Delhi High Court
Sandeep vs The State Thr. Central Bureau Of ... on 19 May, 2020
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 19.05.2020
+ W.P.(CRL) 3446/2017
SANDEEP ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Girdhar Govind, Mr. Mukesh Bhardwaj, Mr.
Baljinder Singh, Ms. Ayesha Jamal and Mr. Aadil
Singh Boparai, Advs.
Versus
THE STATE THR. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, SPP with
Mr. S.K. Sinha (SP, CBI) and Mr. Harish Chander
(IO) for CBI.
+ W.P.(CRL) 947/2018, Crl. M.A. 5862/2018
RAHUL AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Ayesha Jamal and Mr. Aadil Singh Boparai, Advs.
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, SPP with
Mr. S.K. Sinha (SP, CBI) and Mr. Harish Chander
(IO) for CBI. SI
+ W.P.(CRL) 971/2018
VIJENDER YADAV & ANR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia with Mr. Rohan
Dewan, Adv.
Versus
STATE THRU CBI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, SPP with
Mr. S.K. Sinha (SP, CBI) and Mr. Harish Chander
(IO) for CBI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
1. These writ petitions impugn the order on charge dated 6.9.2017 and
charge dated 13.6.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-
03 North-West District, for offences under sections 120 B IPC read with
section 7 and 13 (1) (d), 13(2) and S.12 of PC Act 1988.
2. Rahul Agarwal (A-1) a Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) is alleged
to have conspired with co-accused Sandeep (A-2) for extracting monies as
illegal gratification from one Ashwini Yadav (A-4) through the latter‟s
father Mr Vijender Singh Yadav. Ashwini was constructing the building at
village Naharpur, Rohini, Delhi. A-1 served a notice upon A-4 under section
133 Cr.PC through co-accused Sandeep, which was later sought to be settled
through illegal gratification of Rs.2 lacs. According to the prosecution‟s
source information Ashwini agreed to pay the illegal gratification through
his father A-3 on 2.6.2016. A trap was laid. It is recorded in the impugned
order as under:
"..... It is submitted that thereafter a trap team was
constituted and after conducting pre-trap proceedings in
CBI office, all the trap team members including independent
witnesses left for the spot at village Naharpur, Rohini Sector
-7, New Delhi, where source informed at about 5:10 PM
that Sandeep (A-2) would come in vehicle no. DL 8CT 2927
white Santro GLS car at shop of Ashwani Yadav (A-4) to
collect the bribe amount and accordingly the TLO alerted
the trap team members and at about 5:15 PM, above said
Santro car was seen coming from the side of Bhagwan
Prashuram Road and it was being driven by Sandeep (A-2).
It is further submitted that thereafter accused - Vijender
Singh Yadav (A-3) came there and sat inside front seat of
the car and after about 10-15 minutes, Vijender Singh
Yadav (A-3) came out from the car and Sandeep (A-2)
started the car and they were intercepted by the TLO and
bribe amount of Rs. 50,000/- was recovered from the
aforesaid car. It is submitted that thereafter, accused
Ashwani Yadav (A-4) was also brought at the spot by the
trap team members and during the trap proceedings,
Sandeep (A-2) informed Rahul Aggarwal (A-1) regarding
acceptance of bribe amount which was acknowledged by
Rahul Aggarwal (A-1). It is further submitted that as per
CFSL report dated 07.10.2016, the specimen voice of
accused- Sandeep (A-2), Vijender Singh Yadav (A-3) and
Ashwani Yadav (A-4) have tallied with their respective
questioned voice. It is submitted that accused- Rahul
Aggarwal (A-1) denied giving his specimen voice during the
investigation of this case, however his voice has been
identified on all the relevant calls by Sh. Rupesh Kumar
Thakur, IAS, the then District Magistrate, Sh. Jagdish
Singh, then Reader to accused- Rahul Aggarwal (A-1) and
Sh. Prasoon Yadav, LDC in the office of SDM, Saraswati
Vihar. It is further submitted that during house search of
accused-Sandeep (A-2), a cash amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs was
seized and said accused disclosed that he collected the said
amount from accused- Ashwani Yadav (A-4) in the second
week of May, 2016 and he was collecting the remaining
bribe amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 02.6.2016 at the time of
trap and this entire bribe amount of Rs. 2 lac was to be
given to accused- Rahul Aggarwal (A-1) and accused-
Vijender Singh Yadav (A-3) has also disclosed that on
17.5.2016 accused Sandeep (A-2) visited their shops at
Naharpur and collected Rs. 1.5 lacs and these disclosure
statement were also corroborated by the relevant call
conversation dated 12.5.2016. Ld. Sr. PP also submitted
that from the investigation carried out by the police, the
conspiracy for demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification as well as the commission of substantive
offences under PC Act, 1988 have been established on the
part of all the accused persons and he prayed that the
respective charges as stated in the charge-sheet may be
framed against the accused persons.
4. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Ld. Defence
counsel for accused Rahul Aggarwal (A-1) that the said
accused (A-1) was innocent and has been falsely implicated
in this case. It is further submitted that in order to satisfy
the ingredients of offence punishable under section 7 or
section 13(1) (d) r/w section 13(2) of PC Act, 1988, the
ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification have to be prima facie established by the
prosecution, however in view of the material on record, the
prosecution has miserably failed to bring on record any
credible and legally admissible evidence to establish
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by A-1 or
any other person on his behalf i.e. A-2. It is submitted that
there is no oral or documental evidence to reflect that A-1
either himself or through A-2 demanded any money from A-
3 or from A-4. It is further submitted that in none of the
telephonic conversation alleged to have been entered into
between A-2 with either A-3 of A-4, there is any demand of
money and even transcription of such alleged conversation
do not reflect that A-2 had made any demand of bribe
money either for self or for A-1. It is submitted that
disclosure statement of A-2, A-3 & A-4 recorded in police
custody were inadmissible as no recovery have been
effected in pursuant to the said disclosure statements. It is
further submitted that prosecution has wrongly alleged that
a telephonic conversation dated 16.4.2016 allegedly
between A-2 and A-2 reflect demand of bribe, however, the
aid conversation can not in any possible way constitute
demand as the demand ought to be made from bribe givers
and not from the third person. It is submitted that in the
said conversation dated 16.04.2016 allegedly between A-2
and A-2, there was no mention of any specific address,
specific name of person or notice and the word Naharpur
mentioned in the said conversation cannot be assumed to be
synonymous with the present case property. It is further
submitted that there were contradictions between Call No. 1
and Call No. 2 as Call No. 2 shows that there was no
discussion between A-2 and A-3 to A-4 about the instant
case property prior to 18.4.2016, whereas the contents of
Call No. 1 clearly established that the property being
discussed between A-1 and A-2 have already been under
some kind of negotiations prior to 16.4.2016. It is submitted
that the above-said Call No.1 dated 16.04.2016 cannot be
solely relied upon in isolation more particularly when it
stands contradicted by Call No. 2 dated 18.04.2016 and
even otherwise, the contents of said Call no. 1 are highly
vague and ambiguous and beyond any comprehension. It is
also submitted that there was no oral or documentary
evidence on record to prima facie establish that any bribe
was accepted by A-1 or anybody on his behalf i.e. A-2 and
none of the documents prepared in context with events on
02.06.2016 reflect any incriminating fact qua A-1.
It has been further submitted on behalf of A-1 that there
was neither any witness nor any other documentary
evidence cited to support the acceptance of illegal
gratification by A-2 from A-3 or A-4. It is submitted that in
the instant case, no recovery of any incriminating material
has been made from A-1 and prosecution has also miserably
failed to bring any document/ material on record to prima
facie show that the money recovered from the dashboard of
the car of A-2 was bribe money meant for A-1. It is further
submitted that in the present case, the prosecution/ CBI has
failed to establish any motive or reason for A-3 or A-4 to
pay bribe to A-2 on behalf of A-1. It is submitted that in the
instant case, MCD had already initiated the proceedings by
registering FIR on 26.4.2016 under relevant provisions of
DMC Act and MCD has also sent a show cause notice to A-
3 and as such, there was no reason or motive for A-3 & A-4
to make the payment of alleged illegal gratification to A-2
on behalf of A-1 as neither the SDM (A-1) in his official
capacity was in a position to extend any favour to A-3 or A-
4 nor was it prudent for A-3 & A-4 to give bribe to A-2 for
A-1 on 02.06.2016 almost 1.5 months after registration of
FIR against them by the MCD. It is submitted that any
transcription of telephonic call is a reproduction of
electronic data in physical form thus constituting secondary
evidence and requires a certificate u/s 65B of Indian
Evidence Act and in the present case voice transcription i.e.
D-40, D-41 & D-42 are stated to be printout of the
conversation contained in an alleged sealed CD and an
unsealed CD, thus the same was secondary evidence and
therefore it was inadmissible in evidence without certificate
u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. It is also submitted that
case of the prosecution/ CBI is based on assumption and
presumptions ant it has been prayed that accused- Rahul
Aggarwal (A-1) may be discharged in this case...."
3. The petitioners argue that there is no evidence of demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification between the A-1 and A-4. At best,
unbeknownst to A-1, A-2 may have interacted with A-4 and any
conversation or transaction between them cannot be even remotely alluded
or linked with a one so as to make out a case under sections 7 or 13 (1)(d) or
13(2) of the PC Act. It is contended that the Principal Voice Examination
Report (D-56) is not supported by the requisite certificate and searches for
five of the Indian Evidence Act therefore the voice recording memo and the
said report are inadmissible in law. It is argued that the basic ingredients of
the aforesaid provisions of law not even prima facie made out, the impugned
order is erroneous and needs to be set aside. It is argued that there is nothing
on the record in any of the 29 telephone conversations with your recorded by
the prosecution to link or establish such demand or receipt of illegal
gratification by A-1. A-3 and A-4 and argued that they are innocent of the
alleged offences. There was no unauthorised construction being done by
them or did they receive a statement order under as mentioned above. A-2
submitted that the monies recovered from his car were not marked as given
by the complainant and near recovery of the same from the dashboard of car
of a private person cannot be said to be bribe it or tainted money. It is also
argued that since a FIR had already been registered by the MCD Rohini
Zone there was no occasion for A-1 possibly issue a notice to A-4.
4. The impugned order has examined the chargesheet and formed the
opinion that the contentions raised by the accused tribal issues, which
without counting ample opportunities to the prosecution could not be
decided and the stage of any of charge. The reference to case law by the
accused was not found of any assistance by the trial court. It has reasoned as
under:
"....8. In the present case, as per charge-sheet filed by
the CBI, a source information was received that Rahul
Aggarwal (A-1), SDM, Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi in
conspiracy with Sandeep (A-2), who was working as ad-hoc
employee in office of the SDM, Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi
were indulging in illegal activities and in pursuance to the
said criminal conspiracy, office notices under the signatures
of Rahul Aggarwal (A-1) were issued to the parties for
violation of the government rules with respect to
unauthorized/ illegal construction in the properties and the
said notices were served upon the parties by Sandeep (A-2),
who also used to negotiate with such parties to settle the
issues in lieu of illegal gratification. It is further stated that
during the investigation, it was revealed that a private
person namely Ashwani Yadav (A-4) was constructing a
building at village Naharpur, Rohini, Delhi and Rahul
Aggarwal (A-1) through Sandeep (A-2) served a notice upon
Ashwani Yadav (A-4) regarding the said construction of the
building at village Naharpur and thereafter Rahul
Aggarwal (A-1) in criminal conspiracy with Sandeep (A-2)
has demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 2 lacs from
Ashwani Yadav (A-4) through Sandeep (A-2) to settle the
matter of the notice served upon him. It is stated that
Ashwani Yadav (A-4) agreed to pay part of the agreed
illegal gratification through his father Vijender Singh Yadav
(A-3) to Sandeep (A-2) on 02.06.2016 and Sandeep (A-2)
informed that he would visit the premises of Ashwani Yadav
(A-4) in the evening to collect the same. It is further stated
that thereafter, the present case was registered on
02.06.2016 and trap team comprising of Inspector Anand
Sarup as TLO and other CBI officials and subordinate staff
and two independent witnesses namely Sh. Harcharan
Singh, Manager and Sh. Rahul Sinha, Officer from Punjab
& Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Ashram, Delhi was constituted.
It is stated that after conducting pre-trap proceedings in the
CBI office, all trap team members including aforesaid
independent witnesses left for the spot at about 11:05 AM
and reached near village Naharpur, Rohini Sector -7, New
Delhi at about 12:45 PM, where they waited in the nearby
area till 5:10 PM, when source informed that Sandeep (A-2)
would come in vehicle no. DL-8CT-2927 white Santro GLS
car at shops of Ashwani Yadav (A-4) at village Naharpur
and accordingly, the TLO alerted the trap team members
and directed shadow witness Sh. Rahul Sinha to remain in
close proximity.
It has been further stated that after sometime at about
5:15 PM, a vehicle bearing no. DL 8CT-2927 was seen
coming from the direction of Bhagwan Parshuram Road
and it was being driven by Sandeep (A-2) and he parked the
car in front of shop of Ashwani Yadav (A-4) and remained
seated on the driving seat of the car. It is stated that after
sometime, accused- Vijender Singh Yadav (A-3) came there
and sat inside the front seat of the said car opposite to the
driver's seat and this was seen by the TLO and the shadow
witness and the TLO alerted all the trap team members, who
reached at the spot and took position in disguise manner. It
is further stated that after about 10-15 minutes, Vijender
Singh Yadav (A-3) came out from the car and Sandeep (A-2)
started the car and trap team members intercepted them and
asked about bribe money and on this, Sandeep (A-2) got
perplexed and told that he had taken the bribe amount from
Vijender Singh Yadav (A-3), which he had kept inside the
dash board of the car. It is stated that recovery witness Sh.
Harcharan Singh recovered the bribe amount from the car
of Sandeep (A-2) which was kept inside the dash board in a
white envelope and on counting, the said amount was found
to be Rs. 50,000/-. It is further stated that during trap
proceedings, Ashwani Yadav (A-4), who was present in his
shop, was also taken to the spot by trap team members and
thereafter, accused Sandeep (A-2) informed Rahul
Aggarwal (A-1) regarding acceptance of bribe amount
through a call and Rahul Aggarwal (A-1) used the word
"achcha" i.e. OK and thereby shown his acceptance for
illegal gratification received by Sandeep (A-2) on his behalf.
It is stated that thereafter CBI team alongwith case property
and apprehended accused persons left the spot for the DC
office, Kanjhawala and when the team reached near Karala
village, they were informed by the source that A-1 (SDM)
has left the DC office and was coming towards Karala
village and the vehicle of the SDM (A-1) was seen coming
and he was intercepted by the TLO and thereafter all of
them were brought to the CBI office, where recorded
conversion was heard by playing the DVR in the presence
of both independent witnesses. Thereafter, material/
information relevant to the investigation of the instant case
was obtained from Special Unit, CBI, New Delhi including
recorded/intercepted incriminating calls. It is also stated
that searches were conducted at the premises of all accused
persons during investigation and during the house search of
A-2, a cash amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs i.e. the remaining bribe
amount, was also seized. Further during the investigation,
the specimen voices of A-2, A-3, and A-4 were obtained and
were sent to XFSL, CBI, New Delhi which has opined that
specimen voices of all the said accused persons tallied with
their respective questioned voice. Rahul Aggarwal (A-1)
denied giving his specimen voice, however his voice has
been identified on all the relevant calls by Sh. Rupesh
Kumar Thakur, IAS the then District Magistrate, Sh.
Jagdish Singh, the then Reader to Rahul Aggarwal (A-1)
and Sh. Prasoon Yadav, LDC in office of the SDM,
Saraswati Vihar and it is stated that the voices of all
accused persons in the relevant calls stands verified and
established.
9. In the instant case, during investigation it has been
revealed that accused - Vijender Singh Yadav (A-3) and
Ashwani Yadav (A-4) were doing illegal construction at the
property in question being Khasra No. 16/1, Uday Singh
Place, Village Naharpur, Delhi. One Sh. Kapil Yadav, who
was son of sister of accused - Vijender Singh Yadav (A-3),
had made a complaint to MCD Rohini Zone and SDM
Saraswati Vihar regarding the said unauthorized
construction and this complaint was entered in the relevant
record of office of SDM, Saraswati Vihar, where accused
Rahul Aggarwal (A-1) was posted as SDM. Thereafter
accused Rahul Aggarwal (A-1) issued restrainment order
u/s 133Cr. PC on 05.04.2017 in the name of owner of
Khasra No. 16/1, Uday Singh Place, Village Naharpur, near
Sector -07, Rohini, Delhi and the same was served through
accused- Sandeep (A-2) and was acknowledged by accused-
Ashwani Yadav (A-4) under his signature. It is pertinent to
note that the said restrainment order bearing original
signatures of accused - Aswhwani Yadav (A-4) has been
recovered from the car which was in possession of accused
- Sandeep (A-2) at the time of trap proceedings.
In the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that
MCD Rohini Zone has also got registered FIR u/s 344 (1) &
343 of the DMC Act against accused- Vijender Singh Yadav
(A-3) as the construction was going on without sanction
plan and in violation of DMC Act. In this regard, a show
cause notice was also issued to accused - Vijender Singh
Yadav (A-3) by the MCD. Further, during investigation it
has been revealed that after serving of Restrainment Order
u/s - 133 Cr.PC upon accused- Ashwani Yadav (A-4), the
accused - Sandeep (A-2) on the directions of accused-
Rahul Aggarwal (A-1) contacted accused - Vijender Singh
Yadav (A-3) and Ashwani Yadav (A-4) and conveyed them
the demand of Rs. 2 lacs and these facts have also been
reflected in the CDRs of the relevant period pertaining to
mobile phone of accused - Rahul Aggarwal (A-1), Sandeep
(A-2), Vijender Singh Yadav (A-3) and Ashwani Yadav (A-
4). During the investigation, the transcripts of relevant 29
calls have been prepared and these reveals the demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification by accused- Rahul
Aggarwal (A-1), who was working as SDM, Saraswati Vihar
at the relevant time through accused Sandeep (A-2). It has
also been revealed that accused- Rahul Aggarwal (A-1)
directed the accused Sandeep (A-2) from his official land-
line telephone number -11027393000 on the mobile phone
number 8860208473 of accused Sandeep (A-2) on
16.4.2016 to settle the matter of construction in question for
Rs. 2 lacs. It is pertinent to note here that during trap
proceedings also, accused- Sandeep (A-2) called from his
above said mobile number to the mobile number
9971466193 of accused- Rahul Aggarwral (A-1), wherein
accused- Rahul Aggarwal (A-1) has shown acceptance of
illegal gratification acceptance on his behalf by accused -
Sandeep (A-2).
5. It is argued that the date when the raid was conducted by the
investigating agency Rs.50,000/- was recovered from A-2 which he was
driving. On the same day another amount of Rs.1,90,000/- was recovered
from A-2. However, since the alleged demand was only Rs.2 lacs the excess
Rs.40,000/- was returned to A-2 by the prosecution. A subsequent
application filed by brother of A-2, for return of Rs.1,50,000/- which was
allegedly seized from the residence of A-2, it was dismissed by the trial
court on 16.5.2017.
6. It is the petitioner‟s case that: (i) the impugned order has erred in framing
charges against him in the absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence
linking him to any demand or receipt of money for illegal gratification; (ii)
that the transcript of the telephone conversation relied upon by the CBI
reveals that there was no such demand by the SDM from a private citizen;
(iii) best, a case could be against Sandeep, who may well be trying to make
the proverbial "hay while the sun shines" because of his perceived proximity
with the SDM - a government official; (iv) however, the same ought not to
be read or construed as a demand by the petitioner/SDM as any illegal
gratification.
7. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner referred to the 29
telephonic calls out of which only 10 calls were between the petitioner and
the said middleman Sandeep (A-2). He submits that even otherwise, apart
from a reference to the area in Naharpur (Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi), and the
name of the private citizen who is stated to have paid the illegal
gratification, the conversations do not mention anything about illegal
gratification either for the SDM or to Sandeep. The allusion to Rs.2 lacs
does not form a part of any conversation between Sandeep and the private
citizen. The learned counsel submits that the reference of Rs.50,000/- is in
reference to a steel/ iron shutter. He relies upon the dicta of the Supreme
Court in B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P. (2014) 13 SCC 55, to submit that in the
absence of any specific demand for illegal gratification, a vague reference
would not form sufficient material/ground for framing of charges or for
initiating proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
8. The petitioners have also argued that there is no mention of Rs. 2 lacs, in
the entire and alleged conversation involving A-1. Relying upon P
Satyanarayan Murthy vs District Inspector of Police, State of AP (2015) 10
ACC 152 is contended that proof of demand of illegal gratification is
essential for the offence under sections 7 and 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act
and in the absence thereof, the mistaken charge, would therefore fail. The
mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or
recovery thereof, de hors the proof of demand, would ipso facto not be
sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act.
„Failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification
would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount for the person accused of
the offence under section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction.
Reliance is placed upon Mukhtiar Singh vs State of Punjab 2017 SCC 136.
Reliance is also placed on Dashrath Singh Chauhan vs CBI Criminal Appeal
No.1276 of 2010 dated 9.10.2018, in which the Supreme Court acquitted the
appellant because the twin requirement of demand and acceptance of the
amount by the appellant needed to be proven. In case of conspiracy between
the appellant and one Rajinder Kumar had been set up. However, was
acquitted on charges including of conspiracy under section 120 B IPC. That
being the position, it could not be proven that the appellant had conspired
with said co-accused for illegal gratification or accepted monies.
9. On behalf of A2 it is submitted that the ingredients of the alleged
offence are prima facie not made out from the chargesheet. Reliance is
placed upon State of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh 1977 (4) SCC 39. The
disclosure statements of A-2, A-3 and A-4 are not admissible in evidence;
reliance is placed inter alia, upon Kamal Kishore vs State 1997 Cri LJ 2016
and Sahibe Alam vs State 98 (2002) DLT 167 (3). It is argued that there is no
specific reference to any particular property or construction in the alleged
conversations; that electronic evidence D11 and D65 are inadmissible in
law. It is also argued that there was no complainant in the case.
10. However, the learned counsel for the CBI submits that the
conversation between A1 and A2, is apropos other properties as well and the
quantum of demand is indicated in the conversation of 28 th April. He
submits that the Naharpur property is mentioned in the conversation of
31.5.2016 and that there is also a mention of some commission money in the
telephone conversation of 1.6.2016. The case of the prosecution is that in the
totality of the investigation there was a criminal conspiracy between all the
accused persons for demand of illegal gratification, acceptance and recovery
of the illegal gratification i.e. of monies being paid to A2, albeit it may not
have reached A1. Apropos material evidence - DVR and memory card, u/s
65 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is stated that the prosecution has relied on
primary evidence. The prosecution refers to three witnesses confirming that
A2 served them notices; statements of two of them have been recorded u/s
164 Cr. PC. For acts of A2, A3 and A4 the respondent refers to the evidence
of independent witnesses, which they propose to make good in trial.
11. What emanates from the above is that triable issues have been raised
about factual allegations. The impugned order does not call any interference.
The petitions are dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
MAY 19, 2020
