Bombay High Court
Sadiquabee W/O. Mohd. Usman ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 16 November, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar
Chittewan/Talekar,PS 1/20 WP 2754-21DB-9-11.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
signed by
SHRADDHA
SHRADDHA KAMLESH
KAMLESH TALEKAR
TALEKAR Date: WRIT PETITION NO.2754 OF 2021
2021.11.16
18:46:02
+0530
Sadiquabee Mohd. Usman Shaikh
w/o. Mohd. Usman Mohd Hanif Shaikh
Aged : 28 yrs, Occupation : Housewife,
Female, Muslim, Residing at MHADA
Colony, Room No. 605/79, Ashiyana CHS,
PMGP Colony, Mankurd Shivaji
Nagar, S.O., Mumbai, Maharashtra 400043 ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through the Public Prosecutor
A.S. High Court, Mumbai.
2. Senior Police Inspector,
Deonar Police Station, Mumbai,
3. Senior Police Inspector,
Shivaji Nagar Police Station,
Mumbai ... Respondents
.....
Mr. Adil Khatri for the Petitioner.
Mr. Y.P. Yagnik, APP for the State.
.....
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 24th AUGUST 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 16th NOVEMBER 2021
......
JUDGEMENT : (Per N.J. JAMADAR, J.)
1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
Chittewan/Talekar,PS 2/20 WP 2754-21DB-9-11.doc
fled by the wife of Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hanif Shaikh, the accused,
for the following reliefs :-
(a) to issue 'Writ of Habeas Corpus' or Writ in the nature
of Habeas Corpus or any appropriate writ, direction,
order to the Respondents, to forthwith release the
Petitioner's husband, named, Mohd. Usman Mohd
Hanif Shaikh, or such terms and conditions as this
Hon'ble Court deed ft and proper illegal detention at
Shivaji Nagar Police Station lock-up after MCR &
Deonar Police Station dated 26 July 2021 and 27 July
2021;
(b) to order disciplinary proceeding to be initiated against
the concerned police offcers;
(c) to order for the compensation to be awarded to the
Petitioner' husband by the Respondents.
2. The Petition arises in the backdrop of the following facts :
(a) On the basis of a report lodged by Shahnawaz Sayyed
Sarang, C.R. no.399 of 2021 was registered at Deonar Police
Station for the offence punishable under Section 380 of Indian
Penal Code ("Penal Code") for the alleged theft of mobile phone
handsets on the morning of 29 May 2021.
(b) The Petitioner alleges that in connection with the said
crime, the Petitioner's husband Mohd Usman Mohd Hanif Shaikh,
Chittewan/Talekar,PS 3/20 WP 2754-21DB-9-11.doc
the accused was illegally detained by Deonar Police on 26 July
2021 at about 09.30 p.m. No notice under Section 41A of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code") was given, though
warranted by the circumstances of the case. The Accused was not
produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 27 July 2021. The
Accused came to be produced before the Learned Metropolitan
Magistrate 45th Court, Kurla, Mumbai at about 12.50 p.m. on 28
July 2021. The Accused raised grievance of illegal detention before
the learned Magistrate. However, the Accused was remanded to
the police custody till 30 July 2021.
(c) On 30th July, 2021, the learned Magistrate declined to
extend the police custody and remanded the Accused to judicial
custody till 13 August 2021. However, the Accused was kept in the
lockup at Shivaji Nagar Police Station in gross violation of the order
passed by the learned Magistrate, remanding the Accused to the
judicial custody and the constitutional and legal rights of the
Accused. Hence, the Petitioner approached this Court on 1 August
2021 and invoked the writ jurisdiction.
3. A report was fled by the Investigating Offcer. As the record
Chittewan/Talekar,PS 4/20 WP 2754-21DB-9-11.doc
revealed that the Accused was remanded to judicial custody on 30
July 21 itself and yet the Accused was not lodged in the prison till
5 August 2021, the concerned investigation was directed to fle an
affdavit, dealing with the allegations in the Petition.
4. Mr. Pratap Desai, Police Sub-Inspector attached to Deonar
Police Station has fled the affdavit. It was categorically denied
that the Accused was apprehended on 26 July 2021 and kept in
illegal detention till 28 July 2021. In contrast, the investigating
offcer asserted that the Accused was arrested on 27 July 2021 at
about 06.00 p.m., which fact is evidenced by entries in the case
diary. The allegations of illegal detention were thus sought to be
refuted.
5. As regard the allegations of detention of the Accused in
the police custody, post order by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate remanding the Accused to the judicial custody, the
investigating offcer has asserted that :-
"(i) I say that as on 31.07.2021 to
01.08.2021 being Saturday and Sunday, there
is no facility available in the government
hospital to do RTPCR, hence the present
Petitioner's husband namely Mohd. Usman
Chittewan/Talekar,PS 5/20 WP 2754-21DB-9-11.doc
Mohd. Hanif Shaikh is kept in Shivaji Nagar
Lock up separately by following COVID-19
guidelines. Then subsequent dates on
02.08.2021 and 03.08.2021, due to
unavoidable circumstances like this out of six
vehicles, i.e. (i) Mobile - 1 Van, (ii) Light Van,
(iii) Peter- 1 - Jeep, (iv) Mobile -2 Jeep, (v)
Mobile - 3 Jeep and (vi) Mobile - 5 Jeep, no
government vehicle was available, the copy of
the Log Book/Diary of the government
vehicles is clearly show that out of six
government vehicles, three government
vehicles were not in working condition. One
government vehicle is out of order on
23.07.2021, another another government
vehicles is out of order on 31.07.2021 and
third government vehicles were on
Nakabandi duty at different places, which is
ordered by the Control Room and sixth
government vehicle is engaged on Wireless
Message duty. The copies of the extract of
the Vehicle Register is annexed hereto and
marked as Annexure-B Colly, with this
Affdavit for ready reference to this Hon'ble
Court.
(ii) I say that on 04.08.2021, the
husband of the Petitioner was taken to
Shatabdi Hospital for RTPCR Test and at
Shatabdi Hospital, negative report was
received on very same day in the evening and
immediately on 05.08.2021, the Petitioner
was given in the custody of Arthur Road
Central Prison, Mumbai as Report was
received late in the evening. The copy of the
Chittewan/Talekar,PS 6/20 WP 2754-21DB-9-11.doc
Report that he was lodged in Arthur Road
Central Prison, Mumbai is hereto annexed
and marked as Annexure-C for ready
reference to this Hon'ble Court.
(iii) I say that the Petitioner's husband
has falsely alleged that the investigating
offcer was doing interrogation during the
intervening period, but in fact, the
investigating offcer was busy in other
investigation and such record can be
produced as and when required by this
Hon'ble Court."
6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid stand, as is manifested
in the affdavit of the concerned police offcer, Mr. Adil Khatri,
learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner strenuously submitted
that the fact that the Accused was illegally detained in police
custody, despite order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 30 July
2021, remanding the Accused to the judicial custody, can hardly be
disputed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged with a degree
of vehemence that the reasons sought to be assigned by the
investigating offcer for not lodging the Accused in the prison, are
simply unworthy of acceptance. It was submitted that, in the wake
of COVID-19 pandemic, all the prisons have been equipped with
quarantine facility. Thus, the claim of the investigating offcer that
Chittewan/Talekar,PS 7/20 WP 2754-21DB-9-11.doc
awaiting the report of COVID-19 test (RTPCR), the Accused was
detained in police lock up at Shivaji Nagar Police Station is
untenable. Mr. Khatri further submitted that non-availability of
the vehicle to take the Accused for conducting RTPCR is a lame
excuse. In the circumstances, in the backdrop of proved unlawful
detention in police station, the Accused is entitled to compensatory
relief and the State is duty bound to initiate disciplinary action
against the errant offcial/s, submitted Mr. Khatri.
7. In opposition to this, Mr. J.P. Yagnik, learned APP for the
State, would urge that the exigency of the situation, which arose on
account of COVID-19 pandemic, cannot be lost sight of. The Prison
Department, according to Mr. Yagnik, insisted on having a negative
RTPCR report, so as to arrest the spread of contagion among the
inmates. From this standpoint, the claim of the investigating
agency that testing facility was not available on 31 July 2021 and 1
August 2021, being Saturday and Sunday, respectively, and test
could not be conducted on 2 and 3 August 2021, as vehicle was
not available, cannot be said to be unreasonable and
unsustainable. After the receipt of the negative RTPCR report, the
Accused was immediately shifted to prison on 5 August 2021.
Chittewan/Talekar,PS 8/20 WP 2754-21DB-9-11.doc
Therefore, according to Mr. Yagnik, the claim of unlawful detention,
in the police custody, is unworthy of acceptance.
8. We have carefully perused the Petition, its
accompaniments and reply thereto. We have also perused the
original fle pertaining to investigation in connection with C.R.
No.399 of 2021.
9. The Petitioner has agitated two issues. One, there was
an illegal detention from 26 July 2021 till 28 July 2021. Two, the
Accused was unlawfully detained in police custody, after he was
remanded to judicial custody.
10. On the frst count, learned Magistrate, upon perusal of
the material on record, observed that the ground of illegal
detention from 26 July 2021, was not sustainable, especially, in the
face of the material to show that the Accused was arrested on 27
July 2021 at about 06.00 p.m. Upon perusal of original record, we
are of the view that no fault can be found with the said
observations of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
Chittewan/Talekar,PS 9/20 WP 2754-21DB-9-11.doc
11. On the second count, however, the claim of the
Petitioner appears to be sustainable on facts. The orders passed by
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 28 July 2021 and 30 July
2021, make the position abundantly clear. By the frst order, the
Accused was remanded to police custody till 30 July 2021. By later
order, the prayer of the investigating offcer to extend the police
custody was turned down and the Accused was remanded to
judicial custody till 13th August 2021. Undoubtedly, the Accused
was not lodged in prison till 5 August 2021 and was detained at
police lock up at Shivaji Nagar Police Station.
12. The investigating agency attempted to wriggle out of the
situation by asserting that, the Accused could not have been
lodged in prison as it was obligatory to have a negative RTPCR
report before a person is lodged in prison. Since the test could not
be conducted on 31 July 2021 and 1 August 2021, as testing
centres were closed, and on 2 and 3 August 2021, the Accused
could not be taken for test, as vehicles were not available, it cannot
be said that there was a deliberate attempt to detain the Accused
in police custody, in violation of the order of the Metropolitan
Magistrate. Whether this explanation is sustainable ?
Chittewan/Talekar,PS 10/20 WP 2754-21DB-9-11.doc
13. We have extracted above the relevant part of the
affdavit of Pratap Desai, on purpose. The explanation sought to be
offered by police does not refect the true and complete state of
facts, as borne out by material on record. Firstly, it appears that on
30 July 2021 itself, the Accused Mohd Usman Shaikh was
administered frst dose of vaccine (Covishield) at Deonar Maternity
Home, Mumbai. A certifcate was issued on that day. Secondly, the
intimation dated 5 August 2021, by the Competent Authority,
Central Prison, indicates that the Accused was sent for being kept
in isolation at a temporary prison at Municipal Corporation School,
Byculla, Mumbai. It is true that the RTPCR test was conducted on
4 August 2021 and the report was received on the very day.
However, the fact remains that from 30 July 2021 to 05 August
2021, the Accused was detained at police lock up of Shavaji Nagar
Police Station. The standing order issued by the Competent
Authority shows that the prisoner ought be lodged in prison only
after giving vaccine to prisoner. In the case at hand, the frst dose
of vaccine was administered to the Accused on 30 July 2021 itself.
Eventually, the Accused was sent for isolation in a temporary
prison. In the backdrop of these facts, the claim of investigating
Chittewan/Talekar,PS 11/20 WP 2754-21DB-9-11.doc
agency that the accused could not have been lodged in prison for
want of negative RTPCR report, does not appear to be wholly
sustainable.
14. The endeavor of the investigating offcer to explain the
delay in lodging the Accused in prison for want of availability of the
vehicle, for two clear days, simply does not merit acceptance.
Documents were sought to be placed on record to show that three
out of six vehicles had broken down. We are afraid to accede to
such an explanation. The constitutional and legal rights of a
person cannot be sacrifced at the altar of such fimsy explanation.
15. The situation which thus obtains is that, the Accused
was detained in police custody in fagrant violation of the order
passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to lodge the Accused
in prison. The constitutional and legal rights of the Accused were,
thus, blatantly violated. The question which crops up for our
consideration is the manner, in which the grievances of the
Accused can be redressed. A mere declaration that the authorities
acted in violation of the constitutional and legal provisions is of no
consequence to the person, whose rights have been infringed. The
Chittewan/Talekar,PS 12/20 WP 2754-21DB-9-11.doc
principle of "Public Law Damage", thus comes to the fore. The
constitutional Courts are empowered to award compensation under
public law, to redress such grievances.
16. A useful reference, in this context, can be made to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Rudul Sah Vs. State of
Bihar1, wherein the petitioner was detained illegally in prison for
over fourteen years after his acquittal in a full fedged trial. The
Supreme Court was confronted with the question, as to whether in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, it can pass an order for
the payment of money, if such order is in the nature of a
compensation consequential upon the deprivation of a
fundamental right to life and liberty of a petitioner. The Supreme
Court answered the question in the affrmative in the following
words :-
"10. We cannot resist this argument. We see no effective
answer to it save the stale and sterile objection that the
petitioner may, if so advised, fle a suit to recover damages
from the State Government. Happily, the State's counsel
has not raised that objection. The petition could have been
relegated to the ordinary remedy of a suit if his claim to
compensation was factually controversial, in the sense that
a civil court may or may not have upheld his claim. But we
have no doubt that if the petitioner fles a suit to recover
1 AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1086
Chittewan/Talekar,PS 13/20 WP 2754-21DB-9-11.doc
damages for his illegal detention, a decree for damages
would have to be passed in that suit, though it is not
possible to predicate in the absence of evidence, the precise
amount which would be decreed in his favour. In these
circumstances, the refusal of this Court to pass an order of
compensation in favour of the petitioner will be doing mere
lip-service to his fundamental right to liberty which the
State Government has so grossly violated. Article 21 which
guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denuded of its
signifcant content if the power of this Court were limited to
passing orders of release from illegal detention. One of the
telling ways in which the violation of that right can
reasonably with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to be
mulct its violaters in the payment of monetary
compensation. Administrative sclerosis leading to fagrant
infringements of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by
any other method open to judiciary to adopt. The right to
compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of
instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest
and which present for their protection the powers of the
State as a shield. If civilisation is not to perish in this
country as it has perished in some others too well-known to
suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into
accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the
true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair
the damage done by its offcers to the petitioner's rights. It
may have recourse against those offcers."
(emphasis supplied)
17. In the case of Bhim Singh, MLA Vs. State of J & K 2,
where the Supreme Court found that orders of remand were
obtained from the Executive Magistrate and the Sub-Judge on the
applications of the police offcers without the production of the
2 AIR 1986 Supreme Court 494
Chittewan/Talekar,PS 14/20 WP 2754-21DB-9-11.doc
petitioner before them, the Supreme Court observed that "when a
person comes to us with the complaint that he has been arrested
and imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his
constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice
and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his
being set free. In appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to
compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary
compensation." Holding thus, the Supreme Court directed State of
J & K to pay Bhim Singh a sum of Rs.50,000/-.
(emphasis supplied)
18. A Division Bench of this court in the case of Rajeev
Shankarlal Parmar Vs. Offcer-in-Charge, Police Station 3, was
persuaded to award the compensation to the Petitioner, who was
neither produced before the Juvenile Justice Board nor shifted to
Observation Home, despite an order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge. Such order was passed by the learned Sessions
Judge on 7 March 2003. However, it could be given effect to, only
on 13 June 2003, on account of the intervention of the High Court.
In that backdrop, the Division Bench awarded compensation of
3 2003(5) Mh. L.J. 820
Chittewan/Talekar,PS 15/20 WP 2754-21DB-9-11.doc
Rs.15,000 to the petitioner therein.
19. Another Division Bench of this court in the case of
Baban Khandu Rajput Vs. The State of Maharashtra 4 in the
backdrop of allegations that the petitioner therein was arrested on
5.5.1990 and was produced before the Executive Magistrate only on
7.5.1990 and was, thus, illegally detained for over two days,
awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner to be paid
by the State of Maharashtra, to whom liberty was reserved to hold
inquiry and fnd out who was the offcial responsible for the illegal
detention of the petitioner and decide whether any further action
was required to be initiated against the concerned.
20. The Division Bench observed inter alia as under :-
"19. As we have come to the conclusion that the
petitioner was kept in detention for a period of two and half
days without producing him before the appropriate
authority with mala fde intention without giving any
explanation justifying the said detention, the petitioner is
entitled for payment of compensation. In spite of the
strong plea made on behalf of the petitioner, we are
inclined to grant a symbolic compensation in view of the
lapse of time which has taken place.
20 In the facts and circumstances, we allow the writ
4 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 1373
Chittewan/Talekar,PS 16/20 WP 2754-21DB-9-11.doc
petition and award compensation of Rs. Ten Thousand to
the petitioner, which shall be paid by the State of
Maharashtra. State to deposit the compensation within a
period of four weeks form today and when the same is
deposited, the Additional Registrar of this court shall pay
the same to the petitioner. It would be open to the
respondent State to hold inquiry and fnd out as to who
was the offcer responsible for the illegal detention of the
petitioner and decide whether any further action has to be
taken against the erring police offcer in accordance with
law including the criminal offcer in accordance with law
including the criminal action which is prescribed under
law. Rule is made absolute accordingly."
21. A proftable reference can also be made to a judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Railway Board and
Others Vs. Chandrima Das (Mrs.) & Ors. 5 In the said case, the
respondent, a practicing advocate of the Calcutta High Court, had
claimed compensation for the victim, a Bangladeshi national, who
was ravished by many, including the employees of the Railways at
Howrah Railway Station. Dealing with the challenge by the Railway
Board that the victim herself should have approached the Court in
the realm of Private Law, the Supreme Court, after adverting to its
previous pronouncements, enunciated the cases in which public
law remedies can be resorted to, in the following words :
"9.........................The Public Law remedies have also
5 (2002) 2 SCC 465
Chittewan/Talekar,PS 17/20 WP 2754-21DB-9-11.doc
been extended to the realm of tort. This Court, in its
various decisions, has entertained petitions under Article
32 of the Constitution on a number of occasions and has
awarded compensation to the petitioners who had suffered
personal injuries at the hands of the offcers of the Govt.
The causing of injuries, which amounted to tortious act,
was compensated by this Court in many of its decisions
beginning from Rudul Sah vs. State of Bihar 1983(3) SCR
508 = (1983) 4 SCC 141 = AIR 1983 SC 1086. [See also :
Bhim Singh vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1985) 4 SCC
577 = AIR 1986 SC 494; People's Union for Democratic
Rights vs. State of Bihar, 1987 (1) SCR 631 = (1987) 1 SCC
265 = AIR 1987 SC 355; People's Union for Democratic
Rights Thru. Its Secy. vs. Police Commissioner, Delhi
Police Headquarters, (1989) 4 SCC 730 = 1989 (1) SCALE
599; SAHELI, A Woman's Resources Centre vs.
Commissioner of Police, Delhi (1990) 1 SCC 422 = 1989
(Supp.) SCR 488 = AIR 1990 SC 513; Arvinder Singh
Bagga vs. State of U.P. (1994) 6 SCC 565 = AIR 1995 SC
117; P. Rathinam vs. Union of India (1989) Supp. 2 SCC
716; In Re: Death of Sawinder Singh Grower (1995) Supp.
(4) SCC 450 = JT (1992) 6 SC 271 = 1992 (3) SCALE 34;
Inder Singh vs. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 702 = AIR
1995 SC 1949; D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1997) 1
SCC 416 = AIR 1997 SC 610].
10 In cases relating to custodial deaths and those
relating to medical negligence, this Court awarded
compensation under Public Law domain in Nilabati
Behera vs. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746 = 1993 (2)
SCR 581 = AIR 1993 SC 1960; State of M.P. vs. Shyam
Sunder Trivedi (1995) 4 SCC 262 = 1995 (3) SCALE 343;
People's Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India (1997)
3 SCC 433 = AIR 1997 SC 1203 and Kaushalya vs. State
of Punjab (1996) 7 SCALE (SP) 13; Supreme Court Legal
Aid Committee vs. State of Bihar (1991) 3 SCC 482; Dr.
Jacob George vs. State of Kerala (1994) 3 SCC 430 = 1994
(2) SCALE 563; Paschim Bangal Khet Mazdoor Samity vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 37 = AIR 1996
SC 2426; and Mrs. Manju Bhatia vs. N.D.M.C. (1997) 6
SCC 370 = AIR 1998 SC 223 = (1997) 4 SCALE 350.
11 Having regard to what has been stated above, the
contention that Smt. Hanuffa Khatoon should have
approached the civil court for damages and the matter
should not have been considered in a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot be accepted. Where
public functionaries are involved and the matter relates to
Chittewan/Talekar,PS 18/20 WP 2754-21DB-9-11.doc
the violation of Fundamental Rights or the enforcement of
public duties, the remedy would still be available under
the Public Law notwithstanding that a suit could be fled
for damages under Private Law."
22. The aforesaid pronouncements indicate that
adjudication under pubic law domain essentially involves the
resolution of disputes between the citizen, on the one hand, and
State or its instrumentalities, on the other hand. Remedy under
public law domain is resorted to preserve the rule of law. Where a
clear case of infringement of constitutional or legal rights is made
out, the remedy of award of compensation under public law
domain, has now ingrained in our jurisprudence. In such cases, a
mere declaration that the rights of the citizens were violated is of
no succour. It is true, monetary compensation may not, in all
cases, recuperate the injury suffered by the citizen. However, that
remains the most practicable and effective measure for redressal of
the wrong, to the extent possible.
23. Detaining a person in police custody for fve days, despite
specifc order by the jurisdictional Magistrate remanding the
Accused to the judicial custody, cannot be brushed aside as an
aberration. The statutory provisions, which limit the period of
Chittewan/Talekar,PS 19/20 WP 2754-21DB-9-11.doc
police custody, would be rendered illusory if the accused is
detained in police custody, inspite of a reasoned and conscious
order passed by the Magistrate declining police custody and
remanding the accused to the judicial custody. Such infraction, in
our view, warrants award of compensation.
24. For the foregoing reasons, in the totality of the
circumstance, in our view, a sum of Rs.Twenty Thousand would be
appropriate compensation for the infringement of the constitutional
and legal rights of the Accused.
25. Hence, the following order.
: ORDER:
(i) The Petition stands partly allowed.
(ii) Respondent No.1-State is directed to
pay Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand
only) to the husband of the Petitioner, namely,
Mohd. Usman Mohd Hanif Shaikh, the
accused, by way of compensation, within a
period of four weeks.
Chittewan/Talekar,PS 20/20 WP 2754-21DB-9-11.doc
(iii) It would be open to Respondent No.1-
State to hold inquiry and fx liability on the
concerned offcer/ offcials and thereafter take
appropriate action, if found necessary.
No costs.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(N.J. JAMADAR, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
