it can not be disputed that the applicants and respondents were already fighting the litigation in the civil Court. By institution of suits against each other prior to the complaint concerned, the caution notice even if it is read as it is; on the face of it; does not spell out any deliberate imputation or 8
accusation particularly against the respondent no. 1 - Nayantara. It only informs members of public to take precaution on the ground that the land on which school is situated is under civil dispute and suit for vacant possession about it is filed against the school pending in the Civil Court, giving details of the civil suit and the Court where it is pending. Thus, parents who were seeking admission of their children in that school were requested to take note of the pending civil suit with caution that they shall take admission of their children in the school at their own risk including admission in the summer camp activities.
13. As such, no accusation is made against any person so as to constitute "imputation" actionable under Section 499 read with Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. No one can by reading such caution notice say that it is defamatory of respondent no. 1 - Nayantara particularly when the civil dispute between the parties as to the property where school is situated is admittedly pending in the Civil Court. It can not be said that by merely alerting parents to take admission of their children at their own risk in the school or in the summer camp can be considered as defamatory or affecting the reputation or character
Print Page
accusation particularly against the respondent no. 1 - Nayantara. It only informs members of public to take precaution on the ground that the land on which school is situated is under civil dispute and suit for vacant possession about it is filed against the school pending in the Civil Court, giving details of the civil suit and the Court where it is pending. Thus, parents who were seeking admission of their children in that school were requested to take note of the pending civil suit with caution that they shall take admission of their children in the school at their own risk including admission in the summer camp activities.
13. As such, no accusation is made against any person so as to constitute "imputation" actionable under Section 499 read with Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. No one can by reading such caution notice say that it is defamatory of respondent no. 1 - Nayantara particularly when the civil dispute between the parties as to the property where school is situated is admittedly pending in the Civil Court. It can not be said that by merely alerting parents to take admission of their children at their own risk in the school or in the summer camp can be considered as defamatory or affecting the reputation or character
rajendra v smt nayantara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Criminal Application (APL) No. 316/2011
1Dated : 11th August 2011
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Mr. M. P. Lala, learned Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Mahesh H. Mourya and Mrs. S. R. Matta, learned Advocates for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. A. S. Parihar, learned APP for Respondent- State.
2
2. By means of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the Judgment in Criminal Revision No. 172/2011 dated 19/04/2011passed by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nagpur and also to quash the order dated 05/01/2011 passed below Exh.1 in Regular Criminal Case No. 4976/2010, whereby the learned J.M.F.C. Nagpur, issued process against the applicant-accused for an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It appears that a complaint was lodged by respondent no. 1 namely Smt. Nayantara w/o. Durgadas Vasudeo (hereinafter referred to as "Nayantara"), bearing Summary Criminal Complaint Case No. 4976/2010 in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. Nagpur. The complaint alleged that the complainant runs a school in the name and style as 'Kids World School' at Zingabai - Takli, Tahsil and District Nagpur. The said school building is situated at Khasra No. 247/2, P.H. No. 11, Mouza Zingabai Takli, claiming the possession of the land by virtue of gift-deed executed by father of the complainant in the year 2004. The complaint was lodged against her real brother, who is having a civil dispute with the complainant in Special Suit No. 859/08 pending before the Vth Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Division, District Court, Nagpur. The suit filed by the complainant against her brother while another suit i.e. Special Civil Suit No. 12/09 was filed by the applicant against the complainant which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, which is in respect of land situated at Khasra No. 247/2, at Mouza Zingabai - Takli, 3
Tq & Dist. Nagpur. It is contention of the applicant that applicant no. 1 is owner of six (6) acres of land and applicant no. 2 is owner of 0.68 acres of land originally owned by their father. It is the case of the applicants that the present respondent Nayantara had encroached upon 3,000 Sq.ft., of land and also carried out a construction of school building upon the said land. In that suit the plaintiff (present applicants) claimed possession on the suit land mentioned above and prayed for to hold an inquiry of mesne profits as per the provisions of Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC, this suits appears to have been instituted on 24/10/2008.
4. It appears that the complaint proceedings i.e. Summary Criminal Complaint Case No. 4976/2010 is lodged on 28/05/2010 by the complainant Nayantara on the ground that the accused (her brothers) with malafide intention by means of illegal libel to defame the school displayed hoardings on 14/05/2009 as mentioned below. "CAUTION NOTICE
TO WHOM SO EVER IT MAY CONCERN
It is here by notified that the land in which
Kids World School and Swimming Pool is situated at 247, Behind Police Line Takli, Near Basera Appt., Ananth Nagar, Chowdhary Farm House, Nagpur-13 is under dispute and a suit for vacant possession is filed against the school which is pending before Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur, Civil Suit No. 12/09. Parents who are 4
seeking their children's admission in this school kindly make a notice for this and parents should do this at there own risk. People availing summer camp activities also take a note of this".
5. According to complainant, the above caution notice is defamatory and it affected the summer camp and admissions, since it is malafide and illegal libel and, therefore, the accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Learned Advocate for the Applicants submitted that the above caution notice by no stretch of imagination can be considered as imputations actionable within the meaning of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
"First Exception.-Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.-It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact."
7. Learned Advocate for respondent submitted that the word 'imputation' indicates that something is published which is bad and 5
defamatory of someone but here in the present case, admittedly, there is a dispute between the parties as parties have resorted to institution of civil suit against each other while applicants had filed Special Civil Suit No. 12/09 against complainant for possession of the suit land and mesne profits in respect thereof. The complainant had also filed suit for partition i.e. Special Civil Suit No. 859/2008 pending in the Vth Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Division, in the District Court, at Nagpur. It was a complainant's suit which was filed on 18/07/2008, in which she had prayed for partition in Khasra No. 247/2.
8. Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that the caution notice was published to alert the members of public regarding suit for vacant possession pending before Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur, which was filed by the applicants in respect of the said property and parents who were seeking their children's admission in the school were requested to take note of this as parents who wants to take admission shall take it at their own risk as well as people availing summer camp activities may also take a note of this. This was nothing but to alert the members of public in view of the risk involved in taking admission for their children in the school or in the summer camp at their own risk because civil dispute was pending in the Civil Court. Thus, according to learned advocate for the applicant by no stretch of imagination this caution can be considered as an imputation or accusation actionable under Section 499 read with Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
6
9. Learned Advocate for the applicants made reference to the ruling in the case of Virendrabhai M. Chandalia and another Vs. Mohan Kanayalal Parwani and another reported in 2003(4) Mh.L.J. 335 in order to submit that the imputations intending to harm reputation of the complainant must be such amounting to knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation would harm reputation of the complainant. This is prima facie sine qua non for to lodge a complaint about defamation. Unless there is such imputation with an intention to harm reputation of another person or unless one can be attributed with knowledge or reason to believe that such imputation will harm reputation of another person, there would be no question of instituting a complaint for offence of defamation. Thus, learned Advocate submitted that in the absence of such relevant prima facie averments in the complaint no action could have been taken for issuance of process in the present case in respect of the complaint lodged by respondent no. 1. Learned Advocate, therefore, prayed for quashing the process issued against the applicant under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that no prima facie case was made out against the applicant for to lodge a complaint for offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. Learned Advocate for the applicant also placed reliance upon three Judges Bench ruling by the Supreme Court in G. Narasimhan and others etc. v. T. V. Chokkappa reported in AIR 1972 SC 2609 in order to submit that such complaint in respect of alleged offence of 7
defamation can be permitted only by an aggrieved person. In the present case no any imputation was made against the complainant. No any member of public came forward to make any complaint about the caution notice published and, therefore, the complainant could not have been considered as an aggrieved person by the caution notice which is allegedly defamatory. Thus, the learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that in the absence of any defamatory imputation as against the complainant by means of the caution notice placed as above, no complaint under Section 499 and Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code could have been lodged, and even otherwise the complainant can not be considered as an aggrieved person as explained by Apex Court.
11. Learned Advocate for the respondent (complainant) submitted that the caution notice resulted into parents avoiding to take admission for their children in school as also summer camp activities. He therefore further submitted that the process was rightly issued and the revision as against the order as to issuance of process was also rightly rejected.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it can not be disputed that the applicants and respondents were already fighting the litigation in the civil Court. By institution of suits against each other prior to the complaint concerned, the caution notice even if it is read as it is; on the face of it; does not spell out any deliberate imputation or 8
accusation particularly against the respondent no. 1 - Nayantara. It only informs members of public to take precaution on the ground that the land on which school is situated is under civil dispute and suit for vacant possession about it is filed against the school pending in the Civil Court, giving details of the civil suit and the Court where it is pending. Thus, parents who were seeking admission of their children in that school were requested to take note of the pending civil suit with caution that they shall take admission of their children in the school at their own risk including admission in the summer camp activities.
13. As such, no accusation is made against any person so as to constitute "imputation" actionable under Section 499 read with Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. No one can by reading such caution notice say that it is defamatory of respondent no. 1 - Nayantara particularly when the civil dispute between the parties as to the property where school is situated is admittedly pending in the Civil Court. It can not be said that by merely alerting parents to take admission of their children at their own risk in the school or in the summer camp can be considered as defamatory or affecting the reputation or character of respondent no.1.
14. Under these circumstances, bearing in mind the observations in the rulings replied upon as also guidelines in this regard mentioned in paragraph 108 of the ruling of State of Haryana and others V. Ch. 9
Bhajan Lal and others reported in AIR 1992 SCC 604, as mentioned below.
"1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value an accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the code except under an order of a magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
10
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
15. The present case can fall within the category of 1, 5 and 7 mentioned above. In my opinion, large number of disputes can be determined by Civil Courts in such cases when admittedly civil suits are pending; the Criminal Court should not encourage complaint proceedings whereby complainant is trying to force the accused to compromise or settle the dispute. The Court must exercise inherent powers particularly when allegations in the complaint at their face value do not prima facie constitute the offence as alleged. The complaint in the present case appears bereft the basic facts which are absolutely necessary to constitute the offence of defamation. The allegations accepted at their face value do not disclose the ingredients of the offence of defamation. One cannot by reading the complaint say that applicants intended to harm reputation of respondent no. 1 by any intentional imputation nor there is any such averment on the basis of 11
which knowledge can be imputed so as to blame the applicants for displaying/publishing hoarding or caution notice as above. Power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be invoked exceptionally in an appropriate case where continuance of prosecution would be nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. The allegations made in the complaint prima facie do not constitute offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the applicants-accused need not undergo rigors of trial for nothing. It would be sheer harassment to them if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue on the basis of such absurd statements made in the complaint.
16. For all above reasons, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "2)". Rule is made absolute accordingly. Inform trial Magistrate accordingly. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged. JUDGE
Punde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Criminal Application (APL) No. 316/2011
1Dated : 11th August 2011
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Mr. M. P. Lala, learned Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Mahesh H. Mourya and Mrs. S. R. Matta, learned Advocates for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. A. S. Parihar, learned APP for Respondent- State.
2
2. By means of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the Judgment in Criminal Revision No. 172/2011 dated 19/04/2011passed by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nagpur and also to quash the order dated 05/01/2011 passed below Exh.1 in Regular Criminal Case No. 4976/2010, whereby the learned J.M.F.C. Nagpur, issued process against the applicant-accused for an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It appears that a complaint was lodged by respondent no. 1 namely Smt. Nayantara w/o. Durgadas Vasudeo (hereinafter referred to as "Nayantara"), bearing Summary Criminal Complaint Case No. 4976/2010 in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. Nagpur. The complaint alleged that the complainant runs a school in the name and style as 'Kids World School' at Zingabai - Takli, Tahsil and District Nagpur. The said school building is situated at Khasra No. 247/2, P.H. No. 11, Mouza Zingabai Takli, claiming the possession of the land by virtue of gift-deed executed by father of the complainant in the year 2004. The complaint was lodged against her real brother, who is having a civil dispute with the complainant in Special Suit No. 859/08 pending before the Vth Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Division, District Court, Nagpur. The suit filed by the complainant against her brother while another suit i.e. Special Civil Suit No. 12/09 was filed by the applicant against the complainant which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, which is in respect of land situated at Khasra No. 247/2, at Mouza Zingabai - Takli, 3
Tq & Dist. Nagpur. It is contention of the applicant that applicant no. 1 is owner of six (6) acres of land and applicant no. 2 is owner of 0.68 acres of land originally owned by their father. It is the case of the applicants that the present respondent Nayantara had encroached upon 3,000 Sq.ft., of land and also carried out a construction of school building upon the said land. In that suit the plaintiff (present applicants) claimed possession on the suit land mentioned above and prayed for to hold an inquiry of mesne profits as per the provisions of Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC, this suits appears to have been instituted on 24/10/2008.
4. It appears that the complaint proceedings i.e. Summary Criminal Complaint Case No. 4976/2010 is lodged on 28/05/2010 by the complainant Nayantara on the ground that the accused (her brothers) with malafide intention by means of illegal libel to defame the school displayed hoardings on 14/05/2009 as mentioned below. "CAUTION NOTICE
TO WHOM SO EVER IT MAY CONCERN
It is here by notified that the land in which
Kids World School and Swimming Pool is situated at 247, Behind Police Line Takli, Near Basera Appt., Ananth Nagar, Chowdhary Farm House, Nagpur-13 is under dispute and a suit for vacant possession is filed against the school which is pending before Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur, Civil Suit No. 12/09. Parents who are 4
seeking their children's admission in this school kindly make a notice for this and parents should do this at there own risk. People availing summer camp activities also take a note of this".
5. According to complainant, the above caution notice is defamatory and it affected the summer camp and admissions, since it is malafide and illegal libel and, therefore, the accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Learned Advocate for the Applicants submitted that the above caution notice by no stretch of imagination can be considered as imputations actionable within the meaning of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
"First Exception.-Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.-It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact."
7. Learned Advocate for respondent submitted that the word 'imputation' indicates that something is published which is bad and 5
defamatory of someone but here in the present case, admittedly, there is a dispute between the parties as parties have resorted to institution of civil suit against each other while applicants had filed Special Civil Suit No. 12/09 against complainant for possession of the suit land and mesne profits in respect thereof. The complainant had also filed suit for partition i.e. Special Civil Suit No. 859/2008 pending in the Vth Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Division, in the District Court, at Nagpur. It was a complainant's suit which was filed on 18/07/2008, in which she had prayed for partition in Khasra No. 247/2.
8. Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that the caution notice was published to alert the members of public regarding suit for vacant possession pending before Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur, which was filed by the applicants in respect of the said property and parents who were seeking their children's admission in the school were requested to take note of this as parents who wants to take admission shall take it at their own risk as well as people availing summer camp activities may also take a note of this. This was nothing but to alert the members of public in view of the risk involved in taking admission for their children in the school or in the summer camp at their own risk because civil dispute was pending in the Civil Court. Thus, according to learned advocate for the applicant by no stretch of imagination this caution can be considered as an imputation or accusation actionable under Section 499 read with Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
6
9. Learned Advocate for the applicants made reference to the ruling in the case of Virendrabhai M. Chandalia and another Vs. Mohan Kanayalal Parwani and another reported in 2003(4) Mh.L.J. 335 in order to submit that the imputations intending to harm reputation of the complainant must be such amounting to knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation would harm reputation of the complainant. This is prima facie sine qua non for to lodge a complaint about defamation. Unless there is such imputation with an intention to harm reputation of another person or unless one can be attributed with knowledge or reason to believe that such imputation will harm reputation of another person, there would be no question of instituting a complaint for offence of defamation. Thus, learned Advocate submitted that in the absence of such relevant prima facie averments in the complaint no action could have been taken for issuance of process in the present case in respect of the complaint lodged by respondent no. 1. Learned Advocate, therefore, prayed for quashing the process issued against the applicant under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that no prima facie case was made out against the applicant for to lodge a complaint for offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. Learned Advocate for the applicant also placed reliance upon three Judges Bench ruling by the Supreme Court in G. Narasimhan and others etc. v. T. V. Chokkappa reported in AIR 1972 SC 2609 in order to submit that such complaint in respect of alleged offence of 7
defamation can be permitted only by an aggrieved person. In the present case no any imputation was made against the complainant. No any member of public came forward to make any complaint about the caution notice published and, therefore, the complainant could not have been considered as an aggrieved person by the caution notice which is allegedly defamatory. Thus, the learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that in the absence of any defamatory imputation as against the complainant by means of the caution notice placed as above, no complaint under Section 499 and Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code could have been lodged, and even otherwise the complainant can not be considered as an aggrieved person as explained by Apex Court.
11. Learned Advocate for the respondent (complainant) submitted that the caution notice resulted into parents avoiding to take admission for their children in school as also summer camp activities. He therefore further submitted that the process was rightly issued and the revision as against the order as to issuance of process was also rightly rejected.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it can not be disputed that the applicants and respondents were already fighting the litigation in the civil Court. By institution of suits against each other prior to the complaint concerned, the caution notice even if it is read as it is; on the face of it; does not spell out any deliberate imputation or 8
accusation particularly against the respondent no. 1 - Nayantara. It only informs members of public to take precaution on the ground that the land on which school is situated is under civil dispute and suit for vacant possession about it is filed against the school pending in the Civil Court, giving details of the civil suit and the Court where it is pending. Thus, parents who were seeking admission of their children in that school were requested to take note of the pending civil suit with caution that they shall take admission of their children in the school at their own risk including admission in the summer camp activities.
13. As such, no accusation is made against any person so as to constitute "imputation" actionable under Section 499 read with Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. No one can by reading such caution notice say that it is defamatory of respondent no. 1 - Nayantara particularly when the civil dispute between the parties as to the property where school is situated is admittedly pending in the Civil Court. It can not be said that by merely alerting parents to take admission of their children at their own risk in the school or in the summer camp can be considered as defamatory or affecting the reputation or character of respondent no.1.
14. Under these circumstances, bearing in mind the observations in the rulings replied upon as also guidelines in this regard mentioned in paragraph 108 of the ruling of State of Haryana and others V. Ch. 9
Bhajan Lal and others reported in AIR 1992 SCC 604, as mentioned below.
"1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value an accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the code except under an order of a magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
10
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
15. The present case can fall within the category of 1, 5 and 7 mentioned above. In my opinion, large number of disputes can be determined by Civil Courts in such cases when admittedly civil suits are pending; the Criminal Court should not encourage complaint proceedings whereby complainant is trying to force the accused to compromise or settle the dispute. The Court must exercise inherent powers particularly when allegations in the complaint at their face value do not prima facie constitute the offence as alleged. The complaint in the present case appears bereft the basic facts which are absolutely necessary to constitute the offence of defamation. The allegations accepted at their face value do not disclose the ingredients of the offence of defamation. One cannot by reading the complaint say that applicants intended to harm reputation of respondent no. 1 by any intentional imputation nor there is any such averment on the basis of 11
which knowledge can be imputed so as to blame the applicants for displaying/publishing hoarding or caution notice as above. Power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be invoked exceptionally in an appropriate case where continuance of prosecution would be nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. The allegations made in the complaint prima facie do not constitute offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the applicants-accused need not undergo rigors of trial for nothing. It would be sheer harassment to them if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue on the basis of such absurd statements made in the complaint.
16. For all above reasons, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "2)". Rule is made absolute accordingly. Inform trial Magistrate accordingly. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged. JUDGE
Punde
No comments:
Post a Comment