:
1. Quash the Final Report 2/15 dated 23/01/2015 on FIR VC 8/2005/MPM dated 18/08/2005 and all further proceedings, which is now pending as CC 71/2016 before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge Kozhikode and all further proceedings pursuant it.
2. To set aside the order dated 13-09-2021 in CMP.150/2021 in C.C.70/2016 and C.C.71/2016.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. I shall refer the parties in these Crl.M.C.s as 'prosecution' and 'accused' hereinafter, for easy reference.
5. In C.C.No.70/2016, the prosecution alleges commission CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 & 10620 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:53940 of offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act, 1988' hereinafter) as well as under Sections 403 and 409 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC' hereinafter), by the accused. The prosecution case as per the final report is as under:
The accused persons 1) Smt.Thressiamma.C.J.Age 64/15, w/o. Francis, Illimoottil (H), (PO) Pariyapuram, Via) Angadippuram, Headmistress, Fathima U.P.School, Pariyapuram (Retired) and A2) Sri. Saji.V.John, s/o. John, Age 46/15, Vettuvazhiyil (H), (PO) Vettilappara, Via) Areacode, Teacher, Panthalloor U.P.School, while working as Headmistress and teacher respectively of the Fathima U.P. School, Pariyapuram during the years 2002 to 2004 and A2 who is entrusted with the duty of Sanchayika savings fund of students and as such being the public servants abused their official position committed criminal misconduct and by dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated a total amount of Rs.17,115/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand one hundred and fifteen only) which was collected from the students as sanchayika savings CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 & 10620 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:53940 fund by making false entries in the records relating to the sanchayika fund during the period from 15.7.2002 to 14.07.2003.
6. In C.C.No.71/2016, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 as well as under Sections 403 and 409 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution case as per the final report is as under:
The accused persons 1) Smt. Thressiamma. C. J. Age 64/15, w/o.Francis, Illimoottil (H), (PO) Pariyapuram, Via) Angadippuram, Headmistress, Fathima U.P.School, Pariyapuram (Retired) and A2) Sri.Saji.V.John, s/0. John, Age 46/15 Vettuvazhiyil (H), (PO) Vettilappara, Via) Areacode, Teacher, Panthalloor U.P.School, while working as Headmistress and teacher respectively of the Fathima U.P. School, Pariyapuram during the years 2002 to 2004 and A2 who is entrusted with the duty of Sanchayika savings fund of students and as such being the public servants abused their official position committed criminal misconduct and by dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated a total amount of Rs.57,089/- (Rupees CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 & 10620 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:53940 Fifty seven thousand and eighty nine only) which was collected from the students as sanchayika savings fund by making false entries in the records relating to the sanchayika fund during the period from 15.7.2003 to 31.03.2004.
7. In fact, both these cases arose out of the same crime, where A and B charges have been filed for different periods, viz., 15.07.2002 to 14.07.2003 and 15.7.2003 to 31.03.2004. In this matter, the petitioner herein filed a petition (C.M.P.No.150/2021 in C.C.No.70/2016 and C.C.No.71/2016) before the Special Court, seeking discharge and the same was dismissed by the learned Special Judge, as per Annexure A8 order holding that the petition was filed after framing charge and therefore, the same could not be considered by the Special Court. Challenging dismissal of the discharge petition, revision petition had been filed before this Court and this Court, as per Annexure A10 order, dated 21.11.2024, dismissed the revision petition with liberty to the petitioner to CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 & 10620 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:53940 challenge the final report. Now, the petitioner challenges the final report as well as the dismissal of the discharge petition.
8. At the time of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in this matter, investigation was conducted alleging offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 418, 465, 468 and 471 r/w 34 of the IPC, when a complaint lodged before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Perinthalmanna was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Perinthalmanna police station, directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.' hereinafter) by the learned Magistrate. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, while the investigation had been going on, without any official communication or order from the superior police officers or from the court concerned, the Vigilance took over investigation and completed the investigation and as the outcome of the same, the present final report with A and B charges had been filed before the CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 & 10620 OF 2024 9 2025:KER:53940 Special Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when there is an order directing investigation by the Station House Officer of a particular police station, the investigation could not be transferred to another police station without the order of the court or that of the superior police officers. It is pointed out that in the instant case, no order of the court obtained to investigate this crime by the Vigilance and also, no superior police officers ordered investigation of this crime by the Vigilance. It is also highlighted that, in paragraph No.11 of Annexure A8 order itself, the learned Special Judge followed the ratio in the decision in Bency N.L. v. Dr.Preceline George and Others reported in [2010 (2) KLT 993] and quoted that "it is not permissible for an Investigating agency in respect of an Order under Section 156(3) is passed, to transfer the FIR to another Police Station on the premise that the offence has committed beyond its territorial jurisdiction". Relying on the said decision, the learned Special Judge found that "the CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 & 10620 OF 2024 10 2025:KER:53940 Circle Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna Police Station, who was conducting investigation based on the Order of a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. taken steps to transfer the FIR to another Investigating agency on the premise that he had no competence to investigate the case and the agency so addressed took up the investigation without an Order of the Director General of Police". Observing so, the Special Court found that there was merit in the contention of the accused in this regard, but the same could be addressed only at the trial stage. That apart, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though before the dismissal of the discharge petition charge was framed and PW1 was examined in part, all the records of the prosecution were not furnished to the accused. The learned counsel further pointed out that, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, in RE.. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 & 10620 OF 2024 11 2025:KER:53940 [(2021) 10 SCC 598], in paragraph No.11, the Apex Court held that, this Court is of the opinion that while furnishing the list of statements, documents and material objects under Sections 207/208 CrPC, the Magistrate should also ensure that a list of other materials, (such as statements, or objects/documents seized, but not relied on) should be furnished to the accused. This is to ensure that in case the accused is of the view that such materials are necessary to be produced for a proper and just trial, she or he may seek appropriate orders, under CrPC for their production during the trial, in the interests of justice. It is directed accordingly; the Draft Rules have been accordingly modified.
9. Adverting to the contentions, I have called for a report from the learned Special Judge regarding availability of any letter sent by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court to the learned Special Judge, Vigilance by transferring the FIR and connected records. In reply to the same, the learned Special Judge forwarded CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 & 10620 OF 2024 12 2025:KER:53940 copy of a letter, dated 04.03.2006, whereby, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram addressed the learned Special Judge, Vigilance Court, Kozhikode, and thereby, the FIR and connected papers in Perinthalmanna Crime No.712/2004 were transferred for favour of consideration in Vigilance Crime No.08/2005 before the Special Court. When the above letter was scrutinized by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is submitted that this letter was addressed after registration of the crime by the Vigilance and there is no order or letter of the District Police Superintendent to see that the Vigilance was directed to take over and proceed with the investigation in Crime No.712/2004 of Perinthalmanna the police station. So, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner would require an opportunity of pre-charge hearing again.
10. Opposing these contentions, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that, in this case, the petitioner, who CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 & 10620 OF 2024 13 2025:KER:53940 accepted documents form part of the final report on his appearance before the Special Court, did not raise any objection regarding non- supply of any documents from the prosecution side and he conceded to the jurisdiction of the Special Court since 2016 deeming that he was given all the prosecution records. Thereafter, the court framed charge for the said offences and started trial. Furthermore, PW1 was examined in chief and at this stage, discharge petition was filed and the learned Special Judge rightly dismissed the same holding that after framing charge and start of examination of witnesses, no question of reverting back to the stage prior to pre-charge. So, it is submitted that the discharge petition filed in this case was out of time and thereby, the Special Court rightly dismissed the same. In this matter, it is crystal clear that the petitioner conceded to the jurisdiction of the Special Court in the year 2016 and obtained the prosecution records and not opted to file a discharge petition and thereafter, the Special Court heard the matter for framing charge CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 & 10620 OF 2024 14 2025:KER:53940 and thereafter, charge was framed. Pursuant to that, summons issued to the witnesses and PW1 was examined. At this stage, discharge petition was filed and the Special Court rightly dismissed the same and the said order does not require any interference.
11. Coming to the prayer for quashment, mainly based on procedural lapse, it is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that, as per letter, dated 20.05.2005, the Director General of Police addressed the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, whereby the CD file in Crime No.712/2004 of Perinthalmanna police station was forwarded to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau directing further action and therefore, this letter would go to the root of contention raised by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the transfer was ordered acting on a letter, dated 06.05.2005, whereby, the Inspector General of Police, North Zone, Kozhikode requested transfer of the case to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram. Even prior to that, CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 & 10620 OF 2024 15 2025:KER:53940 as per letter, dated 31.01.2005, the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram addressed the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau requesting transfer of this crime. Relying on the above documents, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in this case, investigation of this crime by the Vigilance is as directed by the Director General of Police and therefore, there is no procedural lapse or legal rider for the Vigilance to investigate this crime and in such view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on this ground is of no avail. Accordingly, the learned Public Prosecutor is urged dismissal of these petitions permitting the prosecution to continue and finish the trial to its logical conclusion.
12. Since it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision in Bency's case (supra) asserting that the Special Court quoted in paragraph No.11 that "it is not permissible for an Investigating agency in respect of an Order under Section CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 & 10620 OF 2024 16 2025:KER:53940 156(3) is passed, to transfer the FIR to another Police Station on the premise that the offence has committed beyond its territorial jurisdiction", I am inclined to refer the decision. On going through the said decision, it could be gathered that, when a private complaint was filed, alleging commission of offence under Section 498A of the IPC, the same was forwarded for investigation before the police station where the complainant was resided and part of the occurrence took place. Thereafter, the Station House Officer therein transferred the FIR and complaint to another police station where part of the incident occurred. When the said action was challenged before this Court, this Court held that it was not permissible to transfer FIR to another police station for the reason that the police station to which the complaint was forwarded under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., had no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the offence. Accordingly, this Court directed the Station House Officer, where CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 & 10620 OF 2024 17 2025:KER:53940 the complaint was forwarded within whose jurisdiction the complainant resided, to continue the investigation. In fact, in the said decision, this Court disallowed the transfer of the FIR mainly finding that part of the occurrence was within the jurisdiction of the police station where the complaint was transferred and part of the occurrence alone was within the limit of other police station. In fact, in Bency's case (supra), this Court never laid a ratio, as extracted by the learned Special Judge and the ratio therein is that when a complaint is forwarded to a police station where part of the occurrence took place, then, the Station House Officer therein could not transfer FIR for investigation by the Station House Officer of another police station urging that part of the occurrence was within the jurisdiction of the said police station. Therefore, the finding of the Special Court otherwise is held as erroneous.
13. On perusal of the records, it could be seen that, as early as in the year 2004, vide Crime No.712/2004 of Perinthalmanna CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 & 10620 OF 2024 18 2025:KER:53940 police station, investigation started and thereafter, final report filed by the Vigilance before the Special Judge. The Special Judge took cognizance of the matter in the year 2016. Thereafter, records of the prosecution were also given to the accused and after hearing both sides, charge also framed, alleging commission of the said offences. Thereafter, examination of witnesses also commenced and PW1 was examined in part. It was thereafter, the accused filed discharge petition and the same is not legally sustainable, since the Special Court has no power to consider the discharge petition after framing charge, since the Special Court, being a criminal court, has no power to review its order by reverting back to pre-charge hearing stage. Therefore, dismissal of the discharge petition by the Special Court would only to be justified.
14. Regarding the quashment, the sum and substance of the arguments tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner are, now, as such, not at all sustainable in view of the discussion made in CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 & 10620 OF 2024 19 2025:KER:53940 the foregoing paragraphs by addressing the entrustment of the investigation by the Director General of Police to the Vigilance. Thus, it is evident from the above documents that even though an investigation was ordered by the learned Magistrate to be conducted by the Perinthalmanna police station when crime was registered and investigated by the Perinthalmanna police station, as per the order of the Director General of Police, the investigation was entrusted to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and the same was ratified by the learned Magistrate by forwarding the letters to the Special Court. Therefore, the procedural lapse pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner could not be found, prima facie. As far the ratio in Bency's case (supra) is concerned, the observation of the Special Court in paragraph No.11 would govern the matter.
15. Upon overall scrutiny of the materials of the case where already trial and examination of witnesses had started, plea of discharge filed after framing charge and quashment of the entire CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 & 10620 OF 2024 20 2025:KER:53940 materials would not succeed. At this stage, the plea of the petitioner to provide a pre-charge hearing also could not be considered, in a case witnesses examination already started. In such view of the matter, these petitions would deserve dismissal.
In the result, both these petitions stand dismissed with direction to the Special Court to complete the trial in this 2016 matter, arose out of crime of the year 2004. at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The interim stay granted by this Court, deferring the trial of both the cases, stand vacated.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Special Court, for information and compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE Bb CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 & 10620 OF 2024 21 2025:KER:53940 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10650/2024 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO.1/2015 DATED 23/01/2015 Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN VC.8/05 U/S 13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) OF PC ACT 1988 AND SECTION 403,409 R/W 34 IPC OF VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, MALAPPURAM Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF ALL WITNESSES Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE CMP.414/2019 DATED 02/09/2019 Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED IN CMP.414/2019 DATED 04/09/2019 Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE CMP.150/2021 IN CC.
70/2016 AND CC.71/2016 DATED 01/07/2021 Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER IN CMP.150/2021 DATED 12/07/2021 Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP.150/2021 IN CC.70/2016 AND CC.71/2016 DATED 13/09/2021 Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 29/11/2021 DEFERRING THE TRIAL PROCEEDING Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.R.P.NO.682 OF 2021 DATED 21/11/2024 Annexure A11 THE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT CMP.NO.
3246/2004 DATED 27-11-2004 Annexure A12 THE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 1-12-2004 WITH RE-TYPED COPY RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL CRL.M.C.NOS.10650 OF 2024 & 10620 OF 2024 22 2025:KER:53940 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10620/2024 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO.2/2015 DATED 23/01/2015 Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN VC.8/05 U/S.13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) OF PC ACT 1988 AND SECTION 403,409 R/W 34 IPC OF VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, MALAPPURAM Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF ALL WITNESSES Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE CMP.414/2019 DATED 02/09/2019 Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED IN CMP.414/2019 DATED 04/09/2019 Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE CMP.150/2021 IN CC.
70/2016 AND CC.71/2016 DATED 01/07/2021 Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER IN CMP.150/2021 DATED 12/07/2021 Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP.150/2021 IN CC.70/2016 AND CC.71/2016 DATED 13/09/2021 Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 29/11/2021 DEFERRING THE TRIAL PROCEEDING Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.R.P.NO.682 OF 2021 DATED 21/11/2024 Annexure A 11 THE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT CMP NO.
3246/2004 DATED 27-11-2004 Annexure A 12 THE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 1-12-2004 WITH RE-TYPED COPY RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL