Allahabad High Court
Jitendra @ Tirra vs State Of U.P. on 14 November, 2024
Bench: Siddharth, Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:179044-DB
Reserved On:- 24.10.2024
Delivered On:- 14.11.2024
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3606 of 2009
Appellant :- Jitendra @ Tirra
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- J.N. Chaturvedi,Ajatshatru Pandey,Noor Mohammad,Rahul Chaturvedi,Sanjay Kumar,Wahaj Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Amit Kumar Srivastava,M.P.Singh Gaur
with
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3775 of 2009
Appellant :- Rajpal And Another
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- J. N. Chaturvedi,Ajatshatru
Pandey,Dharmendra Dhar Dubey,Rahul Chaturvedi,Sanjay Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate
with
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3847 of 2009
Appellant :- Bhole
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- S. Rashid
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Amit Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)
1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for appellants; Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for informant; Ms. Manju Thakur, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.
2. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.05.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court, Court No. 1, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 185 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C. and under Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act arising out of Case Crime No. 924 of 2006 and Sessions Trial No. 187 of 2002 under Section 25 Arms Act arising out of Case Crime No. 989 of 2006, 990 of 2006 and Sessions Trial No. 409 of 2007 under Section 25 Arms Act arising out of Case Crime No. 967 of 2006 and Sessions Trial No. 410 of 2007 under Section 25 Arms Act arising out of Case Crime No. 968 of 2006, Police Station Cantt., District Bareilly by which appellants Rajpal, Bhola, Jitendra @ Tirra and Gajendra Pal @ Pinki were convicted and sentenced under Section 147 I.P.C. for a period of two years imprisonment; under Section 148 I.P.C. for a period of three years imprisonment; under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. for a period of ten years imprisonment with fine Rs. 2,000; in default three months additional imprisonment; under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. for life imprisonment and fine Rs. 5000; in default six months imprisonment and under Section 25 Arms Act for a period of one year imprisonment and fine Rs. 1000; in default two months additional imprisonment. The case of accused Vikram @ Vicky was referred to J.J. Board as he was found to be juvenile.
3. Facts in brief are that on 04.05.2006 at about 10:45 A.M. the informant, Smt Kusum Devi, lodged an F.I.R. stating that at about 9:30 A.M. her husband, Jagdeesh Singh @ Tappe, aged about 40 years was sitting on the terrace in front of his house with her. Her Devar, Veerpal Singh, Shravan Singh, son Saurabh Singh, father-in-law, Rohan Singh, brother-in-law, Vinod Kumar Singh, Secretary, Vijendrapal Singh Yadav and Peon, Vikas Sharma, were also sitting there. At about 9:30 A.M. residents of her village Rajpal, Bhola, Jitendra @ Tirra, Gajendra Pal @ Pinki and Vicky equipped with 315 Bore and 12 Bore Tamanchas (country made pistols) came there. Rajpal exhorted his companions to shoot Jagdeesh Singh @ Tappe because he did not support them but made complaint to the police against their activities. At this, Bhole and Vicky opened fire with Tamancha at Jagdeesh Singh @ Tappe caused injuries to him as a result of which he fell on the ground and died. Rajpal, Jitendra @ Tirra and Gajendra Pal @ Pinki also opened fire with Tamanchas causing injury to Vijendrapal Singh Yadav and Vikas Sharma. Thereafter, they fled away making firing from their Tamanchas with threats of dire consequences to the people of the village if they opened their mouth.
4. The F.I.R. was lodged as Crime No. 924 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 I.P.C. and under Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act at Police Station-Cantt., and its entry was made in G.D. No. 24 at 10:45 A.M.
5. The investigation of the case was handed over to S.H.O., Mahipal Singh. The inquest of dead body of the deceased was done at 12:00 noon on the same day and after preparing necessary papers the dead body was sent for post-mortem. Dr Raj Kumar conducted post-mortem of the dead body of deceased on 04.05.2006 at about 3:45 P.M. in which cause of death was found to be shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem firearm injuries. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased:-
(a) Wound of entry:- 3 * 1.5cm * bone deep Rt side head, 1 cm behind the base Rt pinna surrounding wound blackening present Edges inverted reddish in color maestoid bone fractured.
Wound of exit:- 6 * 4cm * bone deep area Rt side of face everted, wound extending just front of Rt ear and 5.5 cm lateral to angle of Rt mouth and 7 cm lateral to Rt cavities of eye, mandable bone fractured, muscle, naples lacerated.
(b) Wound of entry:- 1 * 1cm oval Cavity deep, 9 cm about Iliac Crest, Lt side abdomen, lateral aspect, in Posterior axillary line, 24 cm below axillary fold surrounding wound blackening present, margin inverted, spotted tattoing in an area of 6 cm around the wound present; underneath Spleen lacerated and one metallic bullet recovered from spleen, abdominal cavity around 1.5 litre blood.
(c) Lacerated wound 2 * 1cm * muscle deep over Rt axillary bone (face), 1 cm below Rt lower eyelid.
(d) Lacerated wound 2.5 * 1cm * muscle deep over middle of Rt eyebrow.
6. Injured, Vijendrapal Singh Yadav, was examined by Dr. Brijeshwar Singh in Sri Siddh Vinayak Hospital, Bareilly on 04.05.2006 at 1:40 P.M. in which gun shot injury was found in the right leg. Likewise injured, Vikas, was also medically examined on the same day at about 1:40 P.M. and gun shot injury was found on the left hip regarding which information was sent by the aforesaid doctor to Station House Officer, Police Station-Kotwali, Bareilly on the same day.
7. During the course of investigation, spot inspection was made on the same day. From the spot four empty cartridges 12 Bore and 3 empty cartridges 315 Bore were recovered and sealed on the spot. Fard was prepared in presence of witnesses, Shishupal Singh and Ayush Kumar Singh. Plain and blood stained soil from the place of occurrence in presence of aforesaid witnesses was collected. After spot inspection the site plan was prepared on the same day. On 10.05.2006 accused Rajpal and Bhola were arrested by the I.O. on the road at Bhukhara turn at about This government appeal is admitted and shall heard with regard to respondent no. 1 (Subhash Gupta), whose bailable warrant.... C.J.M. Kushinagar ... t hat he will appear before this Court as and when d
5 A.M. A Tamancha 315 Bore and two live cartridges 315 Bore were recovered from the possession of accused Rajpal, one Tamancha 12 Bore with two live cartridges 12 Bore were also recovered and recovery memo was prepared. On 17.05.2006 accused, Jitendra @ Tirra and Gajendra Pal @ Pinki, were arrested by the I.O. from the bridge and at the village Manpur Chikariya. From the possession of Jitendra @ Tirra one Tamancha 12 Bore with two live cartridges 12 Bore and from the possession of Gajendra Pal @ Pinki Singh one Tamancha 12 Bore with two live cartridges 12 Bore were recovered and recovery memo was prepared on the spot.
8. The samples of plain and blood stained soil, clothes of the deceased and the recovered bullet were sent to F.S.L. for chemical examination. Likewise the empty cartridges and recovered weapons were also sent to F.S.L. for ballistic report. After completing the investigation and obtaining sanction for prosecution under Section 25 Arms Act from the District Magistrate charge sheets were filed against the accused persons.
9. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case for trial before the court of Sessions. The trial court framed and explained the charges to the accused persons/appellants which they denied and claimed for trial.
10. The prosecution examined P.W. 1, Smt Kusum Devi; P.W. 2 Saurabh Singh as witnesses of fact. P.W. 3, Constable Subhash Chandra. P.W. 4, Vijendrapal Singh Yadav and P.W. 5, Vikas Sharma are injured witnesses. P.W. 6, Sompal Singh; P.W. 7, Mahipal Singh (S.H.O.); P.W. 8, Dr Raj Kumar; P.W. 9, Rakshpal Singh; P.W. 10, Rajbahadur Singh Chauhan; P.W. 11, Constable Ved Pal; P.W. 12, Constable Rakesh Kumar and P.W. 13, Dr Brijeshwar Singh.
11. After conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied and stated the prosecution version false and recovery of Tamancha and cartridges was also said to be false.
12. They also stated that their implication in the case is on account of party bandi relating to election of Gram Pradhan in counterblast of F.I.R. and charge sheet relating to Case Crime No. 646 of 2006 under Sections 342, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C. was filed.
13. After hearing the arguments of learned A.D.G.C. and the defence counsel the learned trial court passed the judgment and order in question thereby convicting and sentencing the appellants as aforesaid against which present appeals have been preferred.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that they were falsely named in the present case due to enmity relating to election of Gram Pradhan. There was no motive to commit murder of the deceased. The presence of Smt Kusum Devi on the spot at the time of alleged occurrence is doubtful since other persons present on the place of occurrence were not examined. It is also argued that at the time of inquest of dead body of the deceased the witnesses were not present on the place of occurrence and their presence is doubtful. Veerpal (brother of deceased), said to be present on the spot at the time of occurrence, has also not been examined by the prosecution. The injured witness, Bijendra turned hostile. P.W. 1, Kusum Devi and P.W. 2, Saurabh Singh, are wife and son of the deceased so they are interested witnesses and are not reliable. There are material contradictions in the statements of P.W. 1, Kusum Devi, as she denied the fact of election and later on accepted it again. The informant was B.D.C. member. The recovery of Tamancha and cartidges from the possession of appellants was made after delay which makes it unreliable. The injured witnesses, Vijendrapal Singh Yadav and Vikas Sharma, were examined as P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 but they have also not supported the factum of presence of P.W. 1 on the place of occurrence and also did not identify any of the accused. All these facts were not taken into consideration by the trial court while convicting and sentencing the accused/appellants, therefore, the judgment and order in question cannot be said to be sound and based on evidence on record, hence the same may be set aside being perverse and allow the appeal.
15. Learned A.G.A. refuted the arguments as extended by the learned counsel for the appellants and contended that the F.I.R. was lodged promptly by the informant herself who was present on the spot at the time of occurrence. The place of occurrence was also established to be the terrace of the informant. Plain and blood stained soil taken from the scene of crime also matched in chemical examination with the blood which was found on the clothes of the deceased. The weapons recovered from the possession of the appellants and the empty cartridges from the place of occurrence also matched which established the complicity of the present appellants in this case.
16. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, though related to the deceased, were present on the spot at the time of alleged incident which took place on the terrace of the house where they lived with the deceased, so their presence was natural and cannot be doubted. P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 also sustained injuries in the same incident who supported the prosecution story in their examination-in-chief though they did not identify the assailant. Since both the injured persons stated about sustaining firearm injuries in the same incident, therefore, occurrence on the terrace of the deceased cannot be said to be doubtful. The appellants were also residents of the same village, therefore, there is no doubt about their identification by the informant and P.W. 2. The incident took place in the broad day light, therefore, it cannot be said that they could not identify them. It is unnatural that people of the village do not know each other very well. So on the basis of the fact that P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 (injured witnesses) did not identify the culprits it cannot be said that the testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 in this regard is not reliable.
17. The relation among P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and the deceased can also not be a ground to discard their testimony since nobody dares to come as witness in such circumstances of murder to face dire consequences. On the other hand, the relative witnesses can also not be said to implicate false persons for committing the offence and to let the real culprits go scot-free. In this way, prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt before the trial court on the basis of which conviction was held and accordingly the appellants were sentenced. There appears to be no perversity in the judgment and order in question and these appeals being devoid of merit are liable to be dismissed.
18. We have perused the judgment and order passed by the trial court and also the material present on trial court record.
19. P.W. 1, Smt Kusum Devi, wife of the deceased, deposed that incident took place on 04.05.2006 when she was sitting on the terrace in front of her house where her husband, Jagdeesh Singh @ Tappe, Devar, Veer Pal Singh, Jeth Shravan Singh, Son Saurabh Singh, father-in-law, Roshan Singh and her brother-in-law, Vinod Kumar Singh, Secretary, Vijendrapal Singh Yadav and Peon, Vikas Sharma, were also sitting at about 9:30 A.M. In the mean time, the residents of the same village Jitendra @ Tirra, Vicky, Gajendra Pal @ Pinki, Bhola and Rajpal Singh came there equipped with Tamancha. Accused Rajpal uttered that Jagdeesh Singh @ Tappe used to make his complaint to the police, therefore, he should not remain alive. At this Bhola and Vicky made fire on her husband who fell on the ground and died on the spot. Accused, Rajpal, Jitendra and Gajendra Pal @ Pinki who also made fire with their Tamanchas, which caused injury to Vijendrapal Singh Yadav and Vikas Sharma. Thereafter, appellants also threatened the witnesses of the incident with dire consequences and fled away. After the incident took place she went to police station with members of her family and got Tehreer/(application) scribed by Sarvesh Singh and after hearing the recital she handed it over at the police station on the basis of which F.I.R. was lodged. She proved the Tehreer as Exhibit Ka 1. This witness was cross-examined by the defence at length but nothing appears to deviate her, except some minor contradictions, which, are natural. She also denied the suggestion that some unknown culprits committed murder of her husband at about 5 A.M. when he was coming back from duty. There is nothing in her cross-examination to show that she could not identify the appellants on the spot in making assault on husband.
20. P.W. 2, Saurabh Singh, also deposed that on 04.05.2006 he was sitting at the terrace in front of his house where his Dada, Rohan Singh, Uncle, Veerpal Singh, Uncle, Shravan, Mother, Smt Kusum Devi, father-in-law, Vinod Kumar Singh and father, Jagdeesh Singh @ Tappe, Secretary Vijendrapal Singh Yadav and Peon, Vikas Sharma, were sitting. At about 9:30 A.M. the residents of his village, Bhola, Rajpal Singh, Jitendra @ Tirra, Vicky and Gajendra Pal @ Pinki came there with Tamanchas in their hand. Accused, Rajpal Singh, exhorted his companions that Jagdeesh Singh @ Tappe used to make his complaint to the police, instead of supporting him, therefore, he should not be left alive anymore. At this Bhola and Vicky made fire on his father with their Tamanchas who fell down and died. Accused, Rajpal, Jitendra and Gajendra Pal @ Pinki also made fire with their Tamanchas causing injuries to Vijendrapal Singh Yadav and Vikas Sharma and then they fled away extending threats. His mother lodged F.I.R. These witnesses were also subjected to gruelling cross-examination by the counsel for the appellants but nothing as such appears in their testimony to suggest that they could not identify the appellants or they did not made fire at the time of incident. They also denied the suggestion about their presence on the spot and at the time of occurrence. There appears to be no major contradiction in the statements about the presence and identification of the appellants on the spot.
21. P.W. 4 and P.W. 5, Vijendrapal Singh and Vikas Sharma, are injured witnesses. Vijendrapal Singh deposed that on 04.05.2006 at about 9 to 9:30 A.M. he went to Chaubari with peon Vikas Sharma. At that time he and Vikas Sharma along with Jagdeesh Singh @ Tappe were sitting on plastic chairs with other persons. At about 9:30 A.M. all of sudden there were firing from Tamanchas on Jagdeesh Singh @ Tappe. He with Vikas Sharma also sustained injuries with firearm and then they went away from there. Later on he came to know that Jagdeesh Singh @ Tappe died in that incident. He could not identify the culprits. During the course of examination by learned A.D.G.C he also disclosed the fact that his injuries were examined at Sri Siddh Vinayak Hospital Bareilly by Dr. Brijeshwar Singh on 04.05.2006 at about 1:40 P.M. and also got treatment though he did not identify the culprits yet he disclosed that they had not covered their faces.
22. P.W. 5, Vikas Sharma, also deposed in the same manner and during the course of cross-examination by learned A.D.G.C. he did not deviate from the fact of his sustaining injury in the same incident with firearm and getting his treatment at Siddhi Vinayak Hospital on 04.05.2006. He expressed his inability in identifying the culprits on the spot.
23. P.W. 3, Constable Subhash Chand, proved the G.D. including the check report.
24. P.W. 6, Sompal Singh, deposed as being the witness of the inquest.
25. P.W. 7, Mahipal Singh, I.O. of the case, proved the inquest report, the papers relevant for post mortem and also the recovery of empty cartridges from the spot with samples of plain and blood stained soil. He also proved the investigation of the case and recovery made by him from the possession of accused/appellants.
26. P.W. 8, Dr. Raj Kumar Singh, proved the post mortem report in his handwriting and also the cause, time and manner of death of the deceased.
27. P.W. 9, S.I. Rahshpal Singh, proved the part of investigation done by him relating to the offences and recovery of Tamancha with live cartridges from the possession of appellants and also the obtained sanction from District Magistrate for prosecution of cases under the Arms Act.
28. P.W. 10, S.I. Rajbahadur Singh Chauhan, proved the inquest report which was prepared by him at the instance of S.H.O.
29. P.W. 11, Constable Ved Pal and P.W. 12, Constable Rakesh Kumar, proved his part relating to recovery of arms from the appellant.
30. P.W. 13, Dr. Brijeshwar Singh, proved the injuries found on the person of Vijendrapal Singh Yadav and Vikas Sharma on the same day in the said incident.
31. In the statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as recorded before the trial court, all the appellants said to be implicated in the present case on account of enmity of election of Gram Pradhan between the mother of appellant, Jitendra @ Tirra, Smt Maya Devi and the informant, Kusum Devi who was defeated. Due to aforesaid enmity the appellants were said to be named in the present case.
32. So far as motive is concerned, there is no need to prove motive in cases of direct evidence.
33. It is settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eye witnesses is available because even if there is a very strong motive for the accused person to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eye witnesses is not convincing.
34. We find that the Supreme Court has clearly opined in various decisions, such as Gopi Ram v St. Of UP, 2006 (55) ACC 673 SC, State of UP v Nawab Singh; 2005 SCC (Criminal) 33, Shivraj Bapuray Jadhav v State of Karnataka; (2003) 6 SCC 392, R.R. Reddy v State of AP, AIR 2006 SC 1656, Sucha Singh v State of Punjab; AIR 2003 SC 1471, State of Rajasthan v Arjun Singh AIR 2011 SC 3380, Varun Chaudhry v State of Rajasthan AIR 2011 SC 72 that the prosecution case could not be denied on the ground of alleged absence of insufficiency of motive. Motive is insignificant in cases of direct evidence of eyewitnesses. Failure to prove motive or absence of evidence on the point of motive would not be fatal to the prosecution case when the other reliable, truthful and acceptable evidence is available on record sufficient to establish the guilt of accused persons.
35. The present case is based on direct evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 who were present on the spot at the time of incident and they themselves witnessed the appellants committing the offence and identified them as being residents of the same village and also the incident happening in the broad day light.
36. Election enmity can be a ground for false implication of the appellants but it is to be noted that no person will let the real culprits go scot-free while roping false one on account of enmity. It is double edged weapon which can be used for false implication and also for commission of offence, therefore, it cannot be said to be the sole ground to discredit the eye-witness account.
37. In Ramashish Rai Vs. Jagdish Singh, (2005) 10 SCC 498, the following observations were made by the Supreme Court:
"The requirement of law is that the testimony of inimical witnesses has to be considered with caution. If otherwise the witnesses are true and reliable their testimony cannot be thrown out on the threshold by branding them as inimical witnesses. By now, it is well-settled principle of law that enmity is a double- edged sword. It can be a ground for false implication. It also can be a ground for assault. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the court to examine the testimony of inimical witnesses with due caution and diligence."
38. The next limb of argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that the prosecution had examined highly interested and relative witnesses and they have not produced any independent witness in support of its case. No doubt the witnesses of fact examined in the case are wife and son of the deceased. Relationship itself is not a ground to reject the testimony of witness, rather such witness would be last person to leave the real culprit and falsely implicate any other person.
39. In the case of Brahm Swaroop and another vs. State of U.P. (2011) 6 SCC 288 the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para No.21 has observed as under
"merely because the witnesses were related to the deceased persons, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Their relationship to one of the parties is not a factor that affects the credibility of a witness, more so, a relation would not conceal the real culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. A party has to lay down a factual foundation and prove by leading impeccable evidence in respect of its false implication. However, in such cases the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible evidence."
40. The Court also referred cases of Dalip and others vs. State of Punjab A.I.R. (1953) SC 364; Masalti vs. State of U.P. (A.I.R.) 1965 SC 202.
41. In Masalti vs. State of U.P. (A.I.R.) 1965 SC 202, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in Para No.14
"but it would, we think, be unreasonably to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on sole ground that it's partisan would inveriably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it's partisan cannot be accepted as correct.
42. It is common knowledge that village life is faction ridden and involvement of one or the other in the incident is not unusual. One has also to be cautious about the fact that wholly independent witnesses are seldom available or are otherwise not inclined to comeforth. Lest they may invite trouble for themselves in future. Therefore, relationship of eye-witnesses, inter se, cannot be a ground to discard their testimonies. There is no reason to suppose the false implication of the appellants at the instance of the eye-witnesses. It would also be illogical to think that witnesses would screen the real culprits and substitute the appellants for them.
43. This Court has also made such observations in Para No.14 of Rameshwar and others vs. State 2003 (46) ACC 581.
44. The relation of witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 with the deceased can also not be a ground to discard their testimony unless there are some glaring instances in their testimony to inspire the Court to belie them. In the present case the presence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 on the spot is natural as the incident took place on the terrace in front of their house where the deceased and the witnesses lived. From their testimony nothing appears to show that they were not present on the spot at that time.
45. The identification of the accused/appellants by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 can also not be said to be doubtful because all of them are residents of the same village and generally in village life every person is known to one another so there may not be any error in their identification.
46. The recovery of arms also stands proved and the empty cartridges collected from the place of occurrence were also matched in the ballistic expert opinion and found to be used in the weapons by the appellants.
47. All of them reached on the spot together and opened fire on the deceased and also made several rounds of firing causing fire injuries to two other persons, namely, Vijendrapal Singh Yadav and Vikas Sharma. It infers their common object to commit murder of the deceased.
48. Having given our considerations to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt and the view taken by learned Additional Sessions Judge is correct.
49. In the result the appeals lack merit and are hereby dismissed.
50. Copy of this judgment alongwith original trial court record be transmitted to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. A compliance report be sent to this Court within one month. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record.
Order Date:- 14.11.2024
Suraj Srivastav
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) (Siddharth,J.)
