Smt Manu R vs Smt Lalitha
2021 Latest Caselaw 2148 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

                            BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY

   CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.189 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

Smt. Manu R.
W/o. Late Gangadhar,
Aged about 43 years
Residing at No.12/A, 4th Cross,
Vrushabhavathi Nagarm
near Maruthi Vidya Mandira School,
6th Cross, Kamakshipalya,
Bengaluru - 560 079.
                                                    ..Petitioner
(By Sri. Shivaraj N. Arali, Amicus Curiae)

AND:

Smt. Lalitha,
W/o. Late G. Veeranna,
Aged about 43 years
Residing at No.551/A, 1st B Cross
III Stage, 4th Block,
Basaveshwara Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 079.
                                                   .. Respondent
(By Sri. N. Srinivas, Advocate)
                                 ****
       This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397
r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the entire records and
set aside the impugned order dated 13-10-2017 passed by the
learned LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
                                                                  Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

                                          2


(CCH-67) in           Criminal Appeal No.1226/2016, confirming the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24-09-2016 passed
by XXII ACMM, at Bengaluru in C.C.No.29533/2015 and set aside
the order of the Trial Court, by allowing this Criminal Revision
Petition.      and remand the above case for fresh trial and grant
such other relief as this Court deems fit in the facts of the case,
in the interest of justice and equity.


        This Criminal Revision Petition having been heard through
Video Conferencing Hearing and reserved on 03-06-2021,
coming on for pronouncement of orders this day, the Court made
the following:


                                   ORDER

The present petitioner as the accused was tried by the

Court of the learned XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate at Bangalore, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as

"the Trial Court"), in Criminal Case No.29533/2015 for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as

"the N.I. Act") and was convicted for the said offence by its

judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated

24-09-2016.

Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred a Criminal

Appeal in the Court of the learned LXVI Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-67) (hereinafter for brevity

referred to as "the Sessions Judge's Court") in Criminal Appeal

No.1226/2016.

The appeal was contested by the respondent who was the

complainant in the Trial Court. The Sessions Judge's Court in its

order dated 13-10-2017 dismissed the appeal, confirming the

judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the

Trial Court dated 24-09-2016 in C.C.No.29533/2015.

Aggrieved by the said order, the accused has preferred this

revision petition.

2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial

Court is that, the accused who is the relative of the complainant

knowing that the complainant was in need of a site (immovable

property), approached her and agreed to secure a site to her.

Believing the words of the accused, the complainant paid a sum

of `32,50,000/- to the accused in cash. Thereafter, the accused

failed to secure a site to the complainant within the agreed time.

When the complainant approached the accused and demanded Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

for return of the amount of `32,50,000/- paid to her, the

accused, towards discharge of her liability to the complainant,

issued in total eight (8) cheques, among which, four cheques

were drawn on the Karnataka Bank Limited, Basaveshwar Nagar

Branch, Bangalore, and bearing Nos.281444, 281445, 281446

and 281447, each for a sum of `4,00,000/- and all dated

14-10-2015. The remaining four cheques were drawn on ICICI

Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bangalore, in favour of the

complainant and were bearing Nos.320904, 320905, 320906 and

320907, each for a sum of `4,00,000/- and all dated 15-10-2015

(cheque No.320907 which is marked at Exhibit P-7 in the Trial

Court shows that the cheque amount is not for a sum of

`4,00,000/- but it is for a sum of `4,50,000/-).

It is also further the case of the complainant that, as per

the instructions and assurance of the accused, when she

presented those cheques for realisation through her banker, four

cheques drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited were returned unpaid

with the banker's endorsement as "payment stopped by drawer".

The remaining four cheques drawn on ICICI Bank also returned

unpaid with the banker's endorsement "funds insufficient". This Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

made the complainant to issue a legal notice to the accused on

31-10-2015, demanding the cheques' amount to her.

After receipt of the legal notice, the accused sent an

untenable reply, but did not pay the cheques' amount which

made the complainant to institute a criminal case against the

accused in the Trial Court for the alleged offence punishable

under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

3. The accused appeared through her counsel and

contested the matter.

4. To prove her case, the complainant got herself

examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to

P-27 and closed her side. The accused also examined herself as

DW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.D-1 to D-16 in her

support.

5. The Trial Court after recording the evidence led before it

and hearing both side, by its impugned judgment dated

24-09-2016 convicted the accused for the offence punishable

under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced her to pay the

fine amount of `5,000/-, in default to undergo simple Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

imprisonment for a period of three months and ordered to pay

compensation of `32,50,000/- to the complainant at the rate of

`6% per annum from the date of cheque till realisation of the

same, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

two years. Challenging the said judgment of conviction passed

by the Trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal

Appeal No.1226/2016 before the learned Sessions Judge's Court,

which after hearing both side, by its impugned judgment dated

13-10-2017 dismissed the appeal filed by the accused, while

confirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order on

sentence passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the

judgments of conviction and order on sentence passed by both

the Courts, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

6. In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the

petitioner failed to appear before this Court on several dates of

hearing in spite of granting several and sufficient opportunities,

this Court by its order dated 08-04-2021, appointed learned

counsel Sri. Shivraj N. Arali, as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner

to defend her case.

Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

7. Learned Amicus Curiae for the revision petitioner and

learned counsel for the respondent/complainant are appearing

through video conference.

L

8. The Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court's records

were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

9. Though this matter was listed for admission, however,

as desired by the learned counsels from both side, the

arguments on the main matter itself were heard from both side.

Perused the materials placed before this Court including the Trial

Court and Sessions Judge's Court's records.

10. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be

henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial

Court.

11. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the

only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition

is:

Whether the judgments under revision are perverse, illegal and erroneous, warranting interference at the hands of this Court?

Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

12. Learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner/accused in

his arguments submitted that, the reply to the legal notice which

is at Exhibit D-11 mentions that, the accused was in no way

liable to pay the cheques' amount to the complainant and that

the complainant had obtained those cheques under coercion.

He further submitted that, in the legal notice at Exhibit P-17, as

well in the complaint and also in the evidence of PW-1, the

complainant has stated that, the amount mentioned in the

cheque bearing No.320907 drawn on ICICI Bank is for a sum of

`4,00,000/-, when in fact, the said cheque was drawn for a sum

of `4,50,000/-.

He further submitted that, the accused has filed a Police

complaint and later has filed a private complaint against the

present complainant and two other persons in a competent

Court, alleging the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342,

347, 384, 392 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the IPC").

Learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner/accused further

submitted that, the allegation that towards the repayment of the

alleged liability of `32,50,000/- towards the complainant, the Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

accused issued eight cheques instead of a single cheque, also

creates a doubt in the case of the complainant.

He further submitted that, the complainant has failed to

show that, she had any financial capacity to give such a huge

amount to the accused. Stating so, the learned Amicus Curiae

for the petitioner submitted that, the Trial Court as well as the

Sessions Judge's Court failed to appreciate these aspects in their

proper perspective, which resulted in them passing the impugned

judgment of conviction against the accused, which deserves to

be set aside.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant in his

argument submitted that, the evidence of PW-1 and the

documents produced by her at Exhibits P-24 to P-27 would go to

show that, she had financial capacity to give such a huge amount

to the accused.

He submitted that, Exhibits D-1 to D-7 do not show that,

the amounts mentioned therein have been in fact given by the

accused to the complainant, as such, those documents would not

enure to the benefit of the accused. He further submitted that,

the defence taken by the accused through her reply notice is not Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

proved. The private complaint at Exhibit D-14 is purely an after-

thought of the accused only to avoid her liability in the cheque

bouncing case.

He also submitted that, Exhibit D-5 helps the complainant

rather than the accused and would further go to show that, the

complainant had parted with a huge sum of `32,50,000/- in

favour of the accused which amount the accused is liable to

return to the complainant.

He also submitted that, the accused herself has admitted

about the existence of financial transaction between herself and

the complainant. In such an event, it was for her to prove that

the cheques in question were not towards any liability by her

towards the complainant which she has failed to establish.

With this, the learned counsel for respondent/ complainant

submitted that, considering all these aspects, the Trial Court has

rightly convicted the accused, which was further confirmed by

the learned Sessions Judge's Court and the same do not warrant

any interference by this Court.

14. From the evidence led by both side, the materials

placed by them and also from the arguments addressed by the Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner/accused and the learned

counsel for the respondent herein, the undisputed or admitted

facts remain that, both the complainant and the accused are

distant relatives, as such, they are known to each other. DW-1 in

her examination-in-chief itself stated that, she knew the

complainant. It is also not in dispute that there existed some

financial transactions between the complainant and the accused.

In this regard, the accused as DW-1, in her examination-in-chief

has stated that, acting as a mediator, she had got a loan of a

sum of `10,00,000/- given by the complainant and her brother

by name Sri.Suresh to the elder brother of her sister-in-law by

name Sri. Ramesh Kumar in the year 2012. However, DW-1 has

stated that in the year 2014, the said amount has been repaid by

them.

15. It is also not in dispute that the cheques at Exhibits

P-1 to P-8 pertain to the bank account of the accused and the

accused is the drawer of all those cheques. It is further not in

dispute that the complainant when presented those cheques for

their realisation, all the eight cheques were returned unpaid by

the banker for the reason of stoppage of payment with respect to Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

the four cheques drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited and for the

reason of insufficiency of funds with respect to the remaining

four cheques drawn on the ICICI Bank. It is also not in dispute

that, after the dishonor of the cheques, the complainant got

issued legal notice to the accused as per Exhibit P-17, after

receipt of which, the accused replied to the same as per her

reply at Exhibit D-11. All these undisputed and admitted facts

would go to show that the complainant as a payee, had

presented eight cheques in total amounting to a sum of

`32,50,000/-, drawn by the accused in her favour, for their

realisation through her banker. However, all those cheques have

been returned unpaid for the reasons of insufficiency of funds in

respect of four cheques and stoppage of payment by the drawer

with respect another four cheques. Thus, prima facie, as per

Section 139 of the N.I. Act, a presumption forms in favour of the

complainant about the existence of a legally enforceable debt in

her favour. However, the said presumption being a rebuttable

presumption, the point that is required to be seen is,

whether the accused has successfully rebutted the said

presumption.

Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

16. It is needless to say that, though the complainant is

required to prove the alleged guilt against the accused beyond

reasonable doubt, but it is sufficient for the accused to make out

a case on preponderance of probabilities to rebut the

presumption formed in favour of the complainant.

17. An attempt was made in the cross-examination of

PW-1 to the effect that, in the absence of any agreement

regarding the purchase of the site and in the absence of non-

mentioning of any details of the alleged site, it is not believable

that the complainant had parted with such a huge sum of money

in favour of the accused on the alleged assurance of the accused

of getting a site to her. However, it cannot be ignored of the fact

that, the case of the complainant is not that the accused had

identified a particular site and assured of getting that particular

site from a particular person for a particular sum. As such, in

that regard, no agreement was entered into with the vendor of

the site or between the accused and the complainant. However,

neither the evidence of PW-1 nor the evidence of DW-1 throw

much light as to the alleged details of the site (immovable

property) with respect to which the complainant is said to have

given huge amount of money to the accused. But it could be Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

made out from the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) and

accused (DW-1) that, knowing the fact that the complainant was in

search of some site property, the accused who was her relative,

approached her. The complainant has nowhere stated that, any

particular site was shown to her or that any agreement was made

between the parties. Rather it is her case that the accused being

her relative, believing her promise, she (complainant) parted with

such a huge sum of `32,50,000/- in favour of the accused. In that

regard, Exhibit D-15 which was relied upon by the accused stating

that, it is a statement given by the complainant before the

Kamakshipalya Police, Bengaluru and which statement has been

admitted by PW-1 in her cross-examination as the one given by her,

throws some light. In the said statement, it is shown that the

complainant has stated before the Police that the accused brought

one Sri. Ramesh Kumar with her and promising that the said

Ramesh Kumar has got some land in a village called Machohalli and

that he would form a layout therein and would give a site to the

complainant, made her to part with a sum of `12,00,000/- initially.

The complainant is shown to have stated in the said statement

that believing their words who included the present

complainant also, she gave a sum of `12,00,000/- in the Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

year 2012. It is thereafter on different occasions and on different

pretext stating that the daughters of the owner of the land are

objecting and that the accused herself is under some financial

difficulty and further stating that some more amount is required

to be given to the grandson of the owner of the land and some

more amount is required to be given to one Sri. Rajendra Babu,

the remaining amount was collected in different sums, in total

amounting to a sum of `32,50,000/-. Therefore, the document

(Ex.D-15) produced by the accused itself throws more light

about the alleged monetary transaction between the complainant

and the accused and shows that the accused by giving one or

other reasons and showing one or other causes has obtained

amount from the complainant on various occasions.

Further, in the very same statement which is marked at

Exhibit D-15, the complainant is also shown to have stated that

when she had given different amounts on various occasions, she

had obtained four cheques drawn on ICICI Bank from the

present accused as a security. She is shown to have further

stated that, since the accused failed to secure her a site or to

repay the amount taken by them, she (complainant) told her Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

that she is going to present those cheques for realisation.

However, she was shown to have requested by the accused that

she would repay the entire amount in cash, as such, requested

the complainant not to present those cheques.

In the very same statement at Exhibit D-15, the

complainant is also shown to have stated before the

Kamakshipalya Police that the complaint given by the accused

against her is a false complaint, as a retaliation for the

complainant presenting those cheques for their realisation to the

Bank and sending them a legal notice, demanding the cheques'

amount when those cheques got bounced.

The complainant is also shown to have stated in the very

same statement at Exhibit D-15 that, she would not take law into

her hands but would proceed against them in accordance with

law by filing a case for dishonour of the cheques. This alleged

statement of the complainant was produced by none else than

the accused herself as Exhibit D-15, after confronting the same

to PW-1 in her cross- examination, wherein PW-1, after going

through the statement admitted that, she had given

such a statement before the Police. Therefore, when the Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

complainant as PW-1 has admitted that, the said statement was

given by her before the Police and the said statement copy was

produced by none else than the accused, the same is considered

both by the Trial Court as well as the Sessions Judge's Court,

who have rightly held that, the said statement favours the

complainant than the accused. It is because, in the said

statement, the complainant has given more details as to, on how

many occasions and for what reasons, she had to part with such

a huge sum of `32,50,000/- and how four cheques drawn on

ICICI Bank which are the subject matter of the present case

came into her hands. Therefore, the defence of the accused of a

general denial of the alleged transaction falls to the ground on its

own.

18. It is also the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae

for the petitioner/accused that, there is a discrepancy in the

complaint with respect to the amount mentioned in one

particular cheque at Exhibit P-7.

No doubt, the complainant in her complaint as well in her

evidence as PW-1 has stated that, the said cheque bearing

No.320907 drawn in her favour on ICICI Bank was for a sum of Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

`4,00,000/-, whereas, the said cheque which is marked at

Exhibit P-7 shows that it is drawn for a sum of `4,50,000/-. But,

the said minor discrepancy would not take away the case of the

complainant for the reason that, the complainant, throughout,

starting from her complaint up to her evidence as PW-1, has

stated that the total amount payable by the accused to her was

`32,50,000/-. The total amount of all the eight cheques, i.e.

Exhibits P-1 to P-8 comes to a sum of `32,50,000/-, as such, the

minor discrepancy of the cheque amount stated in the complaint

and in the evidence of PW-1 with respect to one particular

cheque among eight cheques cannot be considered as the

material variation affecting the case of the complainant.

19. Learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner/accused also

submitted that, the act of the accused in not issuing a single

cheque but said to have issued eight cheques in favour of the

complainant also raises a doubt in the case of the complainant.

No doubt, according to the complainant, the accused has

issued eight cheques to her in total amounting to a sum of

`32,50,000/-. Further, there is no doubt that the complainant

has not stated either in her complaint or in her evidence as to, Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

how come the accused has given eight cheques instead of a

single cheque. But no question was put to PW-1 in her cross-

examination in that regard from the accused's side. Since there

is no bar under the law that towards the repayment of any

alleged liability, only a single cheque is required to be issued,

merely because eight cheques are said to have been issued by

the accused to the complainant, by that itself, the case of the

complainant cannot be disbelieved. In that regard, had any

question been put in the cross-examination of PW-1 from the

accused's side to the witness, probably, the witness would have

given the details as to how come eight cheques were issued to

her by the accused. Without doing such an exercise, now the

accused who had an opportunity to elicit the details in that

regard, cannot say that, the absence of any details for the

issuance of eight cheques would create a suspicion in the case of

the complainant.

20. Learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner/accused also

canvassed a point that, the complainant has not shown that she

had any financial source or any capacity to lend such a huge

amount.

Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

Admittedly, no such contention was taken up by the

accused in the Trial Court. However, the complainant as PW-1 in

her cross-examination has stated that, she availed loan from

REPCO Bank by mortgaging the gold ornaments on several

occasions. According to her, in the year 2012, she had availed

loan by mortgaging gold ornaments in the REPCO Bank, for the

first time, for a sum of `6,00,000/- and then two to three

months thereafter, in a sum of `3,00,000/-. Further, in the

same year, in the month of October-November, one more sum of

`4,50,000/- was obtained. It is in that regard, the said REPCO

Bank had issued her the identity card which she has produced at

Exhibits P-24 to P-27. She has also produced shareholder's pass

book of Sree Anjaneya Co-operative Bank Limited at Exhibit

P-24, wherein it is shown that she had availed loan of

`20,00,000/- from the said Bank in the year 2014. The said

evidence of PW-1 coupled with the documents at Exhibits P-24

and P-27 would go to show that, she had the source of funds to

give it to the accused.

21. Further, the learned Amicus Curiae for the

petitioner/accused also contended that, the copy of the Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

complaint at Exhibit D-9 and a copy of the private complaint

under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. which is at Exhibit D-14 would

go to show that the accused had lodged a Police complaint

against the complainant as well a private complaint in the

Criminal Court against the present complainant and others,

which would go to show that the liability alleged against the

accused towards the complainant is a created one.

The said argument of the learned Amicus Curiae for the

petitioner is also not acceptable for the reason that, even

according to the learned Amicus Curiae, it is subsequent to the

Police complaint at Exhibit D-9, the Police recorded the

statement of the present complainant, who was the accused in

the said Police complaint as per Ex.D-15 and thereafter issued an

endorsement to the present accused who was the complainant in

the Police complaint as per Exhibit D-10, stating that the alleged

complainant is with respect to financial transaction and the

parties were directed to resolve the same by a competent Court

of law. However, the present complainant (accused therein) -

Smt. Lalitha was warned not to take law into her hands and do

any criminal act against the complainant therein (present Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

accused). It is the said statement of the accused in the Police

complaint (complainant herein) the accused is relying by

producing it at Exhibit D-15 and as observed above, the said

statement favours the present complainant more than the

accused.

22. Similarly, merely because a private complaint is said

to have been filed by the present accused against the present

complainant in a competent Criminal Court under Section 200 of

the Cr.P.C., that too, alleging the offences punishable under

Sections 323, 342, 347, 384, 392 and 506 of the IPC, it would

not by itself weaken the case of the complainant or imbibe any

suspicion in the case of the complainant.

23. It was also not submitted to the Court, when this

Court specifically asked the learned Amicus Curiae for the

petitioner as to the stage or the status of the said private

complaint. Further, the accused as DW-1, in her cross-

examination, has admitted that the Police have set aside her

complaint stating that her complaint is civil in nature, on the

other hand, she has admitted that the cheques at Exhibit P-1 to

P-8 are drawn by her and they bear her signature. Therefore, Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

neither Exhibit D-9 nor Exhibit D-14, would in any manner, help

the accused in rebutting the presumption formed in favour of the

complainant.

24. The accused as DW-1 in her examination-in-chief,

after stating that, acting as a mediator, she got a loan of a sum

of `10,00,000/- given to her sister-in-law's brother by name

Ramesh Kumar by the complainant and her brother Suresh, has

also stated that the said amount has been repaid. In that

regard, she has produced four Bank challans at Exhibits D-1 to

D-4 and three loan slips shown to have been issued by Muthoot

Finance Limited towards personal loan which are marked at

Exhibits D-5, D-6, and D-7 respectively. She has also produced

a loan identity card issued by the REPCO Bank and got it marked

at Ex.D-8. However, Exhibits D-1, D-5, D-6, D-7 and D-8

nowhere mentions that the amount mentioned therein have been

credited to the account of the present complainant, on the other

hand, Exhibits D-6 to D-8 only go to show that the accused had

availed loan by pledging gold ornaments. By that itself, it cannot

be inferred that the alleged loan amount mentioned therein has

been paid to the complainant. Exhibits D-2, D-3 and D-4 are

counterfoils of Bank challans showing the name of the Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

complainant therein, in total amounting to `24,000/-. Still,

those credits are much earlier to the dates of the dis-honoured

cheques at Exhibits P-1 to P-8 in the present case. Had really

the accused paid at least a small portion of the alleged liability

towards the complainant, then she would have issued the

cheques after deducting the payment made, if any. As such

also, the contention of the petitioner/accused and the documents

at Exhibits D1 to D-8 that the accused has repaid the alleged

loan for which she claims to be a mediator, is not acceptable.

25. Thus, the petitioner/accused though apart from

cross- examining PW-1 in detail, has entered herself into the

witness-box and led evidence, both oral and documentary, still,

could not able to rebut the presumption that was formed in

favour of the complainant. The defence taken by her in her reply

to the notice which is at Ex.D-11 that the cheques in question

were wrongfully obtained by the complainant in a coercive

manner and by wrongfully confining the accused in the house of

the complainant on 12-07-2005, since has not been proved in

any manner, the said defence also cannot weaken the case of

the complainant in any manner.

Crl.R.P.No.189/2018

26. It is considering the evidence led before it from both

sides, the Trial Court has rightly held the accused guilty of the

alleged offence and sentenced her proportionately to the gravity

of the proven offence. The said judgment was further confirmed

by the learned Sessions Judge's Court. I do not find any

perversity, illegality or impropriety in those judgments,

warranting any interference at the hands of this Court.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed as devoid

of any merit.

The Court while acknowledging the service rendered by the

learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner - Sri. Shivraj N. Arali,

recommends honorarium of a sum of not less than `4,000/- to

him payable by the Registry.

Registry to transmit a copy of this order to both the Trial

Court and also to the Sessions Judge's Court along with their

respective records forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE BMV*