Srilakshmi Yerra, Ias vs State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 2701 Tel

          THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.6534 of 2020


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') is filed by the petitioner/A.6 in FIR

No.RC 17(A)/2009-CBI/Hyd of CBI, Hyderabad, to call for records and

direct the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, to

conduct hearing on charges and discharge applications, only after the

CBI files its Final Report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.1 of

2012 with respect to the 'interstate boundary dispute', which is kept on

hold and not specifically dealt with in the four charge-sheets filed by

CBI, and which is contrary to the judgment, dated 16.12.2010, passed

by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.532 and 681 of 2010 and

the common order, dated 21.03.2013, passed in Criminal Petition

Nos.394, 395, 346, 396 of 2013 in C.C.No.1 of 2012 by the Principal

Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri K.Raghavacharyulu, learned counsel

for the petitioner/A.6, Sri K.Surender, learned Special Public Prosecutor

for CBI appearing on behalf of the sole respondent and perused the

record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A.6 vehemently contended that

proceeding with hearing on charges and discharge applications by the

Court below against the petitioner/A.6 in the subject Calendar Case is

contrary to the judgment, dated 16.12.2010, passed by a Division

Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.532 & 681 of 2010, wherein, it was

directed that "inquiry/investigation into boundary dispute shall have to Dr. SA, J

await order of the Supreme Court of India", and also contrary to

common order, dated 21.03.2013, passed in Criminal M.P.Nos.394,

395, 346, 396 of 2013 in C.C.No.1 of 2012 by the Principal Special

Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, wherein, it was directed that "hearing

on charges is postponed till completion of further investigation in this

case with an observation that prosecution shall complete its further

investigation at the earliest". The interstate boundary dispute between

the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka is still pending and not yet

resolved. In fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed the Surveyor General

of India to conduct survey in the matter of interstate boundary of two

states, i.e., Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, in order to demarcate the

boundaries of disputed area, where illegal mining has taken place.

However, the report of Surveyor General of India has not become final

and has not been grounded. The matter was entrusted to Union of

India to demarcate the boundary between Andhra Pradesh and

Karnataka. Unless and until the interstate boundary is fixed, the

quantum of alleged illegal mining cannot be determined. Further, in the

counter affidavit, the CBI had categorically stated that investigation on

the issue of illegal mining near the disputed interstate boundary has not

been done, since the same is pending settlement, as directed by the

Hon'ble Apex Court. In view of the said categorical admission by CBI,

the four charge sheets/supplementary charge-sheets filed by the CBI on

03.12.2011, 30.03.2012, 02.01.2013 and 09.04.2014 cannot be treated

as Final Reports filed on completion of investigation and the Court below

cannot proceed further basing on the said reports. Further,

investigating agency has no right to choose, either to produce or not to

produce certain documents. Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. contemplates

only further investigation, but not fresh investigation. According to Dr. SA, J

Section 2(h) of Cr.P.C., 'Investigation' includes all the proceedings

under Cr.P.C., for collection of evidence by a police officer or by any

person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in

this behalf. It is an inclusive definition. As per Section 2(r) of Cr.P.C.,

'police report' means a report forwarded by a police officer to a

Magistrate under Sub-Section (2) of section 173. Once investigation is

ordered, investigating officer has statutory duty to investigate entirely

into the dispute and communicate his opinion by filing charge sheet.

When investigation is not completed and in the absence of compliance

of provisions under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, the question of framing

charge under Section 239 Cr.P.C does not arise. If charges are framed,

grave injustice would be caused to the petitioner/A.6. Deferment of

hearing on charges is necessary to prevent the abuse of process of

Court and to secure ends of justice. It is a fit case to exercise

jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by this Court and ultimately,

prayed to allow the Criminal Petition as prayed for. In support of his

contentions, the learned counsel had relied on the following citations.

1. Sanjay Kumar Rai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another1

2. Mrs. Mayawati vs. Union of India and others2

3. State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sheetla Sahai and others3

4. State of M.P. vs. Mohanlal Soni4

5. Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another5

6. M.C.Abraham and others Vs. State of Maharashtra6

4. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI

opposed the relief sought by the petitioner/A.6 by contending that

pendency of interstate boundary dispute would not, in any way, affect

the jurisdiction of trial Court, in view of provisions of Sections 177 and

Decided on 07.05.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.472/2021 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

(2012) 8 SCC 106

(2009) 8 SCC 617

(2000) 6 SCC 338

(1979) 3 SCC 4

(2003) 2 SCC 649 Dr. SA, J

179 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner/A.6, under the guise of pendency of

interstate boundary dispute, is trying to stall the entire proceedings in

the subject calendar case, which cannot be countenanced. The dilatory

tactics being adopted by the petitioner/A.6 have to be deprecated.

Framing of charges in respect of illegal mining shall not be construed to

be pragmatic to the facts of the case. The contention of the

petitioner/A.6 that quantification of illegal mining would be dependent

upon the interstate boundary dispute cannot be sustained, when there

is a subsisting direction from the Hon'ble Apex Court to implement the

report of the Surveyor General of India in respect of demarcation of

boundary between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. The

Court below did not violate any provisions of law. The contention of the

petitioner/A.6 that investigation with regard to illegal mining is not

completed is false. In fact, investigation is completed and charge-

sheets/supplementary charge-sheets in respect of nine accused

persons, including the petitioner/A.6, were filed before the Court below.

CBI also filed Memo before the Court below on 27.07.2021 stating that

investigation is completed and there are no further reports to be filed

under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. It is the prerogative of the

Investigating Agency to enquire into the issues such as boundary

dispute between the two states etc., and the petitioner/A.6 cannot

compel the Investigating Agency to investigate into a specific issue. No

further investigation is pending and the provisions of Section 173(8)

Cr.P.C have been scrupulously followed. When the investigating agency

came on record and filed a Memo to the effect that reports, as

contemplated under Section 173 Cr.P.C, have been filed, the Court

below rightly decided to proceed further in the matter. The judgments

cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner/A.6 are not applicable to Dr. SA, J

the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Further, if the

petitioner/A.6 feels that there are lacunae/laches on the part of

prosecution, she is entitled to canvass the same before the Court below

and seek discharge from the subject Calendar Case. Inherent power of

High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot be exercised in a

routine manner, but has to be exercised most sparingly and with

abundant caution. The instant case is not a fit case to exercise the said

inherent power of High Court and ultimately prayed to dismiss the

Criminal Petition.

5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner/A.6 would submit

that in order to establish the complicity of the petitioner/A.6,

investigation has to reach to its logical conclusion, on all aspects. In

the instant case, investigation is not completed. Incomplete form of

opinion is impermissible under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. No undertaking

has been filed by the investigating officer before the Court below with

regard to further investigation on interstate boundaries.

6. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for

determination in this Criminal Petition is as follows:

"Whether the petitioner/A.6 has made out valid grounds to grant the relief sought for under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., i.e., to direct the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, to conduct hearing on charges and discharge applications, only after the CBI files complete Final Report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C?

POINT:-

7. The material placed on record reveals that the petitioner/A.6 is an

IAS officer. The main accusation against the petitioner/A.6 is that she, Dr. SA, J

while working as Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department,

Government of Andhra Pradesh, entered into criminal conspiracy along

with other accused, to cheat the Government by sanctioning mining

leases of iron ore to M/s.Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited

(M/s.OMCPL), violating the governing rules and procedures. On

17.11.2009, the then Government of A.P. issued G.O.Ms.No.467

according consent to all the members of the Delhi Police Establishment

to exercise the powers and jurisdiction in the State of Andhra Pradesh

regarding boundary disputes and illegal mining activities of M/s.OMCPL

and M/s.Bellary Iron Ore Pvt. Ltd (M/s.BIOPL) in Bellary Reserve forest

of Anantapur District. On 01.12.2009, the Central Government has

issued notification accepting the entrustment of investigation and on

07.12.2009, CBI registered FIR No.RC.17(A)/2009-CBI/Hyderabad,

against various accused, under various Sections of IPC, Mines and

Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, Forest Act and Prevention of

Corruption Act. Thereafter, M/s.OMCPL filed W.P.No.27120 of 2009

before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, challenging the

validity of G.O.Ms.No.467, wherein, interim stay of all further

proceedings was granted, which was also made absolute. Against the

said interim order, CBI filed W.A.No.532 of 2010 and the Government

of India filed W.A.No.681 of 2010, wherein, a Division Bench of

erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, while directing the CBI not to

embark upon the dispute relating to the boundary until further orders

from the Supreme Court, permitted investigation into other issues, i.e.,

illegal mining by M/s.OMCPL and BIOPL. Accordingly, CBI filed first

charge-sheet on 03.12.2011 against A.1 to A.5, but however, the

petitioner/A.6 was not arrayed as accused in the said charge-sheet.

CBI filed first supplementary charge-sheet on 30.03.2012 against the Dr. SA, J

petitioner/A-6. On 02.01.2013, CBI filed third charge-sheet against A-

7. In all the charge-sheets, it was categorically mentioned that

investigation was limited to illegal mining activity only and the

investigation into the interstate boundary dispute would be continued,

subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition. On filing of a Memo by the

CBI stating that investigation is complete and charges can be framed,

A.1 to A.4 and A.7 filed applications under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. in the

subject CC requesting postponement of hearing on charges till filing of

Final Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., and the then Presiding

Officer of the Court below allowed the said applications, vide common

order, dated 21.03.2013.

8. Thereafter, on 09.04.2014, CBI filed fourth charge-sheet against

A.8 and A.9 in the subject CC. While so, when the matter of interstate

boundary dispute went up to the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Apex

Court, at the first instance, directed the Surveyor General of India and

Chief Secretaries of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh to coordinate with

each other in determining the interstate boundary. Accordingly, the

Surveyor General of India filed final report before the Hon'ble Apex

Court. While Government of Karnataka accepted the said report,

Government of Andhra Pradesh had some reservations. Accordingly,

the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is entirely up to the Union of India to

implement the report of Surveyor General of India and demarcate the

boundary between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Katnataka.

However, the report of Surveyor General of India regarding the

interstate boundary has not become final yet and not grounded. While

so, on 08.10.2020, the Court below recorded that CBI has filed a memo

to expedite the proceedings by hearing the arguments of both sides and Dr. SA, J

that the investigating officer stated in open Court that investigation is

completed and hence, the counsel on record shall get ready to argue

the matter on hearing on charges and on discharge applications, failing

which, appropriate orders will be passed. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner/A.6 filed this Criminal Petition.

9. The core contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/A.6 is

that hearing on framing of charges and discharge application can only

be conducted by the trial Court, after CBI files its Final Report under

Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., including the interstate boundary dispute,

and that the charge-sheets/supplementary charge-sheets filed by CBI

can never be construed as Final Report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C.,

since the investigation is incomplete. Per contra, the main contention

of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI is that investigation is

completed on all aspects, except the issue of illegal mining, if any, near

the disputed interstate boundary, which is sub judice before the Hon'ble

Apex Court, and that there are no further reports to be filed under

Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C and that it is the prerogative of the

Investigating Agency to enquire into the issues such as boundary

dispute between the two states etc., and the petitioner/A.6 cannot

compel the CBI to investigate into a specific issue.

10. It is apt to state that during the pendency of this Criminal

Petition, the respondent/complainant had filed a Memo, dated

27.07.2021, before the Court below, which reads as follows:

MEMO FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

May it please your Honour,

1. That the case was registered by CBI, ACB, Hyderabad Branch vide Crime No.RC.17(A)/2009 on 07.12.2009 U/s 120-B, 420, 379, 411, 427, 447 of IPC, Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988, Sec.26 of Indian Forest Act, 1927; Sec.21 r/w Sec.4(1) & 4(1)(A) and Sec.23 of Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulations) Act, 1957, Dr. SA, J

to investigate Boundary related disputes and illegal mining by M/s.OMCPL and M/s.BIOPL in Bellay Reserve Forest of Ananthapur District of Andhra Pradesh.

2. It is submitted that the investigation is completed and there are no further reports to be filed U/Sec 173(8) of Cr.P.C. Hence this memo.

Be pleased to consider, (P.V.Seetharamam) Dy.Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB/Hyderabad.

Date: 27.07.2021 Place: Hyderabad.

11. Further, the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, dated 17.09.2018,

passed in Special Leave Petition (C) No.7366-7367 of 2010, reveals that

the Surveyor General of India filed a Final Report in relation to

determination of interstate boundary between the two states, i.e., State

of Karnataka and the State of Andhra Pradesh, before the Hon'ble Apex

Court and that as there were some reservations for the State of Andhra

Pradesh, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is entirely up to the Union

of India to implement the report of Surveyor General of India and

demarcate the boundary between the States of Andhra Pradesh and

Katnataka. As per the submissions made on behalf of the

respondent/complainant, entire investigation is completed in the subject

criminal case and no further investigation is pending and the provisions

of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. were scrupulously followed and a Memo,

dated 27.07.2021, was filed indicating the same and pursuant to the

Memo filed, the trial Court was pleased to direct both the parties to get

ready to argue the matter on hearing on charges and on discharge

applications. As per the petitioner/A.6, the investigation is incomplete

and Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. mandates complete investigation and the

charge-sheets/supplementary charge-sheets filed in this case do not

indicate complete investigation. It is for the respondent/CBI to state

whether the investigation is complete or incomplete. As stated above,

the respondent/CBI filed a Memo, dated 27.07.2021 before the Court Dr. SA, J

below stating that investigation is completed and there are no further

reports to be filed under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. It is apt to state that

investigation is the prerogative of the prosecuting agency. As held by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, there is a well-

defined and demarcated function in the field of investigation and its

subsequent adjudication. It is not the function of the Court to monitor

the investigation process, so long as the investigation does not violate

any provision of law. It must be left to the discretion of the

investigating agency to decide the course of investigation. If the Court

is to interfere in each and every stage of the investigation, it would

affect its normal course and this Court, in exercise of its inherent power

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot interfere with such investigation,

except in rare cases where the Court is convinced that investigation

officer acted mala fidely or there is abuse of process of power or non-

compliance of provisions of Cr.P.C. In any event, an accused person

cannot dictate terms to the investigating agency to investigate on a

specific issue. In the instant case, the complainant/CBI has filed a

Memo before the Court below stating that investigation is completed

and there are no further reports to be filed under Section 173(8) of

Cr.P.C. Further, on 08.10.2020, the Court below recorded that CBI has

filed a Memo to expedite the proceedings by hearing the arguments on

both sides and that the investigating officer, in open Court, stated that

investigation is completed. The issue in the instant case is pilferage of

minerals from Bellary Reserve Forest of Anantapur District in the State

of Andhra Pradesh by M/s.OMCPL and M/s.BIOPL, with connivance of

Government servants, and the main accusation against the

petitioner/A.6 is that she entered into criminal conspiracy along with the

other accused to cheat the Government by sanctioning mining leases of Dr. SA, J

iron ore to the aforementioned mining companies, violating the

governing rules and procedures. If there are any omissions and

commissions on the part of the investigating agency in collecting the

evidence, the prosecution would suffer on account of that and no

prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/A.6. Generally, the Court

will not order further investigation in the matter. The fact remains that

altogether four charge-sheets were filed and a Memo, dated

27.07.2021, was filed to the effect that investigation is complete and

there are no further reports to be filed under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

In view of the same, it is not appropriate on the part of the

petitioner/A.6 to raise a ground that there is no complete investigation

in terms of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. In the given circumstances of the

case, it is for the respondent/complainant to state that investigation is

incomplete and further investigation is warranted and it is not open to

the petitioner/A.6 to raise such a ground.

12. I have gone through all the decisions relied by the learned

counsel for petitioner/A.6. In Sanjay Kumar Rai's case (1 supra), the

Hon'ble Apex Court held that discharge is a valuable right provided to

the accused; Whenever there is likelihood of serious prejudice to the

rights of a citizen (accused) and the prosecution is a brazen attempt to

persecute an innocent person, it becomes imperative upon the Court to

prevent the abuse of process of law; The High Court is imbued with

inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of

justice having regard to the facts and circumstances of individual cases;

the Hon'ble Apex Court does not recommend a complete "hands off

approach" by the High Court.

Dr. SA, J

13. Mrs.Mayawati's case (2 supra) relates to Taj Heritage Corridor

Project case. The question that arose for consideration by the Hon'ble

Apex Court was whether the FIR issued by CBI for the offences under

Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act against the

petitioner therein to investigate into the matter of alleged

disproportionate assets is beyond the scope of earlier directions issued

by the Hon'ble Apex Court. After analyzing the material on record and

after interpreting various judgments, the Hon'ble Court held that the

direction of Hon'ble Apex Court was with regard to irregularities in Taj

Corridor Project alone and not with a party to the said proceedings and

therefore, the second FIR against the petitioner therein in

disproportionate assets case was unauthorized and illegal and hence

quashed.

14. In Sheetla Sahai's case (3 supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held

that there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the tests for the

purpose of framing of charge and the one for recording a judgment of

conviction are different. A distinction must be borne in mind that

whereas at the time of framing of the charge, the Court may take into

consideration the fact as to whether the accused might have committed

the offence or not, at the time of recording a judgment of conviction,

the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the

accused has committed the offence; The Court should proceed on the

basis as to whether the materials brought on record, even if given face

value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclose commission of a

cognizable offence and the trial Court must determine considering the

entirety of the materials brought on record and not on a part of it; The

prosecution, having regard to the right of an accused to have a fair Dr. SA, J

investigation, fair inquiry and fair trial as adumbrated under Article 21

of the Constitution of India, cannot, at any stage, be deprived of taking

advantage of the materials, which the prosecution itself has placed on

record; If upon perusal of the entire materials on record, the court

arrives at an opinion that two views are possible, charges can be

framed, but if only one and one view is possible to be taken, the court

shall not put the accused to harassment by asking him to face a trial.

15. In Mohanlal Soni's case (4 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held

that at the stage of framing charge, the Court has to prima facie

consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the

accused; The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence to

conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for

convicting the accused; If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case

is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed;

The charge can be quashed, if the evidence, which the prosecutor

proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully

accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by

defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the

particular offence.

16. In Prafulla Kumar Samal's case (5 supra) the Hon'ble Apex

Court held that the a Judge, while considering the question of framing

the charges under Section 227 of the Code, has the undoubted power to

sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out

whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made

out; Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave

suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained,

the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with Dr. SA, J

the trial; The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally

depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule

of universal application. By and large, however if two views are equally

possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before

him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against

the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused;

That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the

Judge, which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court,

cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution,

but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect

of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any

basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on and this, however,

does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the

pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence, as if he was

conducting a trial. While there cannot be any dispute with regard to the

law laid down in the cited decisions, the facts of the said decisions are

entirely different from the facts of the case on hand. In none of the

cited decisions, similar circumstances exist, to accede and act upon the

prayer of the petitioner/A.6. Hence, the cited decisions are not helpful

to the petitioner/A.6. Under these circumstances, the Court below has

no other option except to proceed with hearing on framing of charges

and discharge application. Therefore, it cannot be held that there is

abuse of process of Court by the trial Court.

17. Further, it is apt to observe that the subject Calendar Case is of

the year 2012. Though nine years have elapsed, the case is still at the

stage of hearing on framing of charges and discharge application/s.

While it is important to give adequate opportunity to the accused to Dr. SA, J

defend his/her case following the principle of fair trial, it is equally

important to ensure that the entire proceedings in a criminal case

cannot be stalled on flimsy and unconvincing grounds. Speedy trial is

the essence of criminal justice system, which cannot be stalled years

together on unreasonable grounds. It is well known that "justice

delayed is justice denied". Right to speedy trial is not a fact or fiction,

but a Constitutional reality, which has to be given its due respect. In a

catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that speedy trial is an

inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution and hence, no

person shall be deprived of his life and liberty, without the procedure of

law, and the procedure of law must be 'fair', 'reasonable', and 'just'.

Due process of law cannot be abused by an accused so as to frustrate

the trial procedure on flimsy grounds.

18. Further, it is well established that though the powers of this Court

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are very wide, those powers are required to

be exercised sparingly and with abundant caution. The said inherent

power can be exercised only when there is abuse of process of Court or

to secure ends of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in catena of

decisions, deprecated the practice of staying criminal trials and police

investigations, except in exceptional cases. The present case, in my

considered view, does not fall under exceptional cases where the

inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can be exercised in favour of

the petitioner/A.6.

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the petitioner/A.6 has failed to make out valid grounds to

accede to her request, by exercising inherent power of this Court under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The relief sought by the petitioner/A.6 in this Dr. SA, J

Criminal Petition cannot be granted. The Criminal Petition is devoid of

merit and is liable to be dismissed.

20. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently,

the interim order granted by this Court on 09.07.2021 and which is

being extended from time to time, stands vacated.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition,

shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. Shameem Akther, J

21st September, 2021 Bvv