Scania Commercial Vehicles India vs Agy George
2023 Latest Caselaw 5421 Ker

Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18             -:1:-


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
   FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 8TH VAISAKHA, 1945
                          CRL.MC NO. 4740 OF 2019
          AGAINST CC 1491/2019 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
           MAGISTRATE COURT (ECONOMIC OFFENCES),ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1, 3 & 4:

      1       SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTD,
              PLOT NO.64-66,
              NARASPURA KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA,
              ACHHATANAHALLI VILLAGE, NARASAPURAHOBLI,
              KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-563133,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
              PETR NOVOTNY.
      2       R.SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN,
              SALES DIRECTOR,
              SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTD,
              PLOT NO.64-66, NARASAPURA KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA,
              ACHHATANAHALLI VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI,
              KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-563133
      3       RAFAEL DE SOUSA ALVARENGA
              AFTER-SALES DIRECTOR,
              SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTD,
              PLOT NO.64-66, NARASAPURA KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA,
              ACHHATANAHALLI VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI,
              KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-563133.
              BY ADVS.
              SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR
              SRI.K.AMAL NATH NAIK
              SRI.NIRANJAN SUDHIR
              SRI.KANDAMPULLY VIKRAM
 Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18         -:2:-


RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT 2ND ACCUSED & STATE:

      1       AGY GEORGE
              M/S.AEON CONNECT, NO.14,
              LINK HEIGHT, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,
              KOCHI-682036
      2       JIMMY RENSTROM,
              FORMER CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,
              SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTD,
              PLOT NO.64-66, NARASAPURA KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA,
              ACHHATANAHALLI VILLAGE, NARASAPURAHOBLI,
              KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-563133.
      3       STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
              HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
              ERNAKULAM.
              BY ADVS.
              SRI.G.HARIKUMAR (GOPINATHAN NAIR)
              SRI.B.DEEPAK
              R.ANIL R
              B.RAMAN PILLAI



       THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.04.2023, THE COURT ON 28.04.2023 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18                     -:3:-




                            BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                            -----------------------------------------
                                Crl.M.C No.4740 of 2019
                             ----------------------------------------
                          Dated this the 28th day of April, 2023

                                          ORDER

Petitioners are facing indictment for the offences under sections

420, 406 and section 193 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (for short 'IPC") based on a private complaint filed by the first

respondent. Petitioners are accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 while the second

accused is arrayed as the second respondent, as he is allegedly not in

station.

2. The complaint filed in C.C. No.149 of 2019 before the Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences) Ernakulam stems

from the purchase of two Scania buses by the first respondent in the year

2014. The total consideration for the two vehicles totalled to rupees two

hundred and thirty six lakhs. The two buses supplied to the defacto

complainant were from the initial lot of vehicles brought into India by the

first petitioner as completely built units. First respondent-defacto

complainant alleged that the vehicles were sold to him by the petitioners

after committing cheating and criminal breach of trust and that they had

even given false evidence to mislead the police authorities to avoid

criminal proceedings.

3. The defacto complainant, alleged that the accused had, with

dishonest intention, assured that the buses were durable, reliable and had

high fuel efficiency with minimum operating costs and that those deceptive

and false assurances induced the complainant to purchase two buses.

Complainant further alleged that, in July 2017, he got information that the

chassis number, as well as the engine number of the buses supplied to

him, were different from that mentioned in the invoices. Since the vehicle

supplied to the complainant did not conform to the invoices issued, the

accused allegedly indulged in forgery and fabrication and also cheating.

The complainant went on to further allege that the two buses supplied by

the accused were defective and that within a few months of taking delivery

of those vehicles, major engine problems arose, and without even taking

consent from the complainant, the same was replaced, which fact came to

the knowledge of the complainant much later.

4. The defacto complainant also alleged that even the replaced

engines developed major defects, and the accused cheated him by

supplying buses with old and faulty engines and later replacing them with

defective engines itself. The complainant further alleged that every time

when the buses were taken for repairs, the accused charged huge

amounts and rectified the defects temporarily, which would recur later and

that he was forced to approve the work to avoid trip cancellations of those

buses. According to the complainant, cheques issued by him merely as

security were presented for encashment and got dishonoured since the

services were not provided by the accused as promised, and despite reply

to the legal notices, the accused went ahead and filed false cases against

him under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the NI Act') and

thereby committing criminal breach of trust by misusing the cheques

issued. Various defects noticed in the engine indicated that the vehicles

supplied were all used buses, distinct from what was promised, which

were done with an intention to cheat the complainant from the very

inception. The complainant also alleged that when the police was

informed on 12.07.2018, they failed to take any action due to the false

statements and documents provided by the accused for misleading the

police and to avoid the criminal proceedings and thus the accused

committed the offences alleged.

5. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint as C.C.

No.149 of 2019 and issued process to the accused. On receipt of the

summons, accused 1, 3 and 4 have approached this Court through this

petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972,

seeking to quash the proceedings, alleging that it is an abuse of the

process of court.

6. According to Sri. Aswin Gopakumar, learned counsel for the

petitioners, the complaint is an abuse of the process of court since the

attempt of the complainant is an experiment to convert an apparently civil

claim for damages, if any, into a criminal complaint, for the purpose of

compelling and coercing the petitioners to settle the dispute. It was also

alleged that the complainant had come up with a criminal complaint after

the cheques issued by him towards his liability for the service/repair

charges, were dishonoured and the said fact alone is sufficient to read

between the lines to arrive at a conclusion that the complaint is instituted

with malafides. The learned counsel also argued that, apart from the two

buses purchased by the complainant, two more additional buses were

purchased by the complainant in 2015 after using the earlier two buses for

several months and only after being satisfied with their performance. It

was also contended that the two buses, which are the subject matter of

the present complaint, were delivered on 30.04.2014 and had run more

than 16,00,000 kms each as on 02/07/2019. The two additional buses

purchased in 2015 had also run more than 12,00,000 kms each. Learned

counsel asserted that after running an average of more than 28,000 kms a

month, by each of the buses, the complainant cannot complain about any

criminal act of cheating in the supply of buses. He further submitted that a

minor mistake in the engine number mentioned in the invoice could not

result in any criminal case and that the claim, if at all any, can only be for

damages. He submitted that in other courts of the country also, there

have been instances where customers of the first petitioner had resorted

to criminal complaints when they became unable to pay the cost of repairs

or service charges. According to the learned counsel, from the year 2014,

petitioners 2 and 3 had not even been in the service of the first petitioner

and none of the ingredients of the offences alleged is made out as against

any of the accused and further that, no specific allegation of any criminal

act has been alleged against petitioners 2 and 3 or against the second

respondent and therefore the prosecution is inherently an abuse of the

process of court and the same is liable to be quashed.

7. Sri. Harikumar G., learned counsel for the first respondent, on

the other hand, contended that the accused had supplied the vehicle in

April, 2014 and within a few months, they had to be taken for repairs (i.e.,

by September, 2014). According to the learned counsel, the accused had

fabricated documents and made false statements to the police and had

even forged the invoice and thereby committed the offences alleged.

Learned counsel pointed out that there were instances of vehicle engine

numbers having been tampered with, fabrication of sale letters and

invoices, and the engines were replaced without the complainant's

knowledge and thereby the accused had committed the offences alleged.

The learned Counsel also argued that the accused had, by supplying a

statement and documents alleging a mere typographical error in the

engine number, fabricated false evidence intending and knowing fully well

that those documents would be used in a judicial proceeding. It was

further contended that the matter required detailed appreciation of

evidence especially relating to the cheating by supplying old and defective

buses and also the variance of the engine numbers and hence the facts of

the case do not warrant invoking the inherent jurisdiction.

8. I have considered the rival contentions.

9. Before delving into the factual arguments of the case, it is

relevant to notice certain legal principles that have a bearing in the instant

case. In the decision in Sushil Sethi and Another v. State of Arunachal

Pradesh and Others [(2020) 3 SCC 240], the Supreme Court had held

that in a case of criminal liability arising out of a contract with a company,

alleging supply of sub-standard equipment, vicarious liability cannot be

imputed against the officers of a Company, in the absence of specific overt

acts committed by them. It was also observed that since the penal code

does not contain any provision imputing vicarious liability on the directors

of a company, in the absence of any specific allegation regarding the acts

that constitute the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust as having

been committed by the personally named accused, who are officers of the

company, the offence under IPC cannot be attracted.

10. In the decision in Commissioner of Police and Others v.

Devender Anand and Others [2019 SCC OnLine SC 996], Supreme

Court held that when a criminal complaint has been filed as a measure of

settling a civil dispute, the complaint will be an abuse of the process of the

court. Similarly, in the judgment in Deepak Gaba and Others v. State of

Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2023) 3 SCC 423] Supreme Court had

observed that, criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be continued

when it is manifest that they are initiated with the ulterior motive of

wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite the opposite side due to a

private or personal grudge. A reference to the recent decision in Mithesh

Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka and Others (2021 SCC OnLine SC

976) is also appropriate. In the said decision, the Supreme Court

deprecated the growing tendency in business circles to convert pure civil

disputes into criminal cases. It was also observed that these tendencies

are on the increase as civil law remedies are time-consuming and that if a

person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a

likelihood of imminent settlement. The court went on to observe that any

effort to settle civil disputes and claims by applying the pressure of

criminal prosecution should be discouraged.

11. A reference to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in

Scania Commercial Vehicles India Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. State of

Karnataka and Another (2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1590) is also relevant

since the same petitioner is involved in that case too.

12. With the aforesaid principles of law in mind, when the case of

the complainant is analysed, it is evident that the complaint basically

revolves around a dispute relating to a claim for alleged defective vehicles

supplied. Two Scania buses were purchased by the defacto complainant

on the basis of a High Sea Sale Agreement dated 20-03-2014. Customs

clearance of the vehicles was also carried out. Later, an error in the

chassis number was noticed by the registering authority and at the request

of the first petitioner, the error was corrected, and the vehicles were

approved for registration in the name of the defacto complainant. The

vehicles were registered, and insurance was also taken. Both those

vehicles are alleged to have run more than 16.50 lakh kilometres

separately by 2019. Later, two more additional buses were purchased by

the defacto complainant in the year 2015. Those two buses also ran more

than 12.50 lakh kilometres each. The vehicles supplied by the petitioners

to the first respondent were thus put to continuous and regular use. The

vehicles when subjected to repair had to undergo engine replacement

though the complainant alleges that approval for such changes was

obtained without proper information. Admittedly, cheques executed by the

defacto complainant towards payments due for service charges for the

repairs done on the buses were dishonoured in 2018, and legal

proceedings under the NI Act are pending consideration.

13. On a perusal of the various documents produced by the

petitioners as well as the respondents, it is evident that the private

complaint dated 10.12.2018 in C.C. No.149 of 2019 on the files of the

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences)

Ernakulam was triggered by the complaints filed by the first petitioner

under section 138 of the NI Act after dishonour of the cheques issued by

the defacto complainant.

14. The allegation regarding variance in the engine number or chassis

number is a matter which may have to be agitated before an appropriate

forum either for compensation or for any deficiency in service. Of course,

petitioners do have a case that the mistake in the engine number or

chassis number as inserted in the invoice was an error in typing which was

later corrected by issuing proper invoices that were accepted by the

registering authority as well as the first respondent without any demur.

Even if it is assumed that there was an error in the engine number or

chassis number, when compared with the initial invoice, a colour of

criminality cannot be attached to such an act in the circumstances of the

case, that too of the offences under sections 406 and 420 IPC.

15. As is evident from section 406 IPC, the ingredients to attract the

said penal provision require an entrustment of property and a dishonest

misappropriation, use or disposal of that property entrusted, contrary to

any law or contract. The buses purchased by the defacto complainant

cannot be stated to have been entrusted, nor can the consideration for

those buses be regarded as an entrustment. The transaction was a pure

sale of goods. If there was any defect in the property sold, the remedy is

under civil law and not a criminal action especially in the absence of the

ingredients essential to constitute the offence. The decision in Anand

Kumar Mohatta and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2019) 11 SCC

706] is apposite in this context.

16. Further, the offence under section 420 IPC is attracted only if

there was a dishonest inducement from the inception for the purpose of

making an unlawful gain to the accused and unlawful loss to the

complainant. A reading of the complaint reveals that the allegation of

cheating is based on a conscious supply of defective and faulty buses in

which, after few months of driving, the engines had to be changed due to

the alleged defects. Though petitioners argued that engine trouble started

not due to any defect or fault of the machine but due to the excessive and

irregular use of the vehicle without proper care (without oil), this court is of

the view that, at this stage, the contentions of the petitioners cannot be

reckoned. However, the allegations as made in the complaint do not

satisfy the ingredients of section 420 IPC. Except for a bald allegation that

the buses were assured to be durable, reliable, safe and have high fuel

efficiency, there is no allegation of inducement, much less any dishonest

inducement to mulct a criminal liability under section 420 IPC upon the

accused. The transaction of supply of buses was on the basis of a high

seas sale agreement and the bill of lading was endorsed in favour of the

defacto complainant and registration of the buses was also carried out in

his name. A perusal of the complaint filed by the first respondent does not

reveal any of the ingredients of the offence of cheating under section 420

IPC.

17. The remaining penal provision attributed against the petitioners

is under section 193 IPC, which deals with punishment for giving false

evidence or fabricating false evidence. Petitioners are alleged to have

fabricated false evidence as provided under section 192 IPC. A reading of

the complaint reveals that except for a bald allegation, no specific case of

an offence of fabricating false evidence has been pleaded by the defacto

complainant. Paragraph 9 of the complaint merely mentions that "The

complainant, vide Right to Information Act, has learnt that the accused

persons have intentionally provided false evidence and statements before

the police authorities during investigation so as to mislead the police

authorities and avoid criminal proceedings. The averments and many of

the documents in the written submission dated 19.09.2018 before the

police authorities are made intentionally to give false evidence so as to

cover up the offences committed by the accused regarding the intentional

sale of old and faulty vehicles to the complainant." On a reading of the

aforesaid specific allegation and other averments in the complaint, this

court finds it difficult to appreciate the allegations that a case of fabricating

of false evidence can get attracted from those averments.

18. Section 192 IPC provides that if any circumstance is caused to

exist or makes any false entry in any book or record or electronic record or

makes any document containing a false statement intending that such

false entry or false statement or circumstance may appear in evidence in a

judicial proceeding or in a proceeding before a public servant, causing him

to form an erroneous opinion on a point material to the result of such

proceeding is said to fabricate false evidence. Specific allegations are

required to attract the offence of fabricating false evidence. From the

pleadings in the complaint and especially those extracted above, the

nature of false evidence fabricated by the petitioners is incomprehensible.

19. Further, even in the statement given before the Magistrate, no

specific case of fabricating false evidence is seen to have been made by

the defacto complainant. The only reference was with respect to the

engines allegedly changed without his knowledge and when complained to

the police the accused produced incorrect records to show that the

complainant had knowledge of the change of engines. The stand of the

complainant is contradictory and he does not have any specific case of the

nature of evidence fabricated. Though there was an attempt to improve

upon the case of the complainant through the counter affidavit and during

arguments, I am afraid that, the allegations in the complaint do not bring

out any specific case of fabricating false evidence for which the accused

should stand trial.

20. Even otherwise, fabricating false evidence means creating

evidence that does not actually exist or manipulating or altering existing

evidence to support a particular claim. Further, the aforesaid acts must be

done with the intention that it will appear in evidence in a judicial

proceeding or other proceeding before a public servant. Correction of

typographical errors in invoices of motor vehicles even before the

registration of the vehicle, to make it in tune with the actual number on the

engine, cannot be regarded as fabricating false evidence. If such an

interpretation is adopted, every correction of records could be attributed

with the colour of criminality. It is evident from the records produced that

the mistake in the engine number, as printed on the invoice and other

documents, was noticed by the registering authority when the vehicle was

brought for registration. Correction of the engine number in the invoice in

2014 to make it in tune with the actual number on the engine, that too,

done prior to registration of the vehicle, cannot be regarded as fabricating

of false evidence, especially when the complaint itself was filed only in

2018.

21. Apart from the above, as far as petitioners 2 and 3 and even the

second respondent are concerned, though they are arrayed as accused 3,

4 and 2, respectively, in the complaint, there are no specific allegations of

any overt acts committed by them. Even though petitioners have alleged

that all those three persons had joined the first petitioner several years

after the transaction involved in the present dispute, that is a matter for

evidence, and this Court cannot, at this juncture, arrive at a finding on the

date of their joining. However, a perusal of the complaint reveals that no

specific allegations have been made against accused 2 to 4. They being

allegedly employees of the first petitioner, in the absence of any specific

overt act attributed to them, criminal proceeding against accused 2 to 4 is

ex facie an abuse of the process of court.

22. On an appreciation of the contentions advanced, this Court is

satisfied that the attempt of the complainant is to entangle the petitioners

in a criminal proceeding and to apply pressure on them to settle the

proceedings under the NI Act and to convert a civil dispute into a criminal

action. Therefore the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners is

an abuse of the process of court and is liable to be quashed.

23. Hence, all proceedings initiated against the accused in C.C.

No.149 of 2019 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's

Court (Economic Offences) Ernakulam are quashed.

The criminal miscellaneous case is allowed as above.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE vps

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4740/2019

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 27.7.2017 FROM THE FIRST PETITIONER TO THE COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL SENT BY THE COMPLAINANT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER DATED 2.8.2017 ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 2.8.2017 SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE QUOTATION 2.8.2017 SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 2.8.2017 SENT BY THE COMPLAINANT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 29.8.2017 ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE DATED 8.9.2017 ALONG WITH COPY OF DISHONOUR MEMO ANNEXURE H TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE DATED 8.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE DATED 8.1.2017 ISSUED BY THE COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE J TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE DATED 8.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE K TRUE COPY OF THE DISHONOUR MEMO FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS ANNEXURE L TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED

21.3.2018 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE M TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 16.4.2018 SENT ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE N TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE DATED 8.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE O TRUE COPY OF THE DISHONOUR MEMO FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS ANNEXURE P TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 27.4.2018 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE Q TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 11.5.2018 SENT ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE R TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 21.4.2018 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE S TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 17.7.2018 SENT ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST PETITIONER ANNEXURE T TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC NO.466/2018(LESS ANNEXURES) FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ORDER SHEET AS OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE IN PCR NO.359/2018 AS WELL IN CC NO.466/2018 ANNEXURE U TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC NO.467/2018(LESS ANNEXURES) FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ORDER SHEET AS OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE IN PCR NO.366/2018 AS WELL IN CC NO.467/2018 ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 3.09.2018 FILED BY THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM ANNEXURE W TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 19.09.2018 (LESS ANNEXURES) SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST

PETITIONER TO THE POLICE ANNEXURE X TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 10.10.2018 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE Y TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 21.11.2018 ANNEXURE Z TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY POLICE COMMISSIONER TO THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF ANNEXURE AA CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE ACJM COURT9(EO), ERNAKULAM(CC.NO.1491/2019 ANNEXURE BB TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA INVOICE DATED 24.12.2018 FURNISHED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE CC TRUE COPY OF ARRANGEMENT LETTER DATED 4.4.2019 FROM THE INDUSLND BANK, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

ANNEXURE R1a              PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE TAMPERED CHASIS OF
                          THE TWO BUSES
ANNEXURE R1b              TRUE   COPIES    OF   THE   REGISTRATION
                          PARTICULARS OF VEHICLES SRS TRAVELS
Annexure R1C              TRUE   COPIES    OF   THE   REGISTRATION
                          PARTICULARS AND BILL OF SALE OF BUSES.