Kerala High Court
Jyolsna Binu vs Soni P.Bhaskar on 27 August, 2025
2025:KER:65397
WP(C) No.30780/ 2018 &
Crl.Rev.Pet No.464/ 2023 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 5TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 30780 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
JYOLSNA
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O BINU JAYAPALAN,MANJOOSHA,KARAKKAD
PO,CHENGANNUR,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV
RESPONDENTS:
1 SONI P BHASKAR
MEPPURATHU HOUSE,MELUKARA
PO,KOZHENCHERRY,PATHANAMTHITTA DT 689641.
2 M.K.VARADARAJAN,
MANAPPALLIL HOUSE, MALLASSERY P.O., PRAMADHOM,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 646.
3 ABHILASH.A.,
PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, MANAYILKULANGARA,
THIRUMULLAVARAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 012.
4 KRISHNAKUMAR.K.M.,
HARISREE, ERAVIPEROOR, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN-689 542.
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CBCID, EOW-1, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 002.
6 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE-CRIMES,
CBCID, EOW-1, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014.
7 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF,
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAURAM, PIN-695 001.
2025:KER:65397
WP(C) No.30780/ 2018 &
Crl.Rev.Pet No.464/ 2023 2
8 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695
001.
9 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
SPE/CBI, COCHIN LIMIT, KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN-682 017.
10 THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110
003.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.C.S.MANILAL
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SHRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER,SREELAL N.WARRIER, SPL.PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
SRI.S.NIDHEESH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.08.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.464/2023, THE COURT ON
27.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:65397
WP(C) No.30780/ 2018 &
Crl.Rev.Pet No.464/ 2023 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 5TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 464 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER 16.02.2023 IN CRMP NO.708 OF 2023 OF
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PATHANAMTHITTA
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
JYOLSNA BINU
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O. BINU JAYAPALAN, MANJOOSHA, KARAKKAD P.O,
CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 689504
BY ADVS.
SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV
SMT.S.PARVATHI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 SONI P.BHASKAR
MEPPURATHU HOUSE, MELUKARA P.O., KOZHENCHERRY,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689641
2 M.K.VARADARAJAN
MANAPPALLIL HOUSE, MALLASSERY P.O., PRAMADHOM,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689646
3 ABHILASH A
PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, MANAYILKULANGARA,
THIRUMULLAVARAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691012
4 KRISHNAKUMAR K.M.
HARISREE, ERAVIPEROOR, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689542
2025:KER:65397
WP(C) No.30780/ 2018 &
Crl.Rev.Pet No.464/ 2023 4
5 SHAJI SUGANAN
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CB (CBCID-EOW1) ASRAMAM,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691002
6 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SHRI.C.S.MANILAL
SRI.S.NIDHEESH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.08.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).30780/2018, THE
COURT ON 27.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:65397
WP(C) No.30780/ 2018 &
Crl.Rev.Pet No.464/ 2023 5
ORDER
Crime No.651/2014 registered by the Pathanamthitta Police in
respect of the commission of offence under Section 420 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (in short, 'IPC') upon a
complaint preferred by the petitioner herein, is the bed-rock of the
issues involved in this Writ Petition and Crl.Revision Petition.
2. The parties are referred hereafter in their respective
capacities and ranks as shown in WP(C) No.30780/2018, for the sake of
convenience.
3. A conspectus of the case of the petitioner is as follows:-
The petitioner, a middle aged lady, complained about the cheating
perpetrated upon her by the respondents 1 and 2, who in their
capacities as the Manager and Legal Advisor respectively, of a
partnership firm by name, ESSEN Bankers, collected a total amount of
Rs.27.5 lakhs from her with the offer that she would be provided with
dealership in the automobile business proposed to be commenced by
them, and thereafter defrauded her without honouring the above
assurance, or giving back the amount collected from her. The petitioner
is stated to have paid the above amount by way of two cheques of
2025:KER:65397
WP(C) No.30780/ 2018 &
Crl.Rev.Pet No.464/ 2023 6
Rs.3,50,000/- each and cash Rs.20,50,000/-. Finding that the
investigation is not effective, the petitioner filed a detailed
representation before the 6th respondent, upon whose direction, the
investigation was handed over to the CBCID EOW-1, which refiled the
case with the number 10/CR/EOW-1/KLM/15. Still aggrieved by the lack
of progress in the investigation, she approached this Court for a
direction to the State Police Chief to monitor the investigation either by
himself or by an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of
Police, and for a further direction to the 5th respondent to complete the
investigation expeditiously within a time frame. In the above Writ
Petition, the Detective Inspector, CBCID, EOW-1, filed a statement in
which it was stated that the original cheques which the accused
encashed at SBT, Chengannur, were recovered. However, the above
cheque leaves were not produced before the Magistrate concerned.
Again at the intervention of this Court upon the complaint of the
petitioner about the tardy investigation, it was submitted by the Public
Prosecutor concerned that the investigation was at the final stage, and
that the Final Report would be filed within three months. Upon enquiry,
the petitioner came to know that the respondents 3 and 4, who were
the Detective Inspector and Detective Sub Inspector respectively,
2025:KER:65397
WP(C) No.30780/ 2018 &
neither prepared a mahazar regarding the recovery of two cheque
leaves from SBT, Chengannur, nor produced the above cheque leaves
before the court concerned. The further enquiries made by the
petitioner revealed that the above cheque leaves seized by the
respondents 3 and 4, were missing. Realising that the aforesaid
cheques which were crucial pieces of evidence, were deliberately
destroyed to save the culprits, the petitioner made a detailed
representation before the 6th respondent to take action against
respondents 3 and 4. The 6th respondent directed an enquiry to be
conducted by the Superintendent of Police, CBCID OCW-2 with regard
to the above missing of vital documents during the course of
investigation. Finding that the enquiry was being conducted in a
prejudicial manner with the intention of exonerating the 3rd respondent,
the petitioner filed a detailed complaint before the 7th respondent to
issue the necessary orders to register an FIR against the respondents 3
and 4 for causing disappearance of evidence and screening the actual
culprits from legal punishment. On the basis of the above complaint,
the respondents 3 and 4 were arraigned as accused Nos.4 and 5 in
Crime No.10/CR/EOW-1/KLM/15 for the offence under Section 201 IPC.
During the course of the above investigation, Mr. Shaji Sugunan, the
2025:KER:65397
WP(C) No.30780/ 2018 &
Superintendent of Police, who held the office of 5th respondent,
obtained the mobile phone of the petitioner for extracting the whatsapp
messages of communication between the petitioner and the 3rd
respondent. The seizure of the petitioner's mobile phone in the above
regard was done by the said officer after verifying the Device
Identification Number (IMEI) and model number which were rightly
mentioned in the mahazar prepared. In the list of properties sent to the
Magistrate, Mr.Shaji Sugunan deliberately omitted to note the Device
Identification Number of the mobile phone and wrongly noted the
colour of the said mobile phone. When the petitioner sought for
correction of the above irregularities, she was informed by the above
officer that the same was not necessary. Later on, when the petitioner
got the FSL report dated 16.04.2018, she was shocked to see that the
mobile phone sent for examination before the FSL showed a totally
different Device Identification Number. Having been aggrieved about
the partisan and unfair investigation done by Mr. Shaji Sugunan, the
petitioner preferred a complaint before the 6th respondent, pointing to
the manipulations committed by the 5th respondent with the objective of
aiding the accused. Since the Investigating Officer deliberately
protracted the investigation, and did not file the Final Report before the
2025:KER:65397
WP(C) No.30780/ 2018 &
court concerned, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C)
No.30780/2018 for handing over the investigation to the CBI. Due to
the foul play committed by Mr. Shaji Sugunan, the whatsapp chat of the
petitioner with the 3rd respondent, which were of much importance in
the enquiry relating to the missing of cheque leaves, could not be
retrieved. Upon the complaint of the petitioner about the aforesaid
misconduct of Mr. Shaji Sugunan, an enquiry was conducted as per the
directions of the 6th respondent. In the above enquiry report
No.01/PTN/CB/AW/2018 dated 07.08.2018, the Enquiry Officer reported
that seizure mahazar as well as property list were altered by Smt.
Vijayasree, a Court Staff (property clerk) of the Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court, Pathanamthitta. The above enquiry report was filed clandestinely
by the Enquiry Officer without even recording the statement of the
above said Viajayasree or other Court Staff. Since no action was taken
by the sixth respondent in the complaint pertaining to the manipulations
done upon the seizure mahazar and property list, the petitioner
preferred CMP No.2668/2019 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Pathanamthitta, under Section 340 Cr.PC. In the proceedings initiated by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate upon the above petition, the sworn
statements of the petitioner, Mr. K.S. Sudarshan, who conducted the
2025:KER:65397
WP(C) No.30780/ 2018 &
enquiry, Mr. Shaji Sugunan (fifth respondent), and Smt. S. Vijayasree,
the Court Staff concerned, were recorded. After evaluation of the
evidence in the above regard, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, as
per the order dated 03.01.2023, arrived at the conclusion that there
was no evidence to show that, after the filing of the seizure mahazar
and the property list before the said Court, corrections were made by
any Staff of that Court. It was further observed thereunder that the
available evidence prima facie showed that corrections were made by
the Police officials before producing the seizure mahazar and the
property list in the Tapal Box of that Court. On the basis of the
aforesaid finding, the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
The petitioner again filed another complaint before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate as Crl.M.P. No.708/2023 for a direction to the State
Police Chief to register a FIR and to conduct an investigation under
Section 156 (3) Cr.PC about the manipulations made by Mr. Shaji
Sugunan, who tried to shield and save the actual culprits who assisted
the persons accused of cheating her. Crl.M.P. No.708/2023 was
dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate with the observations
that the allegations made thereunder, were the same allegations which
she raised in Crl.M.P. No.2668/2019, and that the request in the above
2025:KER:65397
WP(C) No.30780/ 2018 &
petition to have a review of those aspects were beyond the scope of
law. It is aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal dated
16.02.2023 of Crl.M.P. No.708/2023 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court, Pathanamthitta, that the petitioner has filed Crl.R.P.No.464/203
before this Court. The relief sought for in WP(C) No.30780/2018 is an
order for CBI investigation into Crime No.10/CR/EOW-1/KLM/15 of the
CBCID, EOW-1 as also against the manipulations committed by
respondents 3, 4 & 5 during the course of investigation in the said
crime, to save the culprits.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 and the learned Public Prosecutor
representing respondents 5 to 8. The respondents 3 & 4 were duly
served with notice, but they did not choose to appear before this Court
or prefer any objection. The respondents 9 and 10 were represented
by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI.
5. A perusal of the facts and circumstances of this case
narrated in paragraph No.2 hereinabove, would reveal that there was
deliberate attempt to sabotage the investigation in the crime originally
registered by the Pathanamthitta Police as FIR No.651/2014 under
Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC in respect of the alleged cheating
2025:KER:65397
WP(C) No.30780/ 2018 &
committed by respondents 1 & 2 upon the petitioner. It is seen that the
two cheque leaves which were pivotal documents as far as the above
offence is concerned, had gone missing while the investigation was
being conducted at the instance of respondents 3 & 4. The contention
of the petitioner that the above cheque leaves were recovered without
the preparation of a mahazar, and it were not produced before the
Magistrate concerned, would substantiate the allegation of the
petitioner about the deliberate attempt on the part of the above
respondents to stifle the investigation. It is also pertinent to note that
the respondents 3 & 4 were later on added as additional accused 4 & 5
in the original crime for their act of causing disappearance of evidence.
Even thereafter, the investigation appeared to have proceeded in a
shoddy manner, leading to serious lapses in taking note of the Device
Identification Number and other particulars of the mobile phone of the
petitioner, and manipulating the mahazar and property list submitted
before the Magistrate in the above regard. When the petitioner
complained before the respondents 6 & 7 about the complicity of Mr.
Shaji Sugunan who held the office of the fifth respondent at the time of
investigation, in the manipulations done in noting correct particulars of
the mobile phone which were sent for analysis at FSL, an enquiry was
2025:KER:65397
WP(C) No.30780/ 2018 &
ordered. In the above enquiry report, the Court Staff of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta, was blamed for the
manipulations perpetrated upon the mahazar and property list prepared
by the abovesaid Mr. Shaji Sugunan. However, in the enquiry conducted
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 340 Cr.PC., it was
found that the corrections were made in the aforesaid records by the
Police Officials before the production of those records before that Court.
However, the further complaint which the petitioner preferred before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for investigation about the above
manipulations, was dismissed by the learned magistrate on technical
grounds.
6. It is to be noted that there had been the involvement of
some dubious persons wielding power behind the curtain in the course
of investigation into the crime of cheating registered against the
respondents 1 & 2. To a certain extent, the above unseen manipulators
had succeeded in torpedoing the investigation, paving the way for the
actual culprits to escape from the clutches of law. The fact that the
persons who are expected to conduct the investigation in a fair and
independent manner had fallen prey to the dubious tactics adopted by
those culprits playing behind the curtain, is more disturbing. It is also
2025:KER:65397
WP(C) No.30780/ 2018 &
not possible to eschew the fact that the course of investigation into the
original crime happened to be the venue for the commission of fresh
crimes like causing disappearance of evidence, forgery etc., by the
persons associated with the investigation. Taking into account the above
peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that this
is a fit case where the investigation has to be handed over to the CBI so
that all the culprits, including those who scuttled the investigation and
those who still remain in exile, could be brought to book.
7. The situations under which a prayer for CBI investigation
could be allowed have been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of West Bengal and Others v. Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others [(2010) 3 SCC 571]
wherein it has been held as follows:
"70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to
emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and
226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must
bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of
these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under
the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the
question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a
case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid
down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but
time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to
2025:KER:65397
WP(C) No.30780/ 2018 &
be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has
levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary
power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional
situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and
instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have
national and international ramifications or where such an order may
be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the
fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large
number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to
properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its
credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations."
8. Here is a case where the fervent attempts of a woman to
secure justice in a case relating to the cheating perpetrated upon her by
the offenders who wield influence and power, has been forestalled due
to the failure on the part of the State Police to conduct the investigation
in an effective and proper manner. The fact that respondents 3 and 4,
who initially conducted the investigation in their capacities as the
officers of the CBCID, had to be later on arraigned as accused Nos.4
and 5 in the same crime for the commission of offence under Section
201 I.P.C would show that the de facto complainant is fully justified in
seeking investigation by another agency. Furthermore, it has to be
stated that even in the investigation later on conducted under the
supervision of a Superintendent of Police (Respondent No.5), there had
2025:KER:65397
WP(C) No.30780/ 2018 &
been manipulations made in vital documents which compelled the de
facto complainant to approach the State Police Chief as well as the Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court concerned to ensure that a fair and impartial
investigation could be done in the economic offence committed upon
her, and also for bringing to book the officers associated with the State
Police, who assisted the offenders to escape from the clutches of law.
Thus, this is a typical case where the investigation by the CBI has to be
ordered, not only to ensure that the de facto complainant is rendered
justice, but also to give the message to the society that nobody would
be permitted to subvert the administration of criminal justice by
resorting to influence upon the officers of the investigating agency who
are expected to discharge their duty in a fair and impartial manner.
In the result, the Writ Petition and Crl.Revision Petition are
disposed of as follows:
(i) The investigation in Crime No.10/CR/EOW-1/KLM/15 of
the CBCID, EOW-1 (Crime No.651/2014 of Pathanamthitta
Police Station) is ordered to be handed over to the Central
Bureau of Investigation represented by its Director (10th
respondent).
(ii) The Central Bureau of Investigation represented by its
Director (10th respondent) shall pass orders forthwith
2025:KER:65397
WP(C) No.30780/ 2018 &
assigning the investigation in the aforesaid crime with a
suitable officer.
(iii)The officer of the CBI so entrusted with the investigation,
shall look into the incidents of disappearance of cheque
leaves and the manipulations in the relevant records
pertaining to the mobile phone particulars of the victim,
which happened during the course of investigation by the
previous investigating agency, and register separate
crimes on those matters, if found necessary.
(iv)The State Police Chief (7th respondent) shall take
immediate steps for the transmission of all the relevant
records pertaining to the investigation so far done by the
State Police to the officer of the Central Bureau of
Investigation entrusted with the charge of investigation.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
IAP/DST/jsr
2025:KER:65397
WP(C) No.30780/ 2018 &
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 464/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-I A true copy of the statement dated 10-10-2018
filed by the Investigating officer in WP(c)
No. 30780 of 2018 of this Hon'ble Court
Annexure-II A true copy of the enquiry report
No.01/PTN/CB/AW/2018 dated 07-08-2018
submitted by Superintendent of Police before
the Inspector general of Police
Annexure-III A true copy of the complaint submitted by the
Petitioner before the Inspector General of
Police dated 09-05-2019
Annexure-IV A true copy of C.M.P No. 2668/2019 pending
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Patahanamthitta dated 05-06-2019
Annexure-V A true copy of the order dated 03-01-2023 in
C.M.P No. 2668/2019 of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Patahanamthitta
Annexure-VI A true copy of Crl.M.P. No. 708/2023 of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patahanamthitta
dated 06-02-2023
2025:KER:65397
WP(C) No.30780/ 2018 &
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30780/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
DATED 08.04.2014 IN CRIME NO.651/2014 OF THE
PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS DATED
06.02.2017 FILED BY THE DETECTIVE INSPECTOR,
CBCID, EOW-I IN WP(C)NO.574 OF 2017.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.7755 OF 2017 IN
WP(C)NO.574 OF 2017 DATED 23.02.2017, FILED
BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
07.06.2017 IN WP(C)NO.574 OF 2017.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.02.2017
IN WP(C)NO.574 OF 2017.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.H1/2460/C.B.E.O.W., C.S.O/2017 DATED
11.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED
29.01.2018.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 05.02.2018
SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA IN CRIME
NO.10/CR/EOW-I/KLM/15.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR PREPARED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN CRIME
NO.10/CR/EOW-I/KLM/15 DATED 03.02.2018.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PROPERTY SENT TO
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PATHANAMTHITTA
IN CRIME NO.10/CR/EOW-I/KLM/15 DATED
03.02.2018.
2025:KER:65397
WP(C) No.30780/ 2018 &
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
CYBER FORENSIC ANALYSIS REPORT NO.DD-84/2018
DATED 16.04.2018 PREPARED BY THE STATE
FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY IN CRIME
NO.10/CR/EOW-I/KLM/15.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED
18.06.2018.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSIGNMENT TRACKING
DETAILS OF THE NOTICE SERVED ON THE 2ND
RESPONDENT CONSIGNMENT NO: EL556316035IN AS
AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF INDIA
POST
