Raja @ Ayyappan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 April, 2020


Supreme Court of India

Raja @ Ayyappan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 April, 2020

Author: S. Abdul Nazeer

Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, S. Abdul Nazeer

                                                    1


                                                                      REPORTABLE

                                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1120 OF 2010


          RAJA @ AYYAPPAN                                        … APPELLANT

                                                VERSUS

          STATE OF TAMIL NADU                                    … RESPONDENT



                                       JUDGMENT

S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.

1. This criminal appeal filed under Section 19 of the Terrorist

and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short ‘the TADA

Act’) is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.12.2009

passed by the Presiding Judge, Designated Court No.2, Chennai, in

Calendar Case No.1/2007, whereby the Designated Court has

convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo
Signature Not Verified
rigorous
Digitally signed by
GEETA AHUJA
Date: 2020.04.01

imprisonment for 2 years under Section 120­B IPC and 5 years
18:47:35 IST
Reason:

each under Section 120­B IPC read with Section 3(3) and 4(1) of the
2

TADA Act and under Section 120­B IPC read with Section 5 of

Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and all the sentences imposed were

ordered to be run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that during June 1988,

the absconding accused, Ilango @ Kumaran @ Ravi @ Santhosh and

Suku @ Sukumaran @ Kumar, had formed an organization at

Trichy under the name ‘Tamilar Pasarai’, with the object of

achieving separate Statehood for Tamil Nadu and to blast Central

and State Government buildings with bombs with a view to overawe

the Government established by law. The appellant herein and 13

other accused have enrolled themselves in the said organization

and they entered into a criminal conspiracy during June 1988 to

commit an illegal act and to blast the State Government building in

the Secretariat by name ‘Namakkal Kavignar Maligai’ and in

furtherance of the said conspiracy, Suku and Shanmuga Sundaram

had undergone a course in electronics at Tamil Nadu Advanced

Technical Institute, Trichy, and learnt the mechanism for devising

electronic timer, to be used in the time bombs to be manufactured

by them.

3

3. The further case of the prosecution is that during September

1990, the above said Suku had brought electronic printed circuit

board, integrated circuit switches, resisters and directed Shanmuga

Sundram to device electronic timer device, to be attached to time

bomb. The appellant, along with two other accused, wrote slogans

in the paper (MO­7) hailing ‘Tamilar Pasarai’ and kept it near the

time bomb on 22.09.1990. The bomb was to be blasted by another

accused, namely, Sukku, in a jerrycan (MO­1) containing explosives

with timer devices (MO­6), near Namakkal Kavignar Maligai on

22.09.1990. The bomb was noticed before its explosion at about

6.45 a.m. by the Head Constable, G.M. Rajendran (PW­1), attached

to Armed Reserves, Madras, and the said bomb was subsequently

defused. Thereafter, information was given by PW­1 to the Assistant

Commissioner, in­charge of the Fort Police Station, who handed

over the investigation to Parthasarathy (PW­21), the then D.S.P.,

who registered the case initially under Section 4 of the Explosive

Substances Act, 1908 and under Sections 2­F(d)(1) and (2) read

with Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Subsequently, during the course of investigation, the charges were
4

altered against the accused under Section 120­B IPC read with

Sections 3(3) and 4(1) of TADA Act and under Section 5 of the

Explosive Substance Act, 1908.

4. On 24.09.1990, the place of incident was searched by the

bomb disposal squad and the seized items were sent for finger print

examination. A request was also made to the Chief Controller of

Explosives for examining the explosive substance.

5. The statements of witnesses were recorded in respect of the

aforesaid offences on the basis of the information received during

investigation. The Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D., Thanjavore, raided

the premises of one Abdul Kalam and handed over his custody to

Inspector Raman of ‘Q’ Branch.

6. On 10.05.1993, PW­26, the then Superintendent of Police,

SBCID, received the case file pertaining to Cr. No.1 GO/90, Fort

Station, Chennai. Thereafter, he sent the requisition for the

extension of remand of the accused Sathish @ Vadivelu and Abdul

Kalam, on 04.06.1993 and 14.07.1993 respectively. He gave

requisition to the competent authority for sanction to prosecute

Abdul Kalam and Vadivelu and obtained the sanction orders. On
5

receiving the statement of the accused, Chandran, he obtained

sanction for prosecution of Chandran under the TADA Act on

02.09.1993.

7. After completion of the investigation, the police on 03.09.1993,

filed the charge­sheet against the accused Nos. 1 to 14 and the

unknown accused, under Section 120­B read with Section 3(3), (4)

(1) of the TADA Act and Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act

and Section 7 read with Section 35(1)(A), Section 3 read with

Section 25(1)(B) of the Arms Act. Thereafter, the statements of the

witnesses were recorded by the Special Judge in the aforesaid case.

8. It was the further case of the prosecution that on 24.05.2007,

PW­28, Superintendent of Police, Ashok Kumar, ‘Q’ Branch, CID

Head Quarters, Chennai, came to know about the arrest of the

appellant­accused by the DSP ‘Q’ Branch Tanjavore, in connection

with the Mannarkudi P.S. Cr. No.954/94 and as the appellant was

involved in the subject case, the investigating officer was informed

to take necessary steps for the same. Accordingly, PW­26 took steps

for the police custody of the appellant from 25.07.2007 to

27.07.2007. During the police custody, the appellant voluntarily
6

wished to give his confessional statement and as such he was

produced before PW­28, Superintendent of Police, on 26.07.2007

with a requisition, Ex. P­55 by PW­27. On 27.07.2007, PW­28

recorded the confession of the accused, observing the formalities

under Section 15 of the TADA Act, as Ex. P­56 and P­57. PW­28

made an appendix as per the said provision and the appellant was

handed over to the DSP to be produced before the Court. All the

proceedings were sent in a sealed cover to the Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate through special messenger on 27.07.2007.

9. Thereafter, the charges were framed against the appellant,

read over and explained to him. However, while questioning, the

appellant denied the charges. The prosecution examined as many

as 28 witnesses to prove the case against the accused. The

appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973. The appellant was permitted to be examined as

DW­1. He filed the documents Ex. DW­1 to DW­7. As stated earlier,

the Designated Court has convicted the appellant in the aforesaid

terms.

7

10. Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant, has submitted that the Designated Court has relied on

the confession (Ex. P­57) of the appellant for his conviction. PW­28

who recorded the alleged confession, had not scrupulously followed

the guidelines laid by this Court in Kartar Singh v. State of

Punjab1. The confession had not been recorded in a free

atmosphere. The prescribed procedure under the TADA Act and the

rules made thereunder had not been followed while recording the

confession. It was also submitted that the confession was not

admissible in evidence as it was not voluntary. In this connection,

he has taken us through the oral evidence of the parties. It was

further submitted that the accused had retracted the confession

subsequently. Therefore, even if the confession is admissible, it is a

weak piece of evidence and the same cannot be the sole evidence for

conviction in the absence of corroboration from independent

sources. It was also submitted that the confession of the co­

accused (Ex. P­26 and P­27) are not admissible in evidence because

there was no joint trial of those two accused with the appellant. The

1
1994 (3) SCC 569
8

confession of the co­accused is not substantive piece of evidence.

The proviso to Section 15(1) of the TADA Act, introduced by

amending the said section in the year 1993 which, in fact,

supplements Section 30 of the Evidence Act, mandates that there

should be a joint trial. Therefore, he submits that the conviction of

the appellant by the Designated Court is unsustainable in law.

11. On the other hand, Shri Jayant Muth Raj, learned Additional

Advocate General, appearing for the respondent­State, has

supported the impugned judgment of the Designated Court.

12. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned

senior counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed

on record.

13. The Designated Court has convicted the appellant on the basis

of the confession of the appellant made on 27.02.2007 (Ex. P­57)

and the confession statement of the two other co­accused (Ex. P­26

and P­27).

14. Therefore, the first question for consideration is whether the

appellant has made the confession (Ex. P­57) voluntarily and

truthfully.

9

15. The law of confession is embodied in Sections 24 to 30 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The confession is a form of admission

consisting of direct acknowledgment of guilt in a criminal charge. In

this connection, it is relevant to notice the observations of Privy

Council in Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor2 which is as under:

“…..a confession must either admit in terms of an
offence, or at any rate substantially all the fact which
constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely
incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating
fact is not by itself a confession….”

16. It is well­settled that a confession which is not free from doubt

about its voluntariness, is not admissible in evidence. A confession

caused by inducement, threat or promise cannot be termed as

voluntary confession. Whether a confession is voluntary or not is

essentially a question of fact. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot

Sandhu3 this Court has elaborately considered this aspect as

under:

“29. Confessions are considered highly reliable
because no rational person would make admission
against his interest unless prompted by his
2
1939 PC 47
3
(2005) 11 SCC 600
10

conscience to tell the truth. “Deliberate and voluntary
confessions of guilt, if clearly proved are among the
most effectual proofs in law.” (Vide Taylor’s Treatise
on the Law of Evidence, Vol. I.) However, before acting
upon a confession the court must be satisfied that it
was freely and voluntarily made. A confession by
hope or promise of advantage, reward or immunity or
by force or by fear induced by violence or threats of
violence cannot constitute evidence against the
maker of the confession. The confession should have
been made with full knowledge of the nature and
consequences of the confession. If any reasonable
doubt is entertained by the court that these
ingredients are not satisfied, the court should eschew
the confession from consideration. So also the
authority recording the confession, be it a Magistrate
or some other statutory functionary at the pre­trial
stage, must address himself to the issue whether the
accused has come forward to make the confession in
an atmosphere free from fear, duress or hope of some
advantage or reward induced by the persons in
authority. Recognising the stark reality of the
accused being enveloped in a state of fear and panic,
anxiety and despair while in police custody, the
Evidence Act has excluded the admissibility of a
confession made to the police officer.”

17. Section 15(1) of the TADA Act is a self­contained scheme for

recording the confession of an accused charged with an offence

under the said Act. This provision of law is a departure from the

provisions of Sections 25 to 30 of the Evidence Act. Section 15 of

the TADA Act operates independently of the Evidence Act and the
11

Criminal Procedure Code. In Kartar Singh (supra) a Constitution

Bench of this Court while upholding the validity of the said

provision has issued certain guidelines to be followed while

recording confession. These guidelines have been issued to ensure

that the confession obtained in the pre­indictment interrogation by

a police officer not lower in rank than a Superintendent of Police is

not tainted with any vice but is in strict conformity with the well­

recognised and accepted aesthetic principles and fundamental

fairness. These guidelines are:

“(1) The confession should be recorded in a free
atmosphere in the same language in which the
person is examined and as narrated by him;

(2) The person from whom a confession has been
recorded under Section 15(1) of the Act, should be
produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or
the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom the confession
is required to be sent under Rule 15(5) along with the
original statement of confession, written or recorded
on mechanical device without unreasonable delay;

(3) The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief
Judicial Magistrate should scrupulously record the
statement, if any, made by the accused so produced
and get his signature and in case of any complaint of
torture, the person should be directed to be produced
for medical examination before a Medical Officer not
lower in rank than of an Assistant Civil Surgeon;

12

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no police officer below
the rank of an Assistant Commissioner of Police in
the Metropolitan cities and elsewhere of a Deputy
Superintendent of Police or a police officer of
equivalent rank, should investigate any offence
punishable under this Act of 1987.

This is necessary in view of the drastic provisions
of this Act. More so when the Prevention of
Corruption Act
, 1988 under Section 17 and the
Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 under Section
13
, authorise only a police officer of a specified rank
to investigate the offences under those specified Acts.

(5) The police officer if he is seeking the custody of
any person for pre­indictment or pre­trial
interrogation from the judicial custody, must file an
affidavit sworn by him explaining the reason not only
for such custody but also for the delay, if any, in
seeking the police custody;

(6) In case, the person, taken for interrogation, on
receipt of the statutory warning that he is not bound
to make a confession and that if he does so, the said
statement may be used against him as evidence,
asserts his right to silence, the police officer must
respect his right of assertion without making any
compulsion to give a statement of disclosure.”

18. In Jameel Ahmad v. State of Rajasthan4 this Court has held

that when an accused charged with an offence under the provisions

of the TADA Act, is voluntarily willing to make a confessional
4
(2003) 9 SCC 673
13

statement and if such statement is made and recorded by an officer

not below the rank of Superintendent of Police in a manner

provided in that section, is admissible in evidence. The findings

recorded in this case are as under:

“35. To sum up our findings in regard to the legal
arguments addressed in these appeals, we find:

(i) If the confessional statement is properly recorded,
satisfying the mandatory provision of Section 15 of
the TADA Act and the Rules made thereunder, and if
the same is found by the court as having been made
voluntarily and truthfully then the said confession is
sufficient to base a conviction on the maker of the
confession.

(ii) Whether such confession requires corroboration
or not, is a matter for the court considering such
confession on facts of each case.

(iii) In regard to the use of such confession as against
a co­accused, it has to be held that as a matter of
caution, a general corroboration should be sought for
but in cases where the court is satisfied that the
probative value of such confession is such that it
does not require corroboration then it may base a
conviction on the basis of such confession of the co­
accused without corroboration. But this is an
exception to the general rule of requiring
corroboration when such confession is to be used
against a co­accused.

14

(iv) The nature of corroboration required both in
regard to the use of confession against the maker as
also in regard to the use of the same against a co­
accused is of a general nature, unless the court
comes to the conclusion that such corroboration
should be on material facts also because of the facts
of a particular case. The degree of corroboration so
required is that which is necessary for a prudent
man to believe in the existence of facts mentioned in
the confessional statement.

(v) The requirement of sub­rule (5) of Rule 15 of the
TADA Rules which contemplates a confessional
statement being sent to the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate who, in
turn, will have to send the same to the Designated
Court is not mandatory and is only directory.
However, the court considering the case of direct
transmission of the confessional statement to the
Designated Court should satisfy itself on facts of
each case whether such direct transmission of the
confessional statement in the facts of the case
creates any doubt as to the genuineness of the said
confessional statement.”

19. Bearing these principles in mind, let us consider as to whether

the confession of the appellant was voluntary and truthful. The

appellant was examined as DW­1. In his evidence he has stated

that he was arrested on 19.05.2007, when he was returning from

Chennai airport. He was detained for two days and was taken to

Trichi, “Q” branch office and was kept there for one day. During
15

this period, he was allegedly tortured by the police. On 22.05.2007

he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Trichi, and was

remanded by the court till 25.07.2007. PW­27 made an application

requesting for police custody of the accused for five days and

obtained police custody from 25.07.2007 to 27.07.2007. On

25.07.2007, when the appellant was sitting in the police vehicle,

Mr. Rajendran, ‘Q’ Branch Inspector, told him that he should sign

certain papers, otherwise he would be killed in police custody.

When he was brought before the Designated Court, on the same

day, he informed the same to the learned Judge and gave a petition

(Ex. D­1) stating that he was tortured by the police and that he had

nothing to do with the alleged incident. When he was again

produced before the Designated Court, after recording the

confession statement, he gave a petition (Ex. D­2) stating that he

has not made any incriminating statement before PW­28.

20. On 26.07.2007, PW­29 produced the appellant before PW­28.

PW­28 during his cross­examination has stated that until the

accused was produced on 26.07.2007, the accused was in police

custody. On 26.07.2007, though it has been recorded that a
16

number of questions were put to the accused and the answers were

elicited, there is no record to show that the appellant­accused was

warned as required under Section 15 of the TADA Act and Rule

15(3) of the TADA Rules. During his cross­examination PW­28 has

stated that he gave warning to the accused which was not

supported by any contemporary record, namely, Ex. P­56 dated

26.06.2007. As it is seen in Ex. P­57, only two questions were

asked to the appellant and answers elicited, which do not reflect

any warning as required under the TADA Act and the TADA Rules.

The evidence of PW­28 is that he gave the same warning which he

had given on 26.07.2007. There are no contemporary records to

show that the warning was made on 26.07.2007 or 27.07.2007. The

second question asked on 27.07.2007 (per Ex. P­57) assumes much

importance. In this question PW­28 has only explained to the

accused that he had been produced only to record his statement.

He did not explain to the accused that he had been produced to

record the confession.

21. It was contended by the learned Additional Advocate General,

appearing for the respondent, that the footnote appended to Ex. P­
17

56 would satisfy Section 15 of TADA Act and Rule 15 of TADA

Rules. It is necessary to notice here that complying with these rules

is not an empty formality or a mere technicality as these provisions

serve a statutory purpose to ensure a fair trial as guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The entire proceedings on

record should reflect application of mind into various surrounding

circumstances including questions and answers elicited from the

accused. Mere recording in a certificate will only amount to

technical observance of the rule but that will not prove the

voluntariness of the statement. In law, it is not the technical

observance of the rules but it is the real satisfaction about the

voluntariness of the confession is sine qua non.

22. It is also necessary to state here that the confession recorded

by the police officer is undoubtedly equated to a confession

recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Thus,

the said confession is a substantive piece of evidence. Therefore, all

the safeguards which are to be followed by a Magistrate should

have been followed by the police officer also. It is well­settled that

the satisfaction arrived at by the Magistrate under Section 164
18

Cr.P.C. is, if doubtful, then, the entire confession should be

rejected.

23. In the instant case, it is evident that from out of the questions

put by PW­28 and the answers elicited and the manner in which

the accused has made the statement are all the foundations upon

which it is to be found out as to whether the statement was made

voluntarily or not. If the certificate is not supported by any of the

above inputs, then the certificate needs to be rejected. The police

officer cannot record such a certificate out of his own imagination

and the entire proceedings should reflect that the certificate was

rightly given based on the materials. In the present case, there is

nothing on record to prove the voluntariness of the statement. Ex.

D­1 and D­2 and other circumstances would go to show that the

appellant could not have made the statement voluntarily. Therefore,

the confession statement of the appellant requires to be rejected.

24. The second question for consideration is whether the

statement of two other co­accused (Ex. P­26 and P­27) is admissible

in evidence.

19

25. The confession statement of the co­accused was recorded by

the Superintendent of Police (PW­20) in Crime No.160/1990. The

appellant was absconding, hence the proclamation order was issued

by the trial court and thereafter the case was split against the

appellant. A separate trial was conducted against the appellant and

the impugned judgment convicting the appellant­accused has been

passed by the Designated Court.

26. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General,

appearing for the appellant, is that the appellant cannot take the

advantage of his own wrong to thwart the object and purpose of

Section 15 of the TADA Act.

27. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has

submitted that the confession statements of the two co­accused are

not at all admissible in evidence because there was no joint trial of

those two co­accused with the appellant. Therefore, Ex. P­26 and

Ex. P­27 are not admissible in evidence.

28. Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates that to make

the confession of a co­accused admissible in evidence, there has to

be a joint trial. If there is no joint trial, the confession of a co­
20

accused is not at all admissible in evidence and, therefore, the same

cannot be taken as evidence against the other co­accused. The

Constitution Bench of this Court in Kartar Singh (supra), while

considering the inter­play between Section 30 of the Indian

Evidence Act and Section 15 of the TADA Act held that as per

Section 15 of the TADA Act, after the amendment of the year 1993,

the confession of the co­accused, is also a substantive piece of

evidence provided that there is a joint trial.

29. In State v. Nalini and others5 Justice Quadri has held that a

confession of an accused made under Section 15 of the TADA Act is

admissible against all those tried jointly with him. It has been held

thus:

“688. Having excluded the application of Sections 24
to 30 of the Evidence Act to a confession recorded
under Section 15(1) of the TADA Act, a self­contained
scheme is incorporated therein for recording the
confession of an accused and its admissibility in his
trial with co­accused, abettor or conspirator for
offences under the TADA Act or the Rules made
thereunder or any other offence under any other law
which can jointly be tried with the offence with which
he is charged at the same trial. There is thus no
room to import the requirements of Section 30 of the
Evidence Act in Section 15 of the TADA Act.

5

(1999) 5 SCC 253
21

689. Under Section 15(1) of the TADA Act the
position, in my view, is much stronger, for it says,

“a confession made by a person before a police
officer not lower in rank than a Superintendent
of Police and recorded by such police officer
either in writing or on any mechanical device like
cassettes, tapes or soundtracks from out of
which sounds or images can be reproduced, shall
be admissible in the trial of such person or co­
accused, abettor or conspirator for an offence
under this Act or Rules made thereunder,
provided that co­accused, abettor or conspirator
is charged and tried in the same case together
with the accused.”

On the language of sub­section (1) of Section 15, a
confession of an accused is made admissible
evidence as against all those tried jointly with him, so
it is implicit that the same can be considered against
all those tried together. In this view of the matter
also, Section 30 of the Evidence Act need not be
invoked for consideration of confession of an accused
against a co­accused, abettor or conspirator charged
and tried in the same case along with the accused.”

30. In Jameel Ahmad (supra), this Court has reiterated the above

position as under:

“30……Therefore we notice that the accepted
principle in law is that a confessional statement of an
accused recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act
is a substantive piece of evidence even against his co­
22

accused provided the accused concerned are tried
together.”

31. In the instant case, no doubt, the appellant was absconding.

That is why, joint trial of the appellant with the other two accused

persons could not be held. As noticed above, Section 15 of the

TADA Act specifically provides that the confession recorded shall be

admissible in trial of a co­accused for offence committed and tried

in the same case together with the accused who makes the

confession. We are of the view, that if for any reason, a joint trial is

not held, the confession of a co­accused cannot be held to be

admissible in evidence against another accused who would face

trial at a later point of time in the same case. We are of the further

opinion that if we are to accept the argument of the learned counsel

for the respondent­State, it is as good as re­writing the scope of

Section 15 of the TADA Act as amended in the year 1993.

32. In Ananta Dixit v. The State6 the Orissa High Court was

considering a similar case under Section 30 of the Evidence Act.

The appellant, in this case, was absconding. The question for

consideration was whether a confession of one of the accused
6
1984 Crl. L.J. 1126
23

persons who was tried earlier, is admissible in evidence against the

appellant. The Court held that the confession of the co­accused was

not admissible in evidence against the present appellant. The Court

held:

“7. As recorded by the learned trial Judge, the
accused Narendra Bahera, whose confessional
statement had been relied upon, had been tried
earlier and not jointly with the appellant and the co­
accused person Baina Das. A confession of the
accused may be admissible and used not only
against him but also against a co­accused person
tried jointly with him for the same offence. Section
30
applies to a case in which the confession is made
by accused tried at the same time with the accused
person against whom the confession is used. The
confession of an accused tried previously would be
rendered inadmissible. Therefore, apart from the
evidentiary value of the confession of a co­accused
person, the confession of Narendra Behera was not to
be admitted under Section 30 of the Evidence Act
against the present appellant and the co­accused
Baina Das.”

We are in complete agreement with the view of the High Court.

33. We are of the view that since the trial of the other two accused

persons was separate, their confession statements (Ex.P­26 and

P­27) are not admissible in evidence and the same cannot be taken

as evidence against the appellant.

24

34. In view of the discussion made above, the Designated Court

was not justified in convicting the appellant. The appeal is

accordingly allowed. The judgment and order dated 4.12.2009

passed by the Presiding Judge, Designated Court No.2, Chennai, in

Calendar Case No.1/2007, is hereby set aside and the appellant­

accused is acquitted for the offence for which he was tried. This

Court by order dated 25.19.2010 had granted the bail to the

appellant. Hence, the question of releasing him does not arise. The

bail bond executed by the appellant and the surety, if any, stands

cancelled.

…………………………………………J.

(S. ABDUL NAZEER)

…………………………………………J.

(DEEPAK GUPTA)
New Delhi;

April 1, 2020.



Source link