[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Shriram Maroti Niranjane on 17 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:14388
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 372 OF 2016
...
Central Bureau of Investigation,
ACB, Nagpur.
... APPELLANT
--VERSUS--
Shriram Maroti Niranjane,
R/o. Durgapur Colliery No.3,
WCL Chandrapur.
... RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P.K. Sathianathan, Advocate a/b Mr. Dev M. Mehta, Mr.
D.R. Vyas, Advocate for the CBI/Appellant.
Mr. P.D. Meghe, Advocate a/b Mr. A.D. Dubey, Advocate for the
Respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : DECEMBER 17, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
respondent.
2. The complainant, Ramesh Nanaji Belekar, had
applied for voluntary retirement (VRS) in May, 2004. The
accused, a public servant handling VRS-related work, allegedly
demanded Rs.4,000/- from the complainant for facilitating his
VRS, gratuity, and provident fund (PF) claims. Owing to his
financial condition, the complainant initially expressed inability
to pay. After the complainant received Rs.1,00,000/- towards
gratuity, Rs.2,36,000/- towards VRS, and approximately
Rs.2,50,000/- towards PF between September and October
2004, the accused allegedly renewed his demand. On
02/11/2004, the accused allegedly threatened that non-
payment would create obstacles in release of PF. He ultimately
reduced the demand to Rs.3,500/-, asking the complainant to
pay on 03/11/2004 at his residence.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
3. Unwilling to pay bribe, the complainant approached
the C.B.I. and lodged a written complaint. A trap was arranged
on 03/11/2004. Phenolphthalein-treated currency notes
totalling Rs.3,500/- were handed to the complainant during the
pre-trap proceedings. At about 8.30-8.45 a.m., the accused
allegedly arrived at the complainant's residence, reiterated the
demand, and accepted the tainted money with his right hand,
placing it in his shirt pocket. On receipt of the pre-determined
signal, the trap team apprehended the accused. Sodium-
carbonate tests showed positive reaction on the accused's right-
hand fingers and on the inner pocket of his shirt. The tainted
notes recovered from his pocket tallied with the pre-trap
memorandum. Post-trap panchanama was drawn, and after
completion of investigation and grant of sanction, charge-sheet
was filed. The trial Court has framed charge at Exh. 3 against
the accused for the offence punishable under Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "PC Act"). The accused denied
the allegations, asserting that the amount received represented
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
repayment of a private hand loan and that the complaint was
false.
4. The prosecution has examined 5 witnesses, while the
defence has examined 1 witness. After appreciating the
evidence the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for an
offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC
Act.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the prosecution has proved, beyond reasonable
doubt, the demand and acceptance. He further submits that the
accused was caught red-handed by recovering tainted currency
notes. He further submits that there was demand of Rs.3,500/-,
and the panchanama was drawn to that effect. There is nothing
in the cross-examination to shatter the case of prosecution,
though elaborately cross-examination was taken by the defence.
He further submits that P.W.-1 has specifically deposed about
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
the entire incident. The demand was made from the very
inception, when P.W.-1, the complainant, has filed an
application for VRS. There were consistent demands by the
accused, and therefore, as a last resort, he agreed to pay an
amount of Rs.3,500/-, after settlement. On 02/11/2004, the
complainant lodged a complaint with the CBI, which was
accordingly reduced into writing and is recorded at Exh.-16.
There was a specific demand of Rs.3,500/- by the accused for
sanctioning pension amount of the complainant and it has
specifically come in the evidence of P.W.-1 that accused has
initially demanded Rs.4,000/-, but after settlement, he agreed
for Rs.3,500/-, reducing Rs.500/-. So far as P.W.-2 [Arvind
Shankar Dahate], the panch witness, he has supported the
prosecution case, and his version is consistent so far as demand
and acceptance by the accused. Both the witnesses P.W.-1 and
P.W.-2 are consistent so far as the demand and acceptance by
the accused is concerned. He has specifically deposed that
accused has demanded amount of Rs.3,500/- in the form of
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
"Jaldi Karo aur 3500/- rupaye do". After acceptance of the
amount, signal was given, and accordingly, the raiding party
came there and hands of accused was caught, and thereafter,
accused has confessed that he has committed crime and he be
excused. The C.B.I. was not responsible for placing the amount
on table, and accordingly, the accused took the amount and
kept it on table. He further submits that P.W.-2 specifically
deposed that Panch No.2 counted the notes and placed them on
the table, totaling Rs.3,500/-. Thereafter, necessary procedure
was followed, wherein the fingers of the accused was dipped in
the solution, and the solution turned pink. Even the shirt was
seized and when the shirt was dipped in the solution, the
solution turned purple. Accordingly, sanction was accorded by
the Competent Authority, and after taking into consideration
the entire record, sanction was granted. All the witnesses
supported the case of prosecution, and therefore, the
prosecution has duly proved the demand as well as acceptance,
and therefore, he submits that the Trial Court has committed
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
gross error in not appreciating the evidence properly and came
to a wrong conclusion by considering the minor contradictions
and omissions. The contradictions and omissions do not go to
the root of the matter, and therefore, the Trial Court ought to
have ignored them. Lastly, he submits that appeal be allowed.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent has vehemently submitted that the respondent-
accused is working as Mines Superintendent with the Sub-
Regional Office, Durgapur Rayatwari Collieries (DRC), No.3.
The case of the prosecution cannot be believed for the simple
reason that the complainant has already received his pension,
and the amount was deposited in his account. When the work
of pension was already completed, there was no occasion for
the accused to demand any money, nor any reason for the
complainant to pay the same. All the retiral benefits were paid
before the alleged demand was made. He also submits that it
was the consistent stand of the accused that the amount which
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
he received of Rs.3,500/- is the loan amount which he had paid
to the complainant. Initially the accused has paid Rs.5000/-,
however, out of which Rs.1,500/- was paid and Rs.3,500/- was
remained, as the complainant has received his retiral benefits,
therefore, he was unwilling to pay the remaining amount of
Rs.3,500/-. It appears from the evidence that the complainant
was annoyed by the fact that the accused was demanding an
amount of Rs.3,500/- by going to his grocery shop, and the
demand was made in presence of customers. Accordingly, the
complainant was displeased with this act of the accused, and
therefore, a false trap has been led. There are several
contradictions and omissions and the complainant has changed
his version from time to time by stating that the accused
initially demanded Rs.3,500/- when the application for VRS
was filed, however, in the earlier part of evidence, it has come
on record that he has demanded Rs.4,000/-, and after
settlement, the amount was reduced to Rs.3,500/-. This itself
shows that the complainant was not consistent, and therefore,
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
his evidence cannot be believed. He further submits that,
according to the evidence, the complainant was supposed to
come on the next day, i.e., tomorrow morning at around 8 -
8:30 a.m., however, in the cross-examination, it came on record
that the accused has told him to come in the morning on
03/11/2004. It has also come on record that on 02/11/2004,
at about 5:00 p.m., he had given the ring to the accused from
the CBI Office, Nagpur, however, in the second breath, he has
said that it did not happen that he made a phone call to the
accused while writing his report, therefore, these are material
contradictions which are required to be taken into
consideration. He further submits that so far as the VRS
application is concerned, it has come on record that the
complainant had submitted the application to the clerk, Shri
Bageshwari, therefore, he submits that it cannot, even by the
stretch of imagination, be said that the work was with the
accused. Since the sanctioning authority was the General
Manager, there is no question of the accused giving assurance
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
to the complainant to sanction the pension. He further submits
that, so far as the evidence of P.W.-2 is concerned, it does not
inspire confidence, as it has come in his evidence that CBI asked
accused to keep the amount on table, and accordingly, the
accused took out the amount and placed it there. On the
contrary, P.W.-1 deposed that one member from CBI party took
out money and documents from the shirt pocket of accused and
kept them on sofa. Therefore, this very aspect goes to the root
of the matter in order to dis-believe these two witnesses.
Whether these witnesses are to be believed or not is the
question, and if the evidence of these two witnesses is
considered, then under such circumstances these witnesses
cannot be believed. Therefore, he lastly submits that the
prosecution has utterly failed to prove the demand as well as
acceptance, and therefore, he submits that there is no merit in
the appeal and the same be dismissed.
7. Upon perusal of the record so also after hearing both
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
the sides, the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused
has examined as many as 5 witnesses. P.W.-1 [Ramesh Nanaji
Belekar] (Exh.15), is the complainant, P.W.-2 [Arvind Shankar
Dahate] (Exh.21), is Panch, P.W.-3 [G.Sitaraman S. Ganeshan
Ayyer] (Exh.-29), is the Senior Personnel Officer at Durgapur
Rayatwari Collieries (DRC), P.W.-4 [Taquir Ahmed Abdul
Rashid] (Exh.38), is the Sanctioning Authority and P.W.-5
[Khalik Baig s/o M.S. Baig] (Exh.40), is the Inspector of Central
Bureau of Investigation, who participated in the trap. Whereas
the accused in his defence has examined DW-1 [Rahul Shriram
Niranjane] (Exh. 51), son of the accused who accompanied him
on the date of the incident.
8. Upon perusal of the evidence of PW-1 he has
deposed that he was working as Khalasi in Durgapur
Rayyatwari Colliary No. 3 and after completion of 23 years of
service due to his ill health he decided to take voluntary
retirement. Pursuant to same, he retired on 26.07.2004. After
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
receiving the gratuity amount the accused came to his house
and demanded Rs. 4,000/- for sanctioning VRS however he was
unable to pay the same therefore, he left. After receiving the
amount from retirement, again the accused came to his house
and reiterated his demand. When he portrayed his inability to
pay, the accused threatened him saying that he will face
problem in receiving the amount of Provident Fund. He
deposed that the accused used to stand in front of his grocery
shop and demand money in presence of customers and seeing
his conduct, he went to the CBI Officer, Nagpur on 02.11.2004
where his complaint was reduced in writing (Exh. 16).
Thereafter, Shri. Nimje enquired whether he will speak with the
accused on phone which was agreed by him. He contacted the
accused through the phone of CBI Office and enquired about
the demand amount to which the accused stated that he will
give him concession of Rs. 500/- and he should pay Rs. 3,500/-
to him and he was asked to come tomorrow morning between
8:00 to 8:30 a.m.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
9. It has also come on record that on 03.11.2004, CBI
team arrived from Nagpur to Chandrapur and after completing
pre-trap formalities, they went to his house. After reaching
home, PW-2 was given a lungi to wear and at about 8:30 to
8:45 a.m. accused along with his son came to his house. They
saluted each other and he offered them to take a seat to which
the accused replied that he has no time to sit as he has to go
outstation and to hand over the money to him immediately.
PW-1 offered him tea however he refused stating he has no
time. PW-1 insisted for tea and accordingly they sat on the sofa.
The accused asked him to hand over the amount till preparation
of tea, and accordingly he went to his bedroom and brought the
amount which was handed over to him. As soon as the accused
accepted the amount with right hand and kept it in left side
shirt pocket upon a pre-determined signal, the raiding party
rushed inside the house and caught hold of the accused. One of
the member from the raiding party took out money and
documents from the shirt pocket of the accused and kept it on
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
Sofa. The necessary formalities were completed including
testing the fingers and shirt of the accused in the solution so
also tallying the serial numbers of the currency notes recovered
from the accused.
10. Another witness, PW-2 the panch who was with PW-1
at the time of incident has deposed that his Regional Manager
had asked him and Ramesh Atram to report to CBI Office,
Nagpur on 03.11.2004 at 4:45 a.m. Accordingly they reported
to the CBI Office where they were introduced to 7-8 employees
including the complainant. Shri. Nimje read over the complaint
of Shri. Belekar to which they affixed their signature. The
complainant produced two currency notes of Rs. 1000/- each
and three notes of Rs. 500/- each in denomination and the
procedure of pre-trap was explained to them. After reaching the
house of the complainant, he provided him lungi to wear.
Thereafter, at about 9:30 a.m. accused alongwith one other
person came to the house of the complainant who saluted them.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
After initial greeting the accused told the complainant "Main
Apke Gharpe Barbar Sadhe Nau Baje Pahuja, Jaldi Karo Aur
Rupaye 3500 Do". The complainant asked him for taking tea to
which he refused stating that he is in a hurry and to pay the
amount immediately. The accused also enquired about him and
he was introduced as complainant's relative. Thereafter,
complainant took out the amount by right hand from his shirt
pocket and handed over the same to the accused which was
accepted and kept by him in his shirt pocket. He has also
deposed that prior in time the complainant requested to reduce
amount from Rs. 4,000/- and accused told him that he has
reduced the amount of Rs. 500/- After accepting the amount
the raiding party rushed inside and caught hold of the accused.
Accused told them that he committed crime and he be excused.
The officer asked the accused to keep the amount on table and
the accused took out the amount and kept it on table. After
completing of formalities, panchamas at Exh. 24 and Exh. 25
were prepared in his presence and accused was arrested (Exh.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
26).
11. Pw-3 has deposed that he was working serving as
Senior Personal Officer and working on the cases of voluntary
retirement and the benefits after retirement. The accused was
working with them and it was duty of accused to prepare
pension case. The complainant was working with them who
later opted for VRS. The pension proposal was prepared by the
accused which was referred to him. PW-2 approved the said
proposal and sent it to Account Section.
12. PW-4 is the sanctioning authority who accorded the
sanction (Exh. 39). PW-5 has deposed in his chief examination
that he was posted as PI (CBI), Nagpur in 2004. On 02.11.2004,
he was informed by his superior Shri. Nimje that they had to go
tomorrow for confidential work. Accordingly, on 03.11.2004 he
was introduced to two panchas and complainant. He has stated
that the said complaint was registered by Shri. T.S. Bose as FIR
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
at Exh. 41 bears his signature. After explaining pre-trap
procedure, on the say of Shri. Nimje , complainant has
produced two notes of Rs.1000/- each and three notes of Rs.
500/- each in denomination. After that they went to the house
of the complainant at about 9:00 a.m. At around 9:30 a.m. two
person came on motorcycle and at 9:45 a.m. the complainant
gave his pre-determined signal. After that the raiding party
rushed inside and caught hold of accused. Upon completion of
formalities, Shri. Nimje took out the amount from the accused
and kept it on the table then the panchanamas and seizure
report were prepared.
13. Now so far as the cross-examination of aforesaid
witnesses are concerned PW-1 has admitted that on 28.05.2004
he had handed over his application for voluntary retirement to
clerk Mr. Bageshwari and the final order was passed by the
Head Office, Nagpur on 26.07.2004 thereby allowing his VRS
application. The work of gratuity and provident fund was
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
allotted to K. Anantrao and within one month from his
retirement he received gratuity amount. He stated that accused
had demanded Rs. 3,500/- on the day when he made an
application for VRS and he did not inform about demand of
bribe by the accused to his higher authorities. Further, he
admitted that Shri. Nimje recorded his statement and marked
portion A in his statement is false. PW-2 in his cross-
examination has admitted that his statement was recorded by
Shri. Nimje and marked portion A in his statement is not correct
and he cannot assign any reason why CBI has written the same.
He further stated that he cannot assign any reason why it is not
mentioned in his statement before CBI that accused asked about
his identity. PW-3 in his cross-examination has admitted that
complainant has not made complaint against the accused for
sanctioning VRS.
14. From the above it appears that there are several
contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of the aforesaid
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
witnesses which goes to the root of the matter as at one hand
PW-1 stated that the accused demanded Rs. 4,000/- after the
amount of retirement was received by him and on the other
hand he states in the cross-examination that Rs. 3,500/- was
demanded from him when the application for VRS was made.
Therefore, the intial demand itself is doubtful. Also one more
major contradiction that has come on record in relation to
initial demand is that in examination in chief he has deposed
that he called the accused from the phone of CBI and the
accused gave him a concession of Rs. 500 thereby reducing the
bribe amount to Rs.3,500 however, in the cross-examination he
has refused the same by stating "It did not happen that while
writing of my report, I rang to the accused". PW-1 has deposed
that one of the member of raiding party took out the money and
documents from the shirt pocket of accused and kept it on Sofa
which has not been corroborated by other witnesses as they
have deposed that Shri. Nimje took out the amount and kept it
on the table. Also, in both the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 it
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
has come on record that their statements were recorded by Shri.
Nimje and the portion marked as A in their statement is not
true. So far as omissions are concerned, PW-2 has deposed in
his evidence that panch No. 2 has counted the currency notes
which the PW-1 failed to state. Even PW-2 has deposed that the
accused told that he has committed crime and he be excused for
the same however, PW-1 has not corroborated the same in his
evidence. PW-2 has stated that accused said "Main Apke
Gharpe Barbar Sadhe Nau Baje Pahuja, Jaldi Karo Aur Rupaye
3500 Do" which does not find a place in the evidence of PW-1.
Further, in the evidence of PW-2 two major omissions have
come on record that though he has deposed that the accused
had asked about his identity however, the same has not come in
his statement and he has not deposed about testing of left hand
fingers of the accused in the solution of Sodium Carbonate.
15. Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in the written statement
of the accused he has stated that during the summer of 2004,
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
he had given Rs.50,000/- as hand loan to Shri Mohd. Barik for
marriage of his daughter which was returned within a month.
The complainant was aware about the same and as he was in
need of money he also requested the accused to give him a
hand loan of Rs.5,000/-. At that time, he had brought Shri
Mohd. Barik with him since the accused was not having that
much amount with him so he told the complainant to come
back after 2 - 3 days. Subsequently, the complainant took the
amount of Rs.5,000/- from him in presence of his wife and son.
Out of the said amount, the complainant returned an amount of
Rs.1,500/- in the month of June, 2004, and an amount of
Rs.3,500/- was outstanding against him and hence he used to
demand the same. He was evading return of the amount and
on one occasion he assured that he would return the amount on
02/11/2004, however, on the same day, when he was at home
during lunch time he received the call from the complainant
and he was asked to come on the next day, i.e., on 03/11/2004
at 09:30 a.m. to take the money. Hence, he along with his son
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
reached the complainant's house on 03/11/2004 at about 09:00
a.m. Upon reaching the house, he saw one person wearing a
Lungi who was sitting inside his house. The complainant
insisted him to have tea, however, the accused said that he was
in a hurry as he had to go to deposit fees of his son. Thereafter,
the complainant went inside, came out in a hurry and put the
currency notes inside his pocket and went out. In the
meanwhile, some persons came in the hall and one of them
asked me, "Do you have money in your pocket?" to which the
accused replied in affirmative. Thereafter, the accused was
asked to take out the money and keep it on table. The accused
though stated that "this is amount of hand loan Shri Belekar has
now returned the said amount to me.", but the same was in
vain as they replied, "We will see that later on. Firstly, you take
out and keep the amount on the table." Later, I was informed
that they were CBI personnel and action is being taken against
him in connection with acceptance of bribe. The accused in his
defence has also examined his son DW-1 who has corroborated
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
the version of the accused and deposed that in the year 2004 he
was in 12th standard and the complainant came to his house for
money. His father gave him Rs. 5,000/- in cash. After a month,
the complainant returned Rs. 1,500/- to his father however he
failed to repay the remaining amount. On 3.11.2004 his father
informed that they had to go to collect the outstanding amount.
They accordingly went to the house of complainant and after
casual greetings, the complainant asked his father for tea
however he refused stating that they had to go to his school.
Thereafter, the amount was handed over to his father after
which 2-3 persons came and enquired from his father. His
father replied that he accepted the amount of hand loan.
16. In view of the above, the accused has taken a
consistent stand that he had given a loan of Rs. 5000/- to the
complainant out of which he had returned Rs. 1500/- however,
he failed to return Rs. 3,500/- and hence he used to demand
the return of the said amount. On 03.11.2004 he alongwith his
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
son went to the complainant's house to take the outstanding
amount and even when he was caught hold by the officers of
the CBI he had informed that "this is the amount of hand loan".
The same is corroborated by the testimony of DW-1 his son who
went alongwith him to the complainant's house on the date of
incident and nothing has come on record to disbelieve his
testimony. After going through the entire oral as well as
documentary evidence, it is alleged that after the accused got
caught red handed, it appears that his statement was not
recorded so as to explain the circumstances for which he had
accepted the amount. In absence of recording of his statement,
though it is not fatal, but in the interest of fair investigation an
opportunity ought to have been granted to the accused in order
to explain why he accepted the amount. It was expected from
the Investigating Officer to record the statement and to get the
explanation. Therefore, defence of accused/respondent appears
to be more probable.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
17. There is one another glaring factor in this case, that
the alleged demand was made after the complainant had
received his pension and there was no occasion for the accused
to demand any money for processing VRS application as already
the complainant stood retired on 26.07.2004 and he had also
received his dues. The complainant has deposed that the
accused has threatened that if the amount was not paid then it
will cause problem in receiving provident fund however, in the
cross-examination the complainant has himself stated that work
of gratuity and provident fund was allotted to one K. Anantrao
meaning thereby the accused did not deal with the same.
Further, PW-1 has himself admitted that the application for VRS
was submitted to Shri. Bageshwari which shows that the
accused had no occasion to either deal with the work of
complainant or demand money to complete the said work.
18. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has argued
that even if there is no prior demand by the public servant still
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-372-2016
if he simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal
gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the PC
Act. So as to substantiate the same, reliance is placed on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Versus
State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731 on
paragraph no. 88.4 (d). However, even if the initial demand is
kept aside still there are major contradictions and omissions in
the testimonies of the witnesses which makes the prosecution
story doubtful. The defence taken by the accused seems
probable which is further supported by the testimony of DW-1.
Considering the above discussion and after appreciating the
entire evidence in its true perspective, the prosecution has
failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
and therefore I am not inclined to interfere in the judgment of
acquittal dated 09.12.2014 passed by the learned Special
Judge, Chandrapur in Special (CBI) Case No. 20/2004. Hence,
the Appeal is dismissed.
[ M. M. NERLIKAR, J ]
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
