Allahabad High Court
Neeraj Kumar Alias Basante And ... vs The State Of U.P. on 30 April, 2012
Bench: Surendra Vikram Rathore
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?
Court No. - 28
AFR
Reserved
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1267 of 2007
Petitioner :- Neeraj Kumar Alias Basante And Another
Respondent :- The State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- Vikas Shukla, Arun Sinha, B.P.Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore,J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 8.5.2007 passed by Shri S.S. Tiwari, Sessions Judge, Sitapur in S.T. No. 521/2003, under Sections 498-A & 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur.
2. By the impugned order the appellant Neeraj Kumar @ Basante, husband and Smt. Krishna Devi mother in law of the deceased were convicted under Section 304B, 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and in default of payment of fine both the appellants were directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. They were sentenced for a period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. For the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation of three months R.I.
3. In brief the facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:-
I.Deceased Smt. Sushma Devi, aged about 20 years, was married with appellant Neeraj Kumar about 2 ½ years prior to her death. In the marriage sufficient dowry was given by the complainant Gajraj, but the appellants were not satisfied with the dowry and they were insisting the deceased repeatedly to bring a gold chain and a motorcycle from her parents in dowry. They treated her with cruelty to press their demand of dowry. On 9.10.2002, brother of the deceased, Subhash Chandra came to the house of the appellants for 'Vida' of his sister, Sushma Devi. When he requested Neeraj Kumar and his mother then they did not permit the deceased to go with Subhash Chandra to her parental house and said that unless and until gold chain and motorcycle is given to them, they shall not permit her to go to her parental house.
II.In the next morning the complainant came to know that his daughter Smt. Sushma Devi has been killed by the appellants for non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry and her dead body is lying inside the house of the appellants. The complainant with his family members came to village Ibrahimpur and found the dead body lying there. Complainant Gajraj scribed the First Information Report and gave it at the Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur. On the basis of which, case Crime No. 176/2002 was1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 8.5.2007 passed by Shri S.S. Tiwari, Sessions Judge, Sitapur in S.T. No. 521/2003, under Sections 498-A & 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur.
2. By the impugned order the appellant Neeraj Kumar @ Basante, husband and Smt. Krishna Devi mother in law of the deceased were convicted under Section 304B, 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and in default of payment of fine both the appellants were directed to undergo imprisonmen1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 8.5.2007 passed by Shri S.S. Tiwari, Sessions Judge, Sitapur in S.T. No. 521/2003, under Sections 498-A & 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur.
2. By the impugned order the appellant Neeraj Kumar @ Basante, husband and Smt. Krishna Devi mother in law of the deceased were convicted under Section 304B, 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and in default of payment of fine both the appellants were directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. They were sentenced for a period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. For the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation of three months R.I.
3. In brief the facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:-
III.Deceased Smt. Sushma Devi, aged about 20 years, was married with appellant Neeraj Kumar about 2 ½ years prior to her death. In the marriage sufficient dowry was given by the complainant Gajraj, but the appellants were not satisfied with the dowry and they were insisting the deceased repeatedly to bring a gold chain and a motorcycle from her parents in dowry. They treated her with cruelty to press their demand of dowry. On 9.10.2002, brother of the deceased, Subhash Chandra came to the house of the appellants for 'Vida' of his sister, Sushma Devi. When he requested Neeraj Kumar and his mother then they did not permit the deceased to go with Subhash Chandra to her parental house and said that unless and until gold chain and motorcycle is given to them, they shall not permit her to go to her parental house.
IV.In the next morning the complainant came to know that his daughter Smt. Sushma Devi has been killed by the appellants for non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry and her dead body is lying inside the house of the appellants. The complainant with his family members came to village Ibrahimpur and found the dead body lying there. Complainant Gajraj scribed the First Information Report and gave it at the Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur. On the basis of which, case Crime No. 176/2002 was1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 8.5.2007 passed by Shri S.S. Tiwari, Sessions Judge, Sitapur in S.T. No. 521/2003, under Sections 498-A & 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur.
2. By the impugned order the appellant Neeraj Kumar @ Basante, husband and Smt. Krishna Devi mother in law of the deceased were convicted under Section 304B, 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and in default of payment of fine both the appellants were directed to undergo imprisonmen1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 8.5.2007 passed by Shri S.S. Tiwari, Sessions Judge, Sitapur in S.T. No. 521/2003, under Sections 498-A & 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur.
t for a period of six months. They were sentenced for a period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. For the offence under Sectt for a period of six months. They were sentenced for a period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. For the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation of three months R.I.
3. In brief the facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:-
V.Deceased Smt. Sushma Devi, aged about 20 years, was married with appellant Neeraj Kumar about 2 ½ years prior to her death. In the marriage sufficient dowry was given by the complainant Gajraj, but the appellants were not satisfied with the dowry and they were insisting the deceased repeatedly to bring a gold chain and a motorcycle from her parents in dowry. They treated her with cruelty to press their demand of dowry. On 9.10.2002, brother of the deceased, Subhash Chandra came to the house of the appellants for 'Vida' of his sister, Sushma Devi. When he requested Neeraj Kumar and his mother then they did not permit the deceased to go with Subhash Chandra to her parental house and said that unless and until gold chain and motorcycle is given to them, they shall not permit her to go to her parental house.
VI.In the next morning the complainant came to know that his daughter Smt. Sushma Devi has been killed by the appellants for non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry and her dead body is lying inside the house of the appellants. The complainant with his family members came to village Ibrahimpur and found the dead body lying there. Complainant Gajraj scribed the First Information Report and gave it at the Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur. On the basis of which, case Crime No. 176/2002 was1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 8.5.2007 passed by Shri S.S. Tiwari, Sessions Judge, Sitapur in S.T. No. 521/2003, under Sections 498-A & 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur.
VII.registered and chick report Ext. Ka-1 and G.D. Ext. Ka-2 were prepared. registered and chick report Ext. Ka-1 and G.D. Ext. Ka-2 were prepared.
VIII.In this case the inquest proceedings were conducted by the Naib Tahsildar in the presence of Sub Divisional Magistrate and the police personnel, inquest report is Ext. Ka-6 and the other formal papers Ext. Ka-7 to Ext. Ka-11 were prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem in sealed condition. I.O. prepared the site plan Ext. Ka-4 and after completing the investigation, submitted charge sheet (ext. Ka-4). Postmortem of the deceased was conducted by a team of two doctors on 11.10.2002. In the postmortem examination cause of death could not be ascertained hence viscera was preserved for chemical examination. Post mortem report is Ext. Ka-12. Viscera was chemically examined and the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow, in its report (Ext. Ka-13) reported that no chemical poison was found in the contents, sent for examination.
IX.Prosecution in order to prove its case has examined P.W. 1 complainant Gajraj, P.W.2 Subhash Chandra, brother of the deceased, P.W. 3 Phoolmati, mother of the deceased, P.W. 4 Km. Bitta, minor sister of the deceased, P.W.5 Head Constable Ram Bilas Verma, who has prepared chick report and G.D., P.W.6 Hardayal Singh, C.O. Biswan, District Sitapur, who has conducted the investigation. P.W.-7 Raja Ram Gautam who conducted the inquest proceedings, P.W. 8 Shri Ajay Kumar, who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased, P.W. 9 Pandit Shiv Ram Mishra, who performed the marriage ceremony of the deceased with the appellant Neeraj and P.W. 10 is Constable Ram Behari Sachan, who carried dead body for postmortem.
X.Case of the defence was that she died natural death. On behalf of defence no evidence was produced. After appreciation of the evidence learned trial court convicted the appellants as mentioned above, hence this appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel of the appellant that in this case no cause of death could be ascertained in the postmortem report and subsequently no poison was found in the viscera report. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish that the deceased died an unnatural death. He has argued that there can not be any presumption regarding unnatural death. It was the duty of the prosecution to prove unnatural death. Regarding conviction under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 498-A IPC, it is submitted that evidence on this points was contradictory and unreliable, therefore, the appellants could not have been convicted under these sections. In the alternative it is argued that even if the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are taken to be proved against them even then they are entitled to be released as they have already spent about 5 years in custody. They are in custody since 8.5.2007.
6. Learned A.G.A. has argued that in this case, the point raised before this Court was also raised before the trial court and the learned trial court, in its judgment, has dealt with this point in detail placing reliance on some medical authorities. It is further submitted that there is no illegality in the finding of the learned trial court, absence of poison in viscera report can not be a ground to hold that the death was natural.
7. Before proceeding further in the matter it is necessary to discuss the ingredients of offence under Section 304 B IPC. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Shanti and another Vs. State of Haryana 1991 CrLJ page 1713, has held that careful analysis of Section 304-B shows that this section has the following essentials.
"(I) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstance.
II.Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.
(III) Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband
(IV) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry. "
8. In the aforementioned case it was also held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that it must be borne in mind that a person charged and acquitted under Section 304-B IPC can be convicted under Section 498-A IPC without charge being there, if such a case is made out. But from the point of view of practice and procedure and to avoid technical defects it is necessary in such cases to frame charge under both the sections and if the case is established they can be convicted under both the Sections but no separate sentence need be awarded under Section 498-A IPC in view of the substantive sentence being awarded for the major offence under Section 304-B IPC.
9. In the case of Sunil Bajaj Vs. State of M.P. AIR 2001 SC 3020, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"...In order to convict an accused for an offence under Section 304-B, IPC, the following essentials must be satisfied: (1) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstance; (2)Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (3) Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband; (4) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry. 6. It is only when the aforementioned ingredients are established by acceptable evidence, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or his relative shall be deemed to have caused her death."
Similar view was expressed in the case of Kunhiabdullah and another v. State of Kerala AIR 2004 SC 1731.
10. In view of the aforementioned legal position it is the legal obligation on the prosecution to establish the aforementioned ingredients by the evidence to bring home the charge under Section 304B I.P.C. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, also plays a very important role in such offences, which reads as under:-
"113B. Presumption as to dowry death.- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section," dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code."
11. Before presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can be raised the prosecution has to prove that there was unnatural death within seven years of marriage, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with any demand for dowry. Therefore, there can not be any presumption regarding the unnatural death. Unnatural death has to be established by the prosecution.
12. In the facts of this case the defence of the accused persons was that it was a natural death. This suggestion was given to all the witnesses. In the postmortem report only one contusion was found on the left thigh measuring 2 cm x 1 cm and the team of doctors, who conducted the postmortem could not ascertain the cause of death.
13. Learned trial court in its judgment has observed that doctors have not scrutinized external and internal postmortem findings that abdomen was distended, blisters were present at places over chest, nails, lips and eyes were found cyanosed and membrane and brain were congested. It was also found that small intestines, liver spleen and kidneys were congested, therefore ld trial court ignored the evidence of the doctor, and placing reliance on some authorities held that was due to poisoning. But the doctors had noted these findings in P.M. report and thereafter they could not ascertain the cause of death.
14. On the basis of these finding, in the post mortem report the learned trial court was of the view that the death was not normal and he discarded the evidence of the doctor, ignored postmortem and viscera reports. It is really strange that no question to this effect was put to the doctor (P.W.8). The prosecution could not dare to even suggest to the doctor that on the basis of the findings, as indicated above, it was an unnatural death. On the contrary doctor has specifically stated in his evidence in examination-in-chief that if the deceased was administered poison, in any form, then it must appear in viscera report.
15. Doctor (P.W.8) has further stated that in case no poison is found in the viscera report then the death of the deceased shall be taken to be a natural death. He has also stated in cross examination that in case of natural death by heart failure or lungs failure (cardio respiratory failure), such symptoms shall appear in the postmortem. In the viscera report no chemical poison was found. Learned trial court in its judgment quoting some authorities, observed that there are certain type of poisons which may evaporate and may disappear by the time, the postmortem of the dead body takes place.
16. In the facts of this case the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the night intervening 9/10.10.2002 and the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 11.10.2002 at 2.30 p.m. It has nowhere been observed in its judgment that how much time is required to evaporate such type of poison. There can not be any presumption to the fact that the deceased was given a poison of nature which could have evaporated and that too within the time in which the postmortem of the deceased was conducted. There can not be any presumption regarding the unnatural death. The prosecution has to establish it.
17. Learned trial court in its judgment has mentioned a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Taiyab Khan and others v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) 2006 CrI.L.J. 544. This Court has gone through this judgment in the facts of that case, the deceased was admitted in hospital in an unconscious condition. In the facts of that case the suggestion of the defence was that the deceased took poison of her own and committed suicide. This suggestion was disbelieved by the court below. In that fact situation absence of Viscera report was held to have no adverse effect , because it was case of both the parties that cause of death was poison. The question before the court was whether it was administered by accused persons or deceased herself took it. In that perspective absence of viscera report was held to be immaterial. But in the facts of the present case the case of the defence is that it was a natural death and no cause of death was found in the postmortem nor any poison was found in the viscera report, hence on facts that case law was not applicable to this case because in this case viscera report was on record.
18. Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act shows that all the facts, except the contents of documents or electronic record may be proved by the oral evidence.
19. Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under:-
"60. Oral evidence must be direct. Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say-- if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it; if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it; if it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner; if it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds: Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatises if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable:
Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection."
20. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under:-
"45. Opinions of experts.- When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts."
21. P.W. 8 doctor who conducted postmortem was not only an eye witness of the dead body and its condition at the time of post mortem but he was also an expert in medical field. Postmortem was conducted by team of 2 doctors and they could not ascertain any apparent cause of death.
22.In the facts of this case it was not the case of the prosecution that the deceased was administered a particular type of poison nor any question was put to the doctor that such symptoms may occur due to poison. Other circumstances and facts on which the expert opinion was based must be proved by the prosecution, which has not been done in this case.
23. In a recent judgment in the case of Gurdeep Singh v/s State of Punjab(2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 584 Hon'ble Apex Court held "We find in the present case there is no evidence of unnatural death. It is the prosecution story that the deceased has been poisoned. It has however, come in the evidence, and in particular that on the bones and ashes no poisonous substance had been found to be present. In this view of the matter, the mere fact that the the deceased happened to be a young woman would not lead to the inference that she has died an unnatural death." In the facts of that case accused persons had cremated the dead body hurriedly therefore no postmortem was conducted. While in this case , as stated above, postmortem was conducted by team of doctors, and cause of death could not be ascertained.
24. In the case of state of U.P. V/s Rashid (2010) 1 SCC 153 Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Court of law which has not acquired special knowledge and skill in medical science, would not be justified in brushing aside the opinion of a medical officer who has performed the postmortem of a dead body, without any evidence on record to the contrary supported by the opinion of learned authors of standard text books.
25. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act has also to be considered. It reads as under:-
"106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him."
26. It is true that deceased died in the house of the appellant. In the inquest report (Ext. Ka-6) also, no cause of death was mentioned. Only this much was mentioned that death has been caused for dowry. Allegation in the FIR was that death has been caused by beating her. Not even a suspicion of administering poison was raised in the inquest report or in the FIR. It is the definite case of the defence that death is natural and they have discharged their burden by evidence of the doctor who has said that such symptoms are possible in case of heart failure, lung failure or cardio respiratory failure.
''In Ram Gulam Chaudhary and Ors. v. Sate of Bihar MANU/SC/0582/2001 the accused after brutally assaulting a boy carried him away and thereafter the boy was not seen alive nor his body was found. The accused, however, offered no explanation as to what they did after they took away the boy. It was held that for the absence of any explanation from the side of the accused about the boy, there was every justification for drawing an inference that they have murdered the boy. It was further observed that even though Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act may not be intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases like the present, where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding death. The accused by virtue of their special knowledge must offer an explanation which might lead the Court to draw a different inference. This view was also followed in the case of Trimukh Moruti Kiran v/s State of Maharashtra(2006)10 SCC 681."
27. Sec 106 of the Evidence Act does not affect the onus of proving the guilt of the accused. That onus rests the prosecution and is not shifted on to the accused by reason of the section. It is only in cases where the facts proved by the evidence give rise to reasonable inference of guilt unless the same is rebutted, and such inference can be negatived by proof of some facts which in its nature can only be within the special knowledge of the accused that the burden of proving the fact is on the accused. This section can not be used to shift the onus of establishing an essential ingredients of the offence on the accused. To infer guilt of the accused from the absence of a reasonable explanation or a false explanation where the other circumstances are not by themselves enough to call for his explanation would be to relieve the prosecution of its burden.
28. The authorities may be used for the purpose of appreciating substantive evidence, but the authorities by itself can not take place of substantive evidence, ignoring substantive evidence on record. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above, in the facts of this case, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that Smt. Sushma Devi died an unnatural death. Therefore, in absence of this essential ingredients the appellants could not have been convicted under Section 304B IPC.
29. Now it is to be seen, whether on the basis of the evidence on record, the offence under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the appellants or not. On this point learned counsel for the appellants has tried to impress the Court that on these point there are certain contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. Therefore, the offences under these sections also can not be said to have been proved against the appellants.
30. In this case, the prosecution has come with a definite case that after the marriage there was a demand of gold chain and motorcycle and to press this demand the deceased was being subjected to cruelty. This fact has been supported by four witnesses who are the family members of the deceased. All the witnesses have stated that the deceased told them regarding the behavior of the appellants and the demand of the dowry. The demand of dowry and the cruelty with the wife can not be treated like an ordinary criminal act which takes place at any particular time, but it spreads in a long span of time. Therefore, there may be some contradiction in the evidence on this point but that does not, make otherwise reliable evidence of witnesses, unreliable. Because the witnesses replies the questions keeping in mind the entire span of time during which demand of dowry and cruelty/ harassment continued.
31. In the facts of this case P.W. 1 Gajraj, P.W. 2 Subhash Chandra, P.W. 3 Smt. Phoolmati and P.W. 4 Km. Bitta all have stated that there was demand of dowry and the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons.
32. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and section 498A IPC was clearly proved against the appellants and on this point there was no illegality in the impugned judgment.
33. Therefore, appeal deserves to be partly allowed and is accordingly partly allowed. Conviction of the appellants under Section 304B IPC is hereby set aside. Conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby confirmed. Period of their detention undergone by the appellants, in this case, shall be set off in the sentence imposed upon them in accordance with the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C. If the appellants ,as claimed by them, are in Jail since 5.8.2007, they shall be released forthwith. They are granted two months time from the date of their release to deposit the fine. In case the fine is not paid within the time specified then they shall have to serve out the period of imprisonment which was imposed by the trial court in default of payment of fine.
34. Office is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned for immediate compliance.
Order Date :- 30th April 2012
Muk
