Bombay High Court
Vijay Alias Vijya Bibhishan Kale vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 September, 2024
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2024:BHC-AS:38243
Gokhale 1 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1169 OF 2023
Vijay alias Vijya Bibhishan Kale .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
.....
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 49 OF 2024
Uddesh Bibhishan Kale .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
......
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4519 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 49 OF 2024
......
Mr. Nikhil D. Patil, Advocate (appointed) for the Appellant in
Appeal No.1169 of 2023.
Mr. Shravan Giri for Appellant in Appeal No.49 of 2024.
Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent-State.
.....
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 23 SEPTEMBER 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Both these Appeals are disposed of by this common
judgment because they arise out of the same impugned Judgment
2 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
and order.
2. The Appellant Vijay was the original accused No.1 and
the Appellant Uddesh was the original accused No.3 in Special
Case (MCOCA) No.9/2014 on the file of the Special Judge, under
MCOC Act, Pune.
3. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to record
brief history which is peculiar to this particular case. The
Appellants had also faced one more case of similar nature vide the
MCOC Case No. 6 of 2014 before the Special Judge, under MCOC
Act, Pune. The Appellants were convicted in that MCOC Case No.6
of 2014 for the offences punishable under sections 394 and 397 r/
w. 34 of the I.P.C. and under section 3(1)(ii) of the MCOCA. For
the offence punishable U/s. 397 of the I.P.C. they were sentenced
to suffer R.I. for 7 years each and no fine was imposed. For the
offence punishable U/s.3(1)(ii) of the MCOCA they were
sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years each and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,00,000/- each and in default to suffer R.I. for three years. For
the offence punishable U/s.394 of the I.P.C. they were sentenced to
suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in
3 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
default to suffer S.I. for three months.
4. The Appellants had preferred Criminal Appeal No.1605
of 2019. In that Appeal, a submission was made that the 'in
default' sentence in that particular case be reduced and
importantly, one statement was made on their behalf on affidavit
that the Appellants were accepting the conviction imposed vide the
Judgment and order dated 17.06.2021 in Special Case (MCOCA)
No.9 of 2014 for the offence U/s.3(1)(ii) of the MCOC Act and
would not challenge the conviction. On the basis of this statement,
this Court (Coram: Prakash D. Naik, J.) vide the Judgment dated
26.04.2022 partly allowed the Appeal and passed the following
order:
"iii. The sentence of simple imprisonment of
three months for the conviction under Section 394 of
Indian Penal Code in default, payment of fine of
Rs.1,000/- passed by the Additional Sessions Judge
and Additional Special Judge, MCOC Act, Pune in
MCOC Case No.6 of 2014 is reduced to simple
imprisonment for a period of one month.
iv. The sentence of imprisonment of three
years in default, payment of fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five
Lakhs only) for the conviction under Section 3(1)(ii) of
MCOC Act is reduced to rigorous imprisonment of one
year."
4 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
5. This order was passed in respect of MCOC Case No.6 of
2014 before the Special Judge under MCOC Act, Pune. This order
was passed on 26.04.2022. After that order was passed, a Criminal
Appeal of the Accused No.2 in Special Case (MCOCA) No.9 of
2014 vide the Criminal Appeal No.395 of 2022 was decided by this
Court vide the Judgment and order dated 29.09.2022. He was
acquitted. After the acquittal of the Accused No.2, the present
Appellants who were the original Accused Nos.1 and 3 in Special
Case (MCOCA) No.9 of 2014 before the same learned Judge
preferred these two appeals. Considering the affidavit filed by
them, they had undertaken not to challenge that conviction in
Appeal, but in spite of that, they preferred the present Appeals.
The Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2023 filed by the original Accused
No.1 in Special Case (MCOCA) No.9 of 2014 was admitted by
another bench of this Court (Coram: Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J.) vide
the order dated 16.10.2023. Whereas, Criminal Appeal No.49 of
2024 preferred by the original Accused No.3 in the same case was
admitted by another bench of this Court (Coram: Kishore C. Sant,
J.) vide the order dated 10.01.2024.
5 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
When both these appeals were admitted vide the
orders passed by the other benches of this Court, the order dated
26.04.2022 in Criminal Appeal No.1605 of 2019 was already
passed. In spite of that order, both these Appeals were entertained
and were admitted. Since both these appeals are statutory appeals
and they are already admitted by two different benches of this
Court, I have heard the learned counsel for the Appellants in both
these appeals and I am proceeding to decide both these appeals.
However, it cannot be overlooked that the Appellants had made
solemn statement on affidavit before this Court which was a factor
in getting the sentence reduced in another Appeal. The
Respondent-State of Maharashtra is at liberty to take appropriate
steps in accordance with the law against both these Appellants for
committing breach of the statement made on affidavit before this
Court in Criminal Appeal No.1605 of 2019.
6. Coming back to the present case, the Appellants are
the original Accused Nos.1 and 3 in Special Case (MCOCA) No.9 of
2014 on the file of Special Judge under MCOC Act, Pune. There
were four accused. At the conclusion of the trial, the accused No.4
6 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
was acquitted. Both the Appellants and the accused No.2 were
convicted and sentenced by the judgment and order dated
17.6.2021 as follows :
i) for commission of offence punishable under Section 395 of
IPC, they were sentenced to suffer RI for ten years each and
to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default of payment of
fine to suffer SI for six months.
ii) for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1) of
the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999
(MCOC Act), they were sentenced to suffer RI for seven
years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each and in
default of payment of fine to suffer SI for one year each.
iii) they were also convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 3(4) of MCOC Act and were sentenced to suffer RI
for seven years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- and in
default of payment of fine to suffer SI for one year each.
iv) All the substantive sentences were directed to run
concurrently. The sentences of accused Nos.1 to 3 were
directed to run concurrently with the sentence passed in
7 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
MCOCA Case No.6/2014 imposed on them vide judgment
and order dated 3.5.2019 passed by the Additional Judge,
MCOCA Court, Pune as per Section 427 of Cr.P.C.
v) All of them were acquitted from the offence punishable
under Section 3(2) of the MCOC Act.
vi) They were granted benefit of set-off under Section 428 of
Cr.P.C.
7. Heard Shri. Nikhil Patil, learned appointed counsel for
the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2023, Shri. Shravan
Giri, learned counsel for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.49 of
2024 and Smt. Tidke, learned APP for the State.
8. The prosecution case is that several truck drivers,
owners and cleaners had parked their trucks behind a petrol pump
in an open parking space. Those trucks were transporting steel. In
the night between 26th and 27th February, 2014, about seven to
eight persons entered these trucks carrying knives and sticks. They
took away cash amount and ornaments from the truck drivers and
cleaners. One of the truck owners lodged the FIR at Loni Kalbhor
police station, Pune vide C.R. No.68/2014. The accused, including
8 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
the present appellants, were arrested on 29.3.2014. The Test
identification parades were held on 31.7.2014 and 6.8.2014. The
statements of the witnesses were recorded. At the instance of the
Appellant Vijay, some cash amount and some ornaments including
two gold badam shaped pendents were recovered. At the
conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.
9. During the course of investigation, it was found that
the offence was committed as a continuing unlawful activity by an
organized crime syndicate. Therefore, approval under Section
23(1) of the MCOC Act was given. The investigation was carried
out and after obtaining sanction under Section 23(2) of the MCOC
Act, the charge-sheet was filed. The accused were tried before the
MCOCA Court.
10. During the trial, the prosecution examined eleven
witnesses including seven victims, one pancha and various police
officers. The approval under Section 23(1) of the MCOC Act was
produced at Exhibit-91/2 and the sanction under Section 23(2)
was produced on record at Exhibit-92/3.
9 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
11. PW-1 Kumar Gugwad was the first informant. He has
deposed that he was owner of the truck bearing No.MH-09-BC-
5265. On 26.2.2014, he and his driver Balappa Gugwad loaded the
steel goods at Hospet, Karnataka and they came to Loni at around
10.00 p.m.. They parked their truck in an open space behind the
petrol pump adjacent to godown of Kalyani Steel Company. About
20 to 25 trucks were also parked there. Both of them had their
dinner and they slept in the truck. In the morning hours at around
3.00 a.m. on 27.2.2014, seven to eight persons armed with
wooden sticks came there. Those persons woke-up the
complainant and his companion and told them to hand over their
money. The first informant handed over Rs.5,000/- and a gold
ornament. They also robbed cash and golden ornaments from
other trucks. Then they ran away. PW-1 the first informant has
deposed that some of them were having black complexion and
some of them were having fair complexion. They were in the age-
group of 24-25 years. PW-1 and others then narrated the incident
to a watchman. He informed the police telephonically. The police
came at the spot. They carried out the spot panchnama. PW-1's
10 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
statement was recorded and it was treated as an F.I.R. The F.I.R. is
produced on record at Exhibit-49. On 31.7.2014, he went to
Yerwada Central Prison for identification of the accused. In that
parade, he identified two accused. He was unable to tell whether
those two persons were present in the court or not. The note of
the learned Judge mentions that PW-1 did not identify any of the
four accused present in the Court. PW-1 explained that since
several days had passed after the incident and the identification
parade, he was not able to identify any accused. During
investigation, the police showed him his gold ornament, which he
identified.
In the cross-examination, he has stated that at the time
of dacoity he did not shout as they were threatened. More
importantly, he admitted that there was darkness at the place of
incident.
The F.I.R. is produced at Exhibit-49. The F.I.R. gives
many details of trucks, their drivers, cleaners and details of
amount and ornaments which were robbed. However, these
details are not mentioned by him in his deposition. Therefore, the
11 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
use of those details in the F.I.R. is very limited. It was registered at
6.00 a.m. on 27.2.2014 at Loni Kalbhor police station vide C.R.
No.68/2014.
12. PW-2 Ravi Kuti was a driver on truck bearing No.MH-
17-AQ-4005. His truck was also parked in the same parking area.
He has also described the incident in the same manner. He has
deposed that about four to five persons armed with sticks and
knives approached him and took away Rs.8,000/- and a cell
phone. He identified all the four accused in the Court as the same
persons who had committed the offence.
In the cross-examination, however, he admitted that
there was darkness when the incident took place. But, he was
volunteered to state that there was light in the parking area. At the
time of incident, he himself was in the cabin of the truck. He
denied the suggestion that there was darkness in the cabin. He has
given an important admission in his cross-examination as he has
admitted that he had seen the accused persons out of the Court
hall.
12 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
13. PW-3 Raosaheb Shejar was a driver on the trailer
bearing No.MH-06-K-4879. He has also described the same
incident. Four unknown persons entered his cabin by pointing
knives and wooden sticks. They robbed him of cash of Rs.5,500/-,
gold ornament and wrist watch. After that, they went to another
trailer and robbed the other drivers and then fled away. All the
drivers then went to Loni Kalbhor police station and one of them
gave report. In July, 2014, he was called to Yerwada police station.
He has deposed that in the identification parade he identified four
accused. PW-3 identified all the four accused before the Court.
In the cross-examination, he denied that there was
darkness at the time of incident. According to him, the focus of
the light at the petrol pump was in his cabin. There were four
offenders.
14. PW-4 Laxman Karande was a cleaner on the trailer
baring No MH-06-K-4879. He was present with PW-3 and,
therefore, he has narrated the incident in exactly the same manner
as is described by PW-3. However, there is a slight discrepancy in
the timing. He has deposed that the incident had taken place at
13 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
around 3.00 a.m.; whereas PW-3 has deposed that it had taken
place at 2.30 a.m.. He has deposed that after five to six months, he
was called at Yerwada Jail and he has identified four accused in
that parade. He also identified four accused in the Court.
In the cross-examination, he admitted that when he
came to the Court accused were sitting in the veranda. He also
admitted that when he came to the Court, he had met the police
officers.
15. PW-5 Sitaram Raut was the driver of the truck bearing
No.MH-13-AX-3757. He has also described the incident. Around
Rs.8,000/- kept by him in his clothes were missing. The others
were also robbed and assaulted. There were seven to eight
persons armed with wooden logs. He has admitted that he had not
seen those persons. He did not identify any of the accused in the
Court. He also admitted that there was darkness in his cabin, but,
he denied that there was darkness outside the cabin.
16. PW-7 Ganesh Shinde was a driver on the truck bearing
No.MH-43-G-6059. He was also one of the victims. One of the
14 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
accused gave a blow of knife on his right shoulder. His phone was
taken away. He could not identify any of the accused.
17. PW-8 Radhari Yadav was a driver on the trailer bearing
No.MH-06-AQ-1580. He has deposed that one of the dacoits
entered in his cabin. They assaulted him with knife and took away
around Rs.10,000/-. He did not identify any of the accused in the
Court. He admitted that there was darkness at the time of incident.
18. PW-6 Sudam Gavade was a panch witness for search of
the house of accused Kale. His evidence is not very clear. It could
be house of the present appellant but nothing was recovered and
this evidence is not incriminating. About rest of his evidence, he
was declared hostile in respect of search of houses of other
accused.
19. PW-9 Milind Mohite, Additional Superintendent of
Police Baramati, District-Pune, had conducted the investigation
between February to July, 2014. He was empowered to conduct
the investigation. He could not tell whether there was darkness at
the spot because he had visited the spot during day time. He
15 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
admitted that the accused were arrested on suspicion.
20. PW-10 Ashok Bharate, Deputy Commissioner of Police
had conducted the investigation after 14.7.2014. He had caused
to conduct test identification parade. He obtained two charge-
sheets in the past crimes committed by the accused. Those charge-
sheets were produced on record at Exhibit-113. The test
identification parade memos regarding two parades dated
31.7.2014 and 6.8.2014 are produced on record at Exhibit-108
and 112.
21. PW-11 P.I. Anil Gopal had supervised recovery of a
knife, two gold ornaments and Rs.9,770/- at the instance of
accused No.1-Appellant Vijay from a heap of broken-tiles near
Indapur from a shed in the land belonging to one Ismail Shaikh.
22. Learned trial Judge believed the prosecution witnesses
who had either identified the accused at the test identification
parade or in the Court; and based on their evidence convicted the
appellants and others. He also believed the evidence of recovery of
property from Accused No.1 Vijay. He also took into account the
16 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
record produced by the police officers in the form of charge-sheets
to conclude that the present offence was part of continuing
unlawful activity of an organized crime syndicate and, therefore,
also convicted and sentenced the appellant and others under the
provisions of the MCOC Act.
23. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that,
there was darkness in the area and inside the cabin and, therefore,
it was not possible for the victims to have identified the offenders.
The Accused No.2 is acquitted by this Court in Criminal Appeal
No.395 of 2022. The evidence of identification stands on the same
footing, as far as the present Appellants and the acquitted Accused
No.2 i.e. Bazigar Kale is concerned. They submitted that, if the
evidence of identification is left aside, then there is hardly any
evidence against the present appellants.
24. Learned counsel for the Appellant Vijay Kale, in
addition, submitted that, though there is recovery at the instance
of the Appellant Vijay, it was from a place belonging to one Shaikh.
That person is not examined and there is no evidence led by the
prosecution in that behalf. That place was accessible to everybody.
17 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
He submitted that the panchas to that recovery were not
examined. The police officer PW-11 has stated that, after recovery,
those articles were sealed with lakh seal and the labels with
panchas' signatures were pasted. But when they were shown to
PW-1 and PW-3, at that time there was no mention of removing of
those seals and labels. This is an important discrepancy which
vitiates the identification of those ornaments by PW-1 and PW-3.
25. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that the
evidence of identification is sufficient against the Appellants. There
is a difference, as far as, accused No.2 and both these appellants
are concerned. PW-1 Kumar had identified the Appellants Vijay
and Uddesh in the test identification parade. He had not identified
the accused No.2. Therefore, there is difference, as far as,
identification by PW-1 in the parade is concerned. She submitted
that, PW-3 had identified all the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3. This is a
strong circumstance against the appellants. She submitted that,
PW-1 and PW-3 have identified the ornaments recovered at the
instance of the Appellant Vijay. She, therefore, submitted that the
prosecution has proved its case. Considering the previous charge-
18 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
sheet and the cognizance taken, even the offence under the
MCOCA is proved.
26. I have considered these submissions. It is necessary to
see whether the Appellants can be convicted for commission of
offences under the I.P.C. Then question would arise about their
involvement in the MCOCA offences. The important witnesses, as
far as identification is concerned, are PW-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 who
are the victims in the incident. PW-1 the first informant had
identified both the appellants at the test identification parade, but
in his substantive evidence before the Court he did not identify
either of the Appellants. Therefore, his evidence as far as identity
of the offenders is concerned is not helpful to the prosecution case,
in the absence of substantive evidence in respect of the identity of
the offenders.
27. PW-2 Ravi Kuti had identified the Appellants in the
Court, but he was not asked to identify the suspects in any test
identification parade. Therefore, he was deposing for the first time
in the court in respect of the identity of the offenders. Importantly,
he has admitted that, he had seen the accused outside the Court
19 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
hall. This admission is important. In this case, the prosecution has
not eliminated the possibility that the accused were shown to the
witnesses thereby influencing their depositions before the Court in
respect of identification of the accused. Therefore, in this case,
reasonable doubt is created regarding identification by PW-2 of the
present appellants. He has also admitted that there was darkness
when the incident had occurred; though, he has stated that there
was light in the parking area. The incident had taken place in the
cabin, therefore, his evidence suffers from a reasonable doubt.
28. PW-5 Sitaram Raut deposed that he had not seen those
persons and he had not identified the appellants in the Court.
Therefore, his evidence also does not support the prosecution.
29. PW-7 Ganesh Shinde also did not identify the accused
in the Court.
30. Similarly, PW-8 Ramdhari Yadav also has not identified
the accused in the Court. He has admitted that there was darkness
at the time of incident.
31. Therefore, the evidence worth considering as far as
20 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
identification is concerned is only of PW-3 Raosaheb and PW-4
Laxman. Both of them have identified the appellants in the Court.
PW-3 Raosaheb has deposed that in the month of July, he was
called at Yerwada police station for test identification parade.
Whereas, the test identification parade was held in Yerwada
Central Prison and not at Yerwada police station. Therefore, there
was substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellants
that the appellants were shown to this witness in the police station
itself. The prosecution has not explained this discrepancy. Hence,
even in his evidence sufficient doubt is created.
32. PW-4 Laxman Karande had identified the Appellant
Vijay and accused No.2 Bajigar, but he did not identify the
Appellant Uddesh at the test identification parade. But he
identified both the appellants in the Court. Thus, his identification,
as far as, Appellant Uddesh is concerned is extremely doubtful.
Even in respect of the appellant Vijay, his evidence is not fully
reliable. He has admitted that, when he came to the Court he met
the police officers. He also admitted that when he came to the Court
the accused persons were sitting outside the court hall. Thus, there
21 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
was a reasonable possibility that he was shown the accused before
his deposition. Therefore, his evidence becomes doubtful as far as
identification of the accused including the appellants is concerned.
The test identification parade itself was held on 31.07.2014 and
6.8.2014. Though the appellants were arrested on 29.3.2014, no
explanation is offered as to why the investigating agency waited
till 6.8.2014 to conduct the test identification parade.
33. Thus, this discussion shows that the evidence of
identification of both the appellants is doubtful and reasonable
doubt is created in that behalf, the benefit of which must go to the
Appellants.
34. The only other circumstance which remains against the
Appellant Vijay is about the recovery of the ornaments and cash
amount. In this behalf, the prosecution has not examined the
pancha witnesses in whose presence the Appellant had given
memorandum statement leading to the recovery. Similarly, the
prosecution has also not examined the pancha witnesses in whose
presence those gold pendents were allegedly identified by PW-1
and PW-3. The only evidence in that behalf is that of the Police
22 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
Officer-PW-11. In this respect, it is significant to note that PW-11
has stated that, after the recovery was effected, the ornaments
were kept in sealed condition. Lakh seal was applied and labels of
the signatures of the panchas were affixed. This was done on
31.03.2014. Thereafter, PW-1 and PW-3 were asked to identify the
stolen ornaments on 01.08.2014 and on 05.08.2014 respectively.
There is no explanation as to why there was so much delay. Apart
from that, the most important aspect in this case is that, when both
these witnesses were made to identify the ornaments, two separate
panchanamas were conducted which were produced on record at
Exhibit-109 and 110. In both these panchanamas, there is no
reference that the seal on the packets in which the ornaments were
kept were removed in the presence of panchas and that they were
resealed with labels of signatures of the panchas. This is an
important aspect, because the prosecution has not led evidence to
show that those ornaments were kept in safe custody; ruling out
all the possibilities of tampering before they were shown to the
witnesses. In this view of the matter, identification of those two
gold pendents by PW-1 and PW-3 loses its evidentiary value.
23 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
Consequently, the recovery at the instance of the Appellant Vijay
also cannot be connected with the present offence. In this view of
the matter, there is no other evidence against both the appellants.
Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt, as far as, commission of offences under the I.P.C.
are concerned. Consequently, the Appellants cannot be convicted
for commission of offences under MCOCA, as well, because
unlawful activity which was the subject matter of the C.R.No.68 of
2014 of Loni Kalbhor police station was not proved against the
appellants. Hence, it cannot be termed as 'continuing unlawful
activity' undertaken by the Appellants as members of an organized
crime syndicate. In this view of the matter, even their conviction
under MCOCA will have to be set aside.
35. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
i. Both the Appeals are allowed.
ii. The Judgment and order dated 17.6.2021
passed by the Special Judge, under MCOC
Act, Pune in Special Case (MCOCA)
24 of 24 17-apeal-1169-23 & 49-24(J)
No.9/2014, convicting and sentencing the
Appellants, is set aside.
iii. The Appellants are acquitted.
iv. The Appellant Vijay alias Vijya Bibhishan
Kale is on bail.
v. The Appellant Uddesh Bibhishan Kale is in
custody, he be released forthwith if not
required in any other case. Before being
released, he shall execute P.R. Bond in the
sum of Rs.30000/- to ensure his presence
in case Appeal against acquittal is
preferred.
vi. The Appellant Vijay Kale shall execute
similar P. R. bond for Rs.30000/- within a
period of one month from today.
vii. Both the Appeals are disposed of.
viii. With disposal of the Appeals, the
companion application is also disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
