Raja @ Ayyappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Case Summary You Can Listen To

criminal appeal, conviction review, evidence appreciation, due process, criminal law

0 01 Apr, 2020
Listen in 01:59 mins | Read in 27:00 mins

Raja @ Ayyappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Supreme Court Of India Criminal Appeal /1120/2010

Link copied!

Case Background

☐This criminal appeal filed under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Presiding Judge, Designate ...

Bench

Applied Acts & Sections

No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case

Hello! How can I help you? 😊

Disclaimer: We do not store your data.

Document Text Version

CORRECTED

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

J U D G M E N T

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 rigorous

imprisonment for 2 years under Section 120B IPC and 5 years

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

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.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

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

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

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.

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

Punjab

. 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

1994 (3) SCC 569

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.

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. Emperor

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

Sandhu

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

1939 PC 47

(2005) 11 SCC 600

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

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;

(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 Rajasthan

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

(2003) 9 SCC 673

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.

(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

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

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

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

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.

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

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 others

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.

(1999) 5 SCC 253

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

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 State

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

1984 Crl. L.J. 1126

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.

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 25.10.2010 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.