Mac Charles (India) Limited vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 19357 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 25TH BHADRA, 1943
                  CRL.MC NO. 3193 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2018 IN CRL.M.P.NO.36/2015 IN
  IN CC NO. 2/2014 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER& SPECIAL JUDGE,
                          THRISSUR
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:


         M/S.MAC CHARLES (INDIA) LIMITED
         NO.28, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE-560052, REPRESENTED
         BY ITS OPERATIONS MANAGER, MR. SARTAJ SEWA SINGH.

         BY ADVS.
         B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)
         R.ANIL
         M.SUNILKUMAR
         SUJESH MENON V.B.
         T.ANIL KUMAR
         THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)
         MAHESH BHANU S.
         S.LAKSHMI SANKAR



RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:


         STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
         OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.

         BY ADV SMT.REKHA.S, SR.P.P.



THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.09.2021, THE COURT ON 16.09.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021
                                        2



                                                                "CR"




                  R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
                  **********************
                      Crl.M.C.No.3193 of 2021
                 -------------------------------------
            Dated this the 16th day of September, 2021
              -------------------------------------------


                              ORDER

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), challenging

Annexure-14 order passed by the Court of the Enquiry

Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur in the case

C.C.No.2/2014 pending in that court.

2. The petitioner is a company registered under the

Companies Act, 1956.

3. One Rajendra Prasad @ Anwar Ali is the accused in the

case C.C.No.2/2014 pending in the Special Court. He had served

as Regional Transport Officer in the Motor Vehicles Department.

The allegation against him in the above case is that, during the Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021

period from 01.01.1993 to 24.03.2006, he acquired and

possessed assets worth Rs.2,52,71,605.97/- which was

disproportionate and 96.96% in excess of his known sources of

income and that he committed an offence punishable under

Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act')

4. The F.I.R in the above case was registered against the

accused by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) on

23.03.2006.

5. As per Annexure-1 document dated 27.04.2006, the

petitioner purchased 15 cents of land, with a residential building

therein (hereinafter referred to as 'the schedule property'), from

the wife of the accused in the above case, for a consideration of

Rs.1,28,00,000/-.

6. The State Government issued Annexure-3 order dated

05.02.2010, authorising the investigating officer in the above

case to file a report and affidavit before the District Judge,

Ernakulam under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance') for attachment of the Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021

schedule property.

7. The investigating officer filed Annexure-4 application

under Section 3(1) of the Ordinance in the District Court,

Ernakulam on 25.08.2010 for attachment of the schedule

property. As per the order of the District Court, the aforesaid

property was attached. The period of attachment of the schedule

property was subsequently extended till the date 31.12.2013.

8. The investigating officer filed Annexure-5 application

before the District Court, Ernakulam for extension of the period

of attachment of the schedule property from 31.12.2013.

9. As per Annexure-6 order dated 15.10.2014, the

District Court, Ernakulam dismissed Annexure-5 application for

the reason that final report against the accused in the case had

already been filed in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and

Special Judge, Thrissur on 02.11.2013 and it was the Special

Court which was competent to deal with the matter.

10. On 04.02.2015, the petitioner filed Annexure-7

application in the District Court, Ernakulam praying that lifting of

the attachment over the schedule property may be intimated to Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021

the office of the Sub Registrar concerned since there was no

attachment in force.

11. As per Annexure-8 order dated 28.02.2015, the

District Court, Ernakulam found that there was no order of

attachment in force in respect of the schedule property and

therefore, allowed Annexure-7 application. The District Court

directed that lifting of the attachment over the schedule property

shall be intimated to the office of the Sub Registrar concerned.

12. On 23.02.2015, the investigating officer filed

Annexure-9 application under Section 3(1) of the Ordinance in

the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge,

Thrissur for attachment of five items of properties including the

schedule property.

13. As per Annexure-10 order dated 16.12.2015, the

Special Court allowed Annexure-9 application and ordered

attachment of all the five items of properties including the

schedule property.

14. The petitioner filed Crl.M.C No. 2776/2018 before this

Court challenging Annexure-10 order passed by the Special Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021

Court.

15. As per Annexure-11 order dated 11.06.2018 in Crl.M.C

No. 2776/2018, this Court set aside Annexure-10 order as far as

it related to the schedule property and directed the Special Court

to pass fresh order in Annexure-9 application after giving an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

16. However, the investigating officer filed Annexure-12

application in the Special Court on 02.07.2018 for regularisation

of the attachment over the schedule property, after issuing notice

to the petitioner.

17. The petitioner filed Annexure-13 statement of

objection to Annexure-12 application.

18. As per Annexure-14 order dated 30.11.2018, the

Special Court allowed Annexure-9 application and ordered

attachment of the schedule property. The aforesaid order is

challenged in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code.

19. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Public Prosecutor.

20. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021

that Annexure-9 application filed for attachment of the schedule

property was defective because no affidavit was filed in the

Special Court, as contemplated under Section 3(3) of the

Ordinance, accompanying that application. Learned senior

counsel also contended that the schedule property belonged to

the petitioner, who is not an accused in the case and therefore,

the provisions of Section 6 of the Ordinance are applicable for

considering whether that property is liable to be attached.

Learned senior counsel also contended that, the Special Court

failed to consider whether there were sufficient grounds as

stipulated under Section 6 of the Ordinance to order attachment

of the schedule property.

21. During the hearing of the case, this Court had made a

specific query to the learned Public Prosecutor, whether any

affidavit, as contemplated under Section 3(3) of the Ordinance,

had been filed by the investigating officer along with Annexure-9

application. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that no such

affidavit had been filed by the investigating officer. Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021

22. The Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 was

promulgated to prevent disposal or concealment of property

procured by means of the offences specified in its Schedule,

which now include an offence under the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988. The Ordinance sets out the procedure for attachment

of money or other property which the Central/State Government

believes that the person, who is accused of a scheduled offence,

has procured by means of such offence.

23. The Ordinance is one of the earliest legal measures

implemented to take away the ill-gotten wealth of public servants

who engage in corrupt practices. The Ordinance is a permanent

one. It was promulgated in exercise of the powers conferred

under Section 72 of the Ninth Schedule of the Government of

India Act, 1935. It was adopted by the Presidential Adaptation of

Laws Order, 1950 issued under the powers conferred by

Clause (2) of Article 372 of the Constitution of India, thus,

making it effective in the territory of India and, therefore,

continues to remain in force (See Nevada Properties Private

Limited v. State of Maharashtra : AIR 2019 SC 4554). Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021

24. Section 3(1) of the Ordinance provides that, where the

State Government or as the case may be, the Central

Government has reason to believe that any person has

committed any scheduled offence, the Government may, whether

or not any court has taken cognizance of the offence, authorise

the making of an application to the District Judge within the local

limits of whose jurisdiction, the said person ordinarily resides or

carries on business, for the attachment of any money or other

property, which the Government believes the said person to have

procured by means of such offence. It also provides that, if such

money or property cannot for any reason be attached, prayer can

be made for attachment of other property of the said person of

the value as nearly as may be equivalent thereto.

25. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Ordinance

mandates that, the application shall be accompanied by one or

more affidavits stating the grounds on which the belief that the

said person has committed any schedule offence is founded, and

the amount of money or value of other property believed to have

been procured by means of the offence. The application shall also Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021

furnish - (a) any information available as to the location for the

time being of any such money or other property, and shall, if

necessary, give particulars, including the estimated value, of

other property of the said person; (b) the names and addresses

of any other persons believed to have or to be likely to claim, any

interest or title in the property of the said person.

26. By virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the

Ordinance, the provisions of Order XXVII of the First Schedule to

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apply to the proceedings for

an order of attachment under the Ordinance as they apply to

suits by the Government.

27. Section 4 of the Ordinance deals with ad interim

attachment of property by the jurisdictional District Judge.

Section 5 of the Ordinance deals with investigation of objections

to attachment and making the attachment absolute and

withdrawing of the attachment.

28. Section 6 of the Ordinance deals with attachment of

property of mala fide transferees. This provision reads as

hereunder:

 Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021



            "6.   Attachment       of     property    of     mala   fide

transferees.---(1) Where the assets available for attachment of a person believed to have committed a scheduled offence are found to be less than the amount or value which he is believed to have procured by means of such offence, and where the District Judge is satisfied by affidavit or otherwise, that there is reasonable cause for believing that the said person has, after the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed, transferred (whether after the commencement of this Ordinance or not) any of his property otherwise than in good faith and for consideration, the District Judge may by notice require any transferee of such property (whether or not received the property directly from the said person) to appear on a date to be specified in the notice and show cause why so much of the transferee's property as is equivalent to the proper value of the property transferred should not be attached.

(2) Where the said transferee does not appear and show cause on the specified date, or where after investigation in the manner provided in sub-section (2) of Section 5, the District Judge is satisfied that the transfer of the property to the said transferee was not in good faith and for Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021

consideration, the District Judge shall order the attachment of so much of the said transferee's property as is in the opinion of the District Judge equivalent to the proper value of the property transferred".

29. Sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act provides that, a

Special Judge, while trying an offence punishable under the Act,

shall exercise all the powers and functions exercisable by a

District Judge under the Ordinance.

30. A new Chapter IVA, containing Section 18A, has been

inserted in the Act, by Amendment Act 16 of 2018 and it has

come into force from 26.07.2018.

31. Section 18A(1) of the Act provides that, save as

otherwise provided under the Prevention of Money Laundering

Act, 2002, the provisions of the Ordinance shall, as far as may

be, apply to the attachment, administration of attached property

and execution of order of attachment or confiscation of money or

property procured by means of offence under the Act.

32. Section 18A(2) of the Act states that, for the purposes

of the Act, the provisions of the Ordinance shall have effect, Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021

subject to the modification that the reference to "District Judge"

shall be construed as reference to "Special Judge".

33. A Division Bench of this Court, in Dr.V.K.Rajan v.

State of Kerala : 2007 (4) KHC 828, had occasion to interpret

the provision contained in sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act.

The Division Bench took note of the expression 'while trying the

offence' in that provision and held that the Special Court can

exercise the jurisdiction of the District Court under the Ordinance

only after starting the trial of the case against the accused and

that the Legislature empowered the Special Judge to exercise the

power of District Judge for attachment of the property 'while

trying the offence' only and not at the pre-trial or post-trial

stage. It was held that, before starting of the trial, the application

for attachment shall be submitted to the District Judge concerned

since the power of attachment under the Ordinance is given to

the Special Judge under Section 5(6) of the Act only 'while trying'

the case and not during pre-trial stage or investigation stage.

34. Now, after the introduction of Section 18A(2) in the Act,

it appears that the dichotomy of jurisdiction of the District Judge Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021

and the Special Judge, which was explained by the Division

Bench in Dr.V.K.Rajan (supra), has disappeared. The Division

Bench had noticed that, in Section 29 of the Act it was not

mentioned that the words 'District Court' wherever appear in the

Ordinance shall be substituted by 'Special Court'. The change

now occurred by the introduction of Section 18A(2) in the Act is

exactly what the Division Bench had referred to above. Section

18A(2) of the Act states that, for the purposes of the Act, the

provisions of the Ordinance shall have effect, subject to the

modification that the reference to "District Judge" shall be

construed as reference to "Special Judge". Therefore, the

expression 'while trying the offence' in Section 5(6) of the Act

stands expanded by the words "for the purposes of this Act"

contained in Section 18A of the Act. It means that, with effect

from 26.07.2018, even at the pre-trial stage, the Special Court

has jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 3(1) of

the Ordinance.

35. Now, coming to the facts of the present case, it is to

be noted that the investigating officer filed Annexure-12 Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021

application in the Special Court for regularisation of the

attachment over the schedule property. When the investigating

officer filed that application, the attachment over the schedule

property was not in force since Annexure-10 order of attachment

passed by the Special Court in respect of that property had been

set aside by this Court as per Annexure-11 order.

36. The operative portion of Annexure-11 order passed by

this Court reads as follows:

"In the result, this Crl.M.C stands allowed and Annexure-J order stands set aside to the extent it affects the properties of the petitioner. The court below is directed to pass order afresh on Crl.M.P.No.316 of 2015 in respect of the properties of the petitioner, in accordance with law, affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of being heard.

I make it clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all his contentions before the court below. If the petitioner raises contentions before the court below, the court below shall consider all the said contentions in accordance with law."

37. Annexure-9 application is the application which is

referred to as Crl.M.P.No.316 of 2015 in the above order. It is Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021

crystal clear from Annexure-11 order that the attachment of the

schedule property was set aside by this Court. Therefore, when

the investigating officer filed Annexure-12 application for

regularisation of attachment, no such attachment was in force.

Therefore, there was also no question of regularisation of any

such attachment. Annexure-12 application filed by the

investigating officer was totally misconceived.

38. The specific direction given by this Court, as per

Annexure-11 order, to the Special Court was to pass fresh order

in Annexure-9 application after giving opportunity of hearing to

the petitioner. Annexure--9 was an application filed by the

investigating officer under Section 3(1) of the Ordinance. It was

not an application filed for extending the period of attachment.

The reason is that the attachment of the schedule property

earlier ordered by the District Court was not in force at the time

of filing Annexure-9 application. While passing Annexure-8 order,

the District Court had made it clear that no order of attachment

was in force.

39. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021

contend that, when the property of the accused is sought to be

attached, the application has to be filed under Section 3(1) of the

Ordinance and when the property of a transferee is to be

attached, application has to be filed under Section 6 of the

Ordinance. Learned senior counsel would contend that, when the

property has been transferred to another person, Section 6 of the

Ordinance applies and then the investigating officer has to file

application under Section 6 of the Ordinance for attachment of

that property.

40. There is no merit in the above contention. There is

only one provision in the Ordinance for making application for

attachment of property and it is Section 3(1). Section 6 of the

Ordinance does not contemplate filing of any application for

attachment.

41. Section 3(1) of the Ordinance contemplates filing of

application for attachment of two types of properties, namely, (1)

money or other property procured by the accused person by

means of the scheduled offence and (2) if such money or other

property cannot be attached, other property of the accused, of Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021

value as nearly as may be equivalent thereto. The first item of

property mentioned above may also include property in the

hands of a transferee. Necessarily, the second item mentioned

above shall be the property of the accused person himself.

42. However, when it is specifically alleged by the

investigating officer that the property liable to be attached is a

property transferred by the accused person otherwise than in

good faith and for consideration, Section 6 of the Ordinance

comes into play. Even then, the application for attachment has

to be filed under Section 3(1) of the Ordinance.

43. Section 6(1) of the Ordinance contemplates issuing

notice to the transferee to show cause why his property shall not

be attached. Section 6(2) of the Ordinance would show that,

when the transferee appears and shows cause, an investigation

in the manner provided in Section 5(2) of the Ordinance shall be

made. Thereafter, if the District Judge or the Special Judge is

satisfied that the transfer of the property to the transferee was

not in good faith and for consideration, then only attachment of

property under Section 6(2) of the Ordinance can be ordered. Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021

44. Admittedly, Annexure-9 application filed before the

Special Court under Section 3(1) of the Ordinance was not

accompanied by any affidavit as enjoined by Section 3(3) of the

Ordinance.

45. The Special Court, in the impugned order, referred to

the contention raised by the petitioner that the application for

attachment was defective for want of affidavit. However, the

Special Court failed to consider the objection raised by the

petitioner as to the maintainability of the application for

attachment filed without an affidavit accompanying it.

46. Filing of affidavit, accompanying an application for

attachment under Section 3(1) of the Ordinance, cannot be

considered as an empty formality. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of

the Ordinance specifically states that application under

sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by affidavit. Such affidavit

shall state the grounds on which the belief that the accused has

committed any scheduled offence is founded. It shall also state

the amount of money or the value of other property believed to

have been procured by means of the offence. Very often, the Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021

District Judge or the Special Judge will have to rely upon the

averments in the affidavit to pass an ad interim order of

attachment under Section 4(1) of the Ordinance. The proviso to

Section 4(1) of the Ordinance states that, before passing any

order of ad interim attachment, the District Judge or the Special

Judge may examine the person who filed the affidavit. If the

District Judge or the Special Judge refuses to pass an ad interim

order of attachment, it is mandatory that, before passing such

order, he shall examine the person who has filed the affidavit.

47. It is settled law that, where a statute prescribes a thing

to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that

manner and in no other manner. Other methods of performance

are necessarily forbidden.

48. Having found the need and necessity of filing affidavit

as enjoined under Section 3(3) of the Ordinance, the conclusion

is irresistible that, Annexure-9 application filed without such an

affidavit, was not maintainable. The Special Court should not

have entertained Annexure-9 application which was filed without

any accompanying affidavit.

Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021

49. Annexure-9 application was defective for another

reason. It was filed not by the person who was specifically

authorised by the Government to file it. Annexure-3 is the copy

of the government order authorising the investigating officer to

file application under Section 3(1) of the Ordinance for

attachment of the schedule property. The last paragraph of

Annexure-3 order reads as follows:

"Government have examined the matter in detail, and authorize Shri.T.M.Varghese, the Investigating Officer, to file a report and affidavit before the District Judge, Ernakulam, under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 for the attachment of 15 cents of land in Survey No.379/10 and 380/01 of Maradu Village along with Building having a plinth area of 3,500 ft 2 bearing No.VI/419/E of Maradu Grama Panchayat, purchased by the Accused Shri R.Rajendraprasad, Deputy Transport Commissioner in the name of his wife Smt.Usha Prasad."

Annexure-9 application was filed not by Sri.T.M.Varghese, who

was specifically authorised by Annexure-A3 order, to file it.

Annexure-9 application was filed by another investigating officer. Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021

He was not a person authorised by the Government to do so.

Annexure-3 order passed by the Government was not a general

authorisation to file application under Section 3(1) of the

Ordinance. It specifically authorised a named person to file the

application. Only the person named in Annexure-3 government

order had authority to file the application under Section 3(1) of

the Ordinance. For this reason also, Annexure-9 application filed

in the Special Court was not maintainable.

50. The above view is supported by the decision of the

Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Trambak

Ananda Mahajan (1988 (1) Crimes 42).

51. After the dismissal of Annexure-5 application by the

District Court as per Annexure-6 order, if the investigating officer

wanted to file a fresh application for attachment in the Special

Court, he should have obtained authorisation from the

Government since he was not the person authorised by the

Government as per Annexure-3 government order to file the

application.

52. The discussion above leads to the conclusion that Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021

Annexure-9 application filed in the Special Court was defective

and it was not maintainable for two reasons. (1) The application

was not accompanied by any affidavit as enjoined under Section

3(3) of the Ordinance. (2) The application filed was by a person

who was not authorised by the Government under Section 3(1) of

the Ordinance.

53. It follows that, Annexure-14 order passed by the

Special Court on Annexure-9 application, is not sustainable under

law and it is liable to be set aside.

54. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annexure-14

order passed by the Special Court is set aside and Annexure-9

application is dismissed. The investigating officer is at liberty to

file fresh application in the Special Court for attachment of

property in accordance with law.

                  (sd/-)     R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE

jsr
 Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021



                 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3193/2021

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

Annexure 1             TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2130 OF
                       2006 OF MARADU SRO.

Annexure 2             TRUE COPY OF O.P.(MISC) NO.428 OF 2007
                       OF THE DISTRICT COURT ERNAKULAM.

Annexure 3             TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.

(RT) NO.17/2010/VIG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 5.2.2010.

Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1370 OF 2010 IN OP (MISC) 428 OF 2007.

Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.5511/2013 FILED BY THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER.

Annexure 6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.10.2014 IN I.A.5511 OF 2013 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.

Annexure 7 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.643 OF 2015 IN I.A.NO.5511 OF 2013 IN O.P.(MSC) 428 OF 2017 BY THE PETITIONER.

Annexure 8 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.2.2015 IN I.A.NO.643 OF 2015 IN I.A.NO.5511 OF 2013 IN O.P. (MISC) 428 OF 2017 OF DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.

Annexure 9 TRUE COPY OF CRL. M.P.NO.316 OF 2015 IN C.C.NO.2/2014 OF THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR.

Crl.M.C.No.3193/2021

Annexure 10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.12.2015 IN CRL.M.P.NO.316 OF 2015 IN C.C.NO.2 OF 2014 OF THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR.

Annexure 11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.6.2018 IN CRL.M.C.NO.2776 OF 2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Annexure 12 TRUE COPY OF CRL.M.P.NO.551 OF 2018 FILED BEFORE THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR.

Annexure 13 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTION DATED 4.8.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

Annexure 14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2018 IN CRL.M.P.NO.316 OF 2015 OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR.

Annexure 15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.9.2014 IN CRL.M.P.NO.1035 OF 2014 IN C.C.NO.2 OF 2014, THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR.

Annexure 16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.8.2020 IN CRL.M.P.NO.667 OF 2019 IN CC NO.2 OF 2014, THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE