Subodh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Anr.
2022 Latest Caselaw 20793 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved on: 04.04.2022
 
Delivered on: 13.12.2022
 
Court No. - 25
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 676 of 2014
 

 
Revisionist :- Subodh Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Kishor Gupta,Satish Trivedi,Sheshadri Trivedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam,J.

1. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsel for revisionist, Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Sanjay Kumar Sengar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.02.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Mahoba in Session Trial No. 239 of 2005 (State vs. Chandra Bhushan Dwivedi), whereby the application no. 73Kha moved on behalf of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist along with co-accused Chandra Bhushan Dwivedi was summoned to face trial for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Srinagar, District- Mahoba.

3. In brief, the prosecution case is that informant Bhurey Lal lodged the first information report on 25.04.1994 at 8:50 a.m. at police Station Srinagar, District- Hamirpur (now Mahoba) on the basis of written complaint alleging therein that he is the resident of Sijhari, Police Station Srinagar, District- Hamirpur and now he is residing at Mahoba. His father Baldeo Prasad and mother Giriya were living in the outskirts of the village. On 25.04.1994 at about 06:00 a.m., the son of informant's Mausi, namely, Param Lal came to him at Mahoba and told that the dead body of his father is lying on the cot and someone has committed murder of his father by the blow of an axe and his mother is also not there. Thereupon, informant reached at the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of his father lying on the cot and after search the dead body of his mother was found lying in the stream near the Khalihan of his uncle Ganpat. The informant further alleged that someone has committed murder of his father and mother. On the basis of written complaint, Chik F.I.R. No. 27 of 1994 was ascribed by Constable Clerk at Police Station Srinagar and registered the Case Crime No.71 of 1994 under Section 302 I.P.C. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of informant and witness Param Lal. The statement of Param Lal under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur wherein he stated that he used to do farming on the land of his aunt (Mausi) at village Sijhari and was living with them. The son of his aunt had gone to Delhi about five days before the incident who had asked him to take care of his parents. He used to sleep in the outskirts of the village Sijhari with his uncle everyday. There was enmity going on between his uncle (Mausa) and Chandra Bhushan Dwivedi due to land dispute. He saw two cycles near the barn (Khalihan) of his uncle (Mausa) Ganpat and hided himself behind the bush due to suspicion on 24.04.1994 in the night of full-noon on Sunday and saw the accused Chandra Bhushan Dwivedi and his son Subodh (applicant) and two unknown persons coming from the side of barn (Khalihan) of his uncle Ganpat. He also heard the accused Chandra Bhushan talking with other accused persons that now they have finished the deceased Baldeo Prasad and left the place of occurrence on the cycles having axe in their hands. Thereafter, he dared to go to the barn in fear and called his Mausiya where he saw that his Mausiya Baldeo Prasad was lying dead. He also called his aunt (Mausi), but she was not found there. He ran from there and reached at Soora Chawki and stayed there overnight. Next day in the early morning, he went to Mahoba by bus and told the informant Bhurey Lal that his father was lying dead who gave him money and sent him to Delhi to call his brother Radhey Lal. Thereafer, he went to Delhi and told Radhey Lal about the murder of his father. When he returned, he came to know that his aunt has also been murdered by accused Chandra Bhushan, his son Subodh (applicant) and two other persons. He further stated that he did not stop the accused Chandra Bhushan and others due to fear that they would also kill him too.

4. The Investigating Officer after recording the statements of Param Lal, Chheddu as witness of circumstantial evidence and other witnesses submitted the charge-sheet against accused Chandra Bhushan on 25.06.1994 under Section 302 I.P.C. The proceedings against the revisionist Subodh Kumar was withheld till completion of enquiry by Additional Superintendent of Police, Mahoba in this regard. Upon the enquiry, the revisionist Subodh Kumar was also found to be involved in this case and the Investigating Officer was directed to conduct fair and impartial investigation and after collecting the evidence arrest the accused-revisionist Subodh Kumar, but no charge-sheet was filed against him even after 20 years. The trial was going on against accused Chandra Bhushan Dwivedi and the statements of informant bhurey Lal as PW1 and Rakhi Lal as PW2 were recorded, thereafter, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved which was allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 14.02.2014 and the accused-revisionist was summoned to face trial along with accused Chandra Bhushan Dwivedi.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the first information report has been lodged by the informant Bhurey Lal, son of the deceased, against unknown person. In the first information report it is mentioned that Baldeo Prasad and Gidiya have been murdered in the night at outskirts of the village by unknown person. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of Bhure Lal, son of late Baldeo Prasad, Param Lal son of Chhiddu and Rakhi Lal son of late Baldeo Prasad under Section 161 Cr.P.C. According to the prosecution case, the information regarding murder of parents of the informant was given to him by Param Lal on 25.04.1994, but he has not disclosed the names of accused Chandra Bhushan and Subodh Kumar (revisionist) to the informant. On 06.05.1994, statement of Param Lal under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba, i.e., after about 11 days of the incident wherein he has stated that accused Chandra Bhushan, Subodh Kumar (revisionist) and two unknown persons were seen along with cycle near the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has been filed against accused Chandra Bhushan Dwivedi and the Investigating Officer has not completed the investigation against the revisionist. No charge-sheet or final report has been filed against the revisionist till date. There is no eyewitness of the incident. The statements of PW1 Bhure Lal, PW2 Rakhi Lal, PW3 Param Lal and PW4 Ganpat Prasad (ascriber of the written complaint) were recorded in the court Additional Sessions Judge, Mahoba. The witnesses Bhure Lal and Rakhi Lal were not the eyewitnesses of the incident and they came to know about the murder of Baldeo and Gidiya on the information given by Param Lal who had not told the informant that he had seen the accused Chandra Bhushan, Subodh Kumar (revisionist) and two unknown persons having axe in their hands near the place of occurrence. He had also not disclosed the fact to the informant before lodging of first information report that while leaving the place of incident accused Chandra Bhushan was saying that they had finished the deceased Baldeo Prasad and now he would see as to who is litigating the case. He had also not disclosed to the informant that accused were armed with axe. The statements of PW1 Bhure Lal and PW2 Rakhi Lal are hearsay evidence that is not admissible in evidence. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that while summoning the additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial together with the accused, there must be cogent and prima facie evidence against him and placed reliance on the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Hardeep Singh Versus State of Punjab and others, [2014 (1) ADJ 727 (SC)]. It is further submitted that in the present case there is no cogent and prima facie evidence against the revisionist. The witness PW1 Bhure Lal was in Mahoba town and PW2 Rakhi Lal was in Delhi at the time of incident and the witness PW3 Param Lal in his statement has stated that he did not know as to who had committed the murder of Baldeo Prasad and Gidiya. He has also placed reliance on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarabjit Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 2792 and has drawn the attention of the Court on the paragraph 18 of aforesaid ruling and submitted that for exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. mere existence of a prima facie case may not serve the purpose and different standards are required to be applied at different stages. Whereas the test of prima facie case may be sufficient for taking cognizance of an offence at the stage of framing of charge, the court must be satisfied that there exists a strong suspicion. While framing charge in terms of Section 227 of the Code, the court must consider the entire materials on record to form an opinion that the evidence if unrebutted would lead to a judgment of conviction. Whether a higher standard be set up for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code is the question. The answer to these questions should be rendered in the affirmative. Unless a higher standard for the purpose of forming an opinion to summon a person as an additional accused is laid down, the ingredients thereof, viz., (i) an extraordinary case and (ii) a case for sparingly exercise of jurisdiction, would be satisfied. He has further submitted that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner and the test to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case which is applied at the time of framing of charges and has placed reliance on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in (2021) AIR (SC) 5107. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also submitted that Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. empowers the court to proceed against any person not shown as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused. Before invoking the jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 of the Code, it is necessary for the court to arrive at a satisfaction that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, if remains unrebutted, may lead to conviction of the persons sought to be added as an accused in the case. It is further submitted that the evidence of PW1 Bhure Lal and PW2 Rakhi Lal are not of circumstantial nature and their evidence is hearsay evidence which was disclosed to them by PW3 Param Lal. The first information report was lodged on the basis of the information given by Param Lal where he has not disclosed the evidence of circumstantial nature to informant and has disclosed in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded by the Magistrate after about 11 days of the incident. In above circumstances, learned lower court has summoned the revisionist on the basis of hearsay evidence which is not admissible in evidence and the learned court below has exercised its jurisdiction illegally and the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no.2 have submitted that the evidence includes even the evidence collected during investigation as well as evidence recorded during the trial. On the same evidence of the Investigating Officer, the charge-sheet has been filed against accused Chandra Bushan Dwivedi for offence of double murder punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. It is further submitted that during investigation the filing of police report against the other accused Subodh Kumar (revisionist) was withheld till completion of enquiry by Additional Superintendent of Police in this regard and in the enquiry the revisionist Subodh Kumar was also found to be involved in this case and the Investigating Officer was directed to arrest him and complete the investigation at the earliest, but even after the lapse of 20 years no charge-sheet or final report has been filed against him. It is further submitted that on the basis of same evidence available on the record, the charges of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. was filed against co-accused Chandra Bushan Dwivdei. The word "evidence" occurring in Section 319 Cr.P.C. includes the evidence collected during investigation and evidence recorded in the court. At the stage of exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary that witnesses shall be cross-examined. The appreciation of the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be appreciated like statement of witnesses appreciated after completion of the trial. At the stage of summoning of an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the only requirement is that if the evidence remains unrebutted whether conviction or considering the face value of the evidence available on record and relied on the law laid down by the five Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Hardeep Singh Versus State of Punjab and others, [2014 (1) ADJ 727 (SC)]. It is further submitted that the impugned order fulfils the ingredients for summoning of accused for facing trial together with the accused already facing trial. The statement of witness Param Lal recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be considered along with the statements of witnesses PW1 Bhure Lal and PW2 Rakhi Lal which are remained unrebutted and lead to the conviction of the revisionist.

7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and have gone through the record. The basic requirements for invoking the power by the court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. have been explained by Hon'ble Apex Court in Michael Machado vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 262 that for invoking the above section it should appear to the court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed an offence. Second is that for such offence that other person could as well be tried along with the already arraigned accused. Section 319 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-

"319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.- (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.

(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.

(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) then-

(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard;

(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced."

8. Now the question arises as to what is the meaning of word "evidence" under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Five Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Hardeep Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (supra) has held in paragraph 71 as follows:-

"70. With respect to documentary evidence, it is sufficient, as can be seen from a bare perusal of Section 3 of the Evidence Act as well as the decision of the Constitution Bench, that a document is required to be produced and proved according to law to be called evidence. Whether such evidence is relevant, irrelevant, admissible or inadmissible, is a matter of trial.

71. It is, therefore, clear that the word "evidence" in Section 319 Cr.P.C. means only such evidence as is made before the court, in relation to statements, and as produced before the court, in relation to documents. It is only such evidence that can be taken into account by the Magistrate or the Court to decide whether power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised and not on the basis of material collected during investigation."

9. From the conjoint reading of sub-section (1) of Section 319 Cr.P.C., it is clear that this section, confers power on trial court to find out as to whether a person, who ought to have been added as an accused, has been erroneously omitted or has been deliberately excluded by the investigating agencies and that satisfaction to be arrived at on the basis of evidence led during the trial. Now the question arises as to what is the degree of satisfaction required for invoking the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.? In this regard Hon'ble Apex Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (supra) in paragraphs 98 & 99 has observed as follows:-

"98. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.

99. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross-Examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if ''it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence' is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused." The words used are not ''for which such person could be convicted'. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused."

10. From the above observations, it is clear that the evidence required for summoning any accused in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is that if the evidence produced before the court and document filed by the investigating officer lead to the conclusion that, if it remains unrebutted, it will lead to conviction of such accused and such power could not be exercised in a casual manner but should be exercised sparingly. In an earlier decision, a two-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the same principle in Sarabjit Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra) and it is held that for exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. mere existence of a prima facie case may not serve the purpose and different standards are required to be applied at different stages. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and Another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon the ratio laid down in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) held that for summoning of additional accused to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C., a person can be added as an accused invoking provision only for the same offence for which accused is tried but that offence shall be such that in respect of which all accused could be tried together. Section 319 (1) Cr.P.C. empowers the court to proceed against any person not shown as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed any offence for which such person would be tried together along with accused. Before its jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C., it must arrive at satisfaction that evidence adduced by prosecution, if it remained unrebutted could lead to conviction of person sought to be added as an accused. In this case the evidence of the witnesses PW-1 Bhurey Lal and PW-2 Rakhi Lal is not of circumstantial nature and their evidence is hearsay evidence which was disclosed by PW-3 Param Lal.

11. It is necessary and prudent to discuss the provision of Section 193 of Cr.P.C. and the scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C. keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case. The Section 193 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-

"193. Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session. Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code."

12. Hon'ble Apex Court in Kishun Singh And Ors. vs. State of Bihar, 1993 SCC (2) 16 relying on the principles laid down in Raghubans Dubey vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 1167 and Hariram Satpathy vs. Tikaram Agarwala, AIR 1978 SC 1568, held that on a plain reading of Section 193 Cr.P.C. as it presently stands, once the case is committed to the Court of Session by a magistrate under the Code, the restriction placed on the power of the Court of Session to take cognizance of an offence as a court of original jurisdiction gets lifted, thereby investing the Court of Session complete and unfettered jurisdiction of the Court of original jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence which would include the summoning of the person or persons whose complicity in the commission of the crime can prima facie be gathered from the material available on record. Hon'ble Apex Court in Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 3018 has held that the Court of Session can also exercise its original jurisdiction and summon a person as an accused, in case his name appears in the column of the charge-sheet, once the case has been committed to it. It means that a person whose name does not appear even in the first information report or in the charge-sheet or whose name appears in F.I.R. and not in the main part of the charge-sheet but in column 2 and has not been summoned as accused, in exercise of power under Section 193 Cr.P.C. he may still be summoned by the court, provided the court is satisfied that the condition provided in the said statutory provision stands fulfilled.

13. Whereas Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an improved version of Section 351 of the Code, 1890. The changes have been introduced therein on the suggestion of the Law Commission to make it comprehensive so that even persons not attending the Court can be arrested or summoned as the circumstances of the case may require and by deleting the words 'of which such Court can take cognizance' and by adding clause (b) it is clarified that the impleadment of a new person as an accused in the pending proceedings will not make any difference insofar as taking of cognizance is concerned. In other words it is made clear that cognizance against the added person would be deemed to have been taken as originally against the other co-accused. The section comes into operation at the post-cognizance stage when it appears to the court from the evidence recorded at the trial that any person other than those named as offenders appears to have committed any offence in relation to the incident for which the co-accused are on trial as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kishun Singh (supra). It also covers the accused who has been discharged but at the trial stage evidences brought against him of such a nature that if it remains unrebutted it would lead to his conviction. While the provision of Section 193 of the Code deals with the summoning of those persons against whom evidence has been collected by investigating officer but they were not charge-sheeted or due to some reason by lapse on the part of instrumentality of the State charge-sheet was not filed or withheld by them. The scope of Section 193 Cr.P.C. for summoning the accused and the scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the accused to face trial with accused are different. After committal, the Sessions Court is empowered under Section 193 Cr.P.C. to take cognizance of offence and summon the accused against whom evidence is made available by the investigating agency by filing charge-sheet and even not naming him in the charge-sheet. There is no embargo in the Code of Criminal Procedure after which stage the Sessions Court cannot exercise power under Section 193 Cr.P.C., some cases may arise where the trial court has summoned the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by also exercising the power under Section 193 Cr.P.C. In this case from the perusal of the impugned order, it is quite evident that the learned court below has passed this order by exercising power under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and Section 319 Cr.P.C. Here it is further clarified that Section 319 of Cr.P.C. operates where no evidence was collected by the investigating officer and after recording the evidence in trial evidence appears before him of such that if it remained unrebutted it would lead to the conviction of the accused. Under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the sessions court may exercise the power in those cases where insufficient evidence has been collected against certain accused and that accused was discharged at the stage of 227 Cr.P.C. and after discharge some evidence is recorded by the court during trial and come to the conclusion that discharged accused is also involved in the case and the evidence appeared against him is of such character that if it remains unrebutted it would lead to conviction of such discharged accused. Although the impugned application is moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. but the present substance of the application shows that the order was passed in true and spirit under Section 193 Cr.P.C. It can also be termed as hybrid order of Section 193 Cr.P.C. and Section 319 Cr.P.C. Hon'ble Apex Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) in paragraph 110 has observed regarding application of Section 193 Cr.P.C. as follows: -

"110. ......... In Dharam Pal's case, the Constitution Bench has already held that after committal, cognizance of an offence can be taken against a person not named as an accused but against whom materials are available from the papers filed by the police after completion of investigation. Such cognizance can be taken under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and the Sessions Judge need not wait till 'evidence' under Section 319 Cr.P.C. becomes available for summoning an additional accused."

14. From the perusal of the impugned order and material available on record that the charge-sheet for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. was filed against accused Chandra Bhushan Dwivedi on the basis of statement of Param Lal recorded by investigating officer, statement recorded by Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of other available evidence. The same evidence was available against the revisionist Subodh Kumar. An application was moved during investigation to Additional Superintendent of Police, Mahoba for enquiry of the case and during enquiry the investigation against revisionist was stayed and later on in the enquiry it was found that revisionist Subodh Kumar was also involved in this case and the investigating officer was directed to arrest the revisionist Subodh Kumar after completing investigation and to file police report. The charge-sheet against the father of the revisionist Chandra Bhushan was filed in year, 1994 but till now no final report or charge-sheet has been regarding revisionist Subodh Kumar. It also leads to inference that in this case State has lost the control over its instrumentalities against investigating officer and the officer supervising the investigation. Moreover, in this case this Court vide order dated 07.01.2014 has directed the court below to decide the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. within one month, therefore, learned lower court has passed the hybrid order without recording the statement of witness Param Lal. The facts and circumstances of the case of Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab (supra) and that of the case relied upon by learned counsel for the revisionist is not applicable in this case.

15. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant revision and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 13.12.2022

Vikas

[Mohd. Aslam, J.]