CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 1 of 28

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Reserved on: 24.08.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 02.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010796202024

+ CRL.A. 1056/2024

SHRI RAJENDER PRASAD JINDAL .....Appellant

Through: None.

Versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State.

Mr. Himanshu A. Gupta, Advocate

(DSLSA) with Ms. Mansi Yadav and

Mr. Karan Jain, Advocates.

Mr. Harshit Jain along with Ms.

Devangi Gupta, Mr. Arjun Drall, Ms.

Priyanka, Advocates for prosecutrix.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 415 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the BNSS), the sole accused in

Sessions Case No. 879/2018 on the file of the Special Judge

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 2 of 28

(PoCSO)/ Additional Sessions Judge-02 (SC-RC), Karkardooma

Courts, Delhi, challenges the judgement dated 31.08.2024 and the

order on sentence dated 16.10.2024 as per which, he has been

convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section

376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).

2. The prosecution case is that between 01:30 p.m. to 02:30

p.m. on 25.04.2017 at B-3/194, Jindal Medicare and Ultrasound,

Delhi, the accused administered PW3 an injection of some

stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, due to which she

lost consciousness, during which time he raped her. Hence, as per

the charge sheet/final report, the accused was alleged to have

committed the offences punishable under Sections 328 and 376

IPC.

3. On the basis of Ext. PW3/A FIS/FIR of PW3, the

prosecutrix, given on 25.04.2017, Crime No. 150/2017, Bhajan

Pura Police Station, that is, Ext. PW1/A FIR alleging the

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 3 of 28

commission of the offences punishable under Sections 328 and

376 IPC was registered by PW1, Assistant Sub-Inspector. PW6,

Sub-Inspector, conducted investigation into the crime and, on

completion of the same, submitted the charge sheet/final report

before the Court, alleging the commission of the offences

punishable under the aforementioned sections.

4. When the accused was produced before the Committal

court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to

him, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The matter was

committed to the Court of Session under 209 Cr.P.C. After hearing

both sides, the trial court, vide order dated 04.11.2019, framed a

Charge under Sections 328 and 376 IPC, which was read over and

explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 8 were examined

and Exts. PW1/A-D, PW2/A, PW3/A-C, PW6/A-F, PW6/PX1-

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 4 of 28

PX5, Mark PW5/A and Mark PW3/X1-X2 were marked in support

of the case.

6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused

was questioned under 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the

incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence

of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and

maintained his innocence. According to the accused, he has been

falsely implicated by PW3 in order to extort money from him.

PW3 had come to his clinic solely to take medicine and not for an

ultrasound. In fact, PW3 never even entered the ultrasound room

on the said day. CCTV camera has been installed in the ultrasound

room. Ram Bharan Das (DW1), the compounder, was present in

the clinic on the date of the incident.

7. After questioning the accused under Section 313(1)(b)

Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the

case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 5 of 28

Cr.P.C. is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance

of the said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings,

unless omission to comply with the same is shown to have resulted

in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (See Moidu K.

vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89: 2009 SCC OnLine Ker

2888). Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of

Section 232 Cr.P.C. has caused any prejudice to him.

8. DW1 and DW2 were examined on behalf of the accused.

No documentary evidence was adduced.

9. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence

on record, and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the

impugned judgment dated 31.08.2024, held the accused guilty of

the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. Vide order on

sentence dated 16.10.2024, the accused has been sentenced to

rigorous imprisonment for a period of 07 years, along with fine of

₹4,12,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to simple

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 6 of 28

imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable

under Section 376 IPC. Aggrieved, the accused has come up in

appeal.

10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on

behalf of the respondent/State, supported the impugned judgment

and order on sentence and submitted that it does not suffer from

any illegality or infirmity calling for an interference by this Court.

11. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 24.08.2026,

there was no representation for the appellant/accused today. Vide

order dated 20.08.2026 in SLP (Crl.) 1981/2026, the Apex Court

has requested this Court to hear and dispose of this appeal within a

period of one week from the date of the order. Hence, relying on

the dictum in Bani Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC

720, I proceed to consider the appeal on merits after going through

the entire records in the case.

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 7 of 28

12. I make a brief reference to the oral and documentary

evidence relied on by the prosecution in support of the case. Ext.

PW3/A FIS/FIR given by PW3, the prosecutrix, recorded on

25.04.2017 in Hindi, translated reads thus:- “On 15.04.2017, I

went to Jindal Hospital accompanied by my employer, namely,

Saima, for an ultrasound. The doctor asked me to return in 02 days

to get the medicines, as I had swelling in my stomach. I returned

two days later, collected the medicines, and came back home. I

received a call asking me to collect additional medicines that had

arrived. On 23.04.2017, I underwent another ultrasound, after

which they asked me to return in two days to get an injection

administered. Accordingly, I went there today, that is, 25.04.2017,

at around 01:00 p.m., and was administered an injection.

Thereafter, I became slightly unconscious, during which time the

doctor raped me. All my clothes had been removed. Once I

regained consciousness, I dressed myself and came outside. I

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 8 of 28

called my madam, narrated the entire incident to her and asked

her to join me. I then called the police.”

13. Ext. PW3/X2 the Section 164 statement of PW3 recorded

in Hindi on 27.04.2017, translated reads thus:- “On 25.04.2017 at

about 01:00 p.m., I went to Dr Jindal’s clinic for an ultrasound of

her stomach. As soon as I reached the clinic, I felt dizzy and fell

unconscious. I was shifted to the doctor’s bedroom in an

unconscious state. The doctor woke me up by splashing water on

me. My shirt was pulled up, (मेरी कमीज ऊपर यी थी). I was

instigated by other patients, which made me nervous (और मरीज़ो ने

मुझे ब त भडकाया| मै घबरा गयी…). When I came outside, the

ultrasound technician told me that I had been wronged. I became

mentally disturbed and called the police. No one has done

anything wrong to me. (िकसी ने भी मेरे साथ कुछ गलत नहीं िकया

है।)”

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 9 of 28

14. PW3 when examined before the court deposed that in

the year 2017, she was residing with her father in Vijay Park,

Delhi. She was undergoing treatment with Dr. Rajender Pal (the

accused) for swelling in her stomach. The accused had given her

some medicine for her illness and had asked her to return for

ultrasound. On the following day, the accused conducted her

ultrasound and told her that she had swelling in her stomach. He

asked her to come again the next day, stating that he would give

her medicine. PW3 was unable to recall the date or month in which

the accused had conducted her ultrasound. She went to the clinic of

the accused. The accused gave her a tablet and an injection and

asked her to lie down and take rest on a bed as there was a

possibility of her feeling giddy due to the injection. She lay down

on the bed as she was feeling giddy. When she regained

consciousness, she found that her salwar was not on her body and

felt that wrong act had been committed by the accused on her (jab

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 10 of 28

main uthi to mere saath bahut galat ho chukka tha, meri salwar

utri hui thi). When asked what she meant by “mere sath bahut

galat ho chukka tha,” she deposed that when she woke up, she was

unable to get up and felt that something had been done to her

(“mere sath kuch hua tha”). On being asked what she meant by

“mere sath kuch hua tha,” she deposed that she had been raped

(mere sath rape hua tha). PW3 could not recall the date, month, or

time of the said incident, but stated that it took place in the

afternoon. She filed a complaint, which was written by a police

official on her instructions. PW3 identified her handwriting and

signature in Ext. PW3/A complaint dated 25.04.2017. She was

taken to the hospital for medical examination. According to PW3,

at the time of the incident she was wearing a red-colour pajami and

kameez. When a sealed envelope bearing the seal of DSFSL,

Delhi, was opened before the trial court during her examination, a

pink-colour top, a blue-colour jeans, and a purple-colour brassiere

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 11 of 28

found, were identified by PW3 as clothes worn by her at the time

of the incident. They were marked as Exts. P1, P2 and P3

respectively.

14.1 The prosecutor is seen to have sought permission to

“cross-examine” PW3 on the ground that she had from her

previous statement. The said request was granted. On further

examination, PW3 deposed that due to passage of time, she had

forgotten that she was actually wearing a pink-colour top and blue-

colour jeans and, therefore, had mistakenly stated that she was

wearing a red-colour kameez and pajami. She was wearing a pink-

colour top, blue-colour jeans, and a purple-colour brassiere at the

time of the incident and that the same had been taken from her by

the doctor (the accused) after her medical examination.

14.2 PW3 in her cross-examination deposed that she had

gone to the clinic of the accused about 02 to 03 times. It was in the

afternoon she had visited his clinic. No other person had

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 12 of 28

accompanied her to the clinic of the accused. There was the

accused and a compounder in the clinic. The injection was

administered by the doctor in her buttock. When she regained

consciousness, there was only the accused in the clinic. She

informed Saima, her employer, about the incident. She went to the

PS alone. Saima met her at the police station and then

accompanied her to the hospital. She denied the suggestion that

she had made a false complaint against the accused at the instance

of Saima. The Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), who had recorded

her statement, had asked her whether she was giving her statement

voluntarily and without any force or pressure from others.

According to PW3, she had given her statement to the MM in her

“full consciousness.” The statement given to the MM is correct.

Nobody had instructed her the manner in which she was to give

her statement in the court. Her clothes were seized while she was

in the hospital. She denied the suggestion that her clothes had been

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 13 of 28

taken from her home. She denied the suggestion that she had

lodged a false case against the accused in collusion with Saima to

extort money from him.

15. PW5, the father of PW3, deposed that PW3 was his

seventh child and had studied up to 12

th

standard. The incident had

occurred on the 24

th

day of a month in the year 2017. He could not

recall the month of the incident. Saima used to reside on the

ground floor of the building of their house and used to work in the

same place as his daughter (PW3). Saima took his daughter (PW3)

to a doctor for treatment. When they returned home, Saima

informed him that his daughter had been raped by a doctor. But he

was not told the name of the doctor. As insisted by PW3 and

Saima, he accompanied them to the police station.

15.1. The prosecutor is seen to have sought permission to

“cross-examine” PW5 on the ground that he had resiled from his

previous statement. Permission was granted. On further

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 14 of 28

examination, PW5 denied the suggestion that, despite coming to

know that it was the accused who had raped her daughter, he was

deliberately concealing facts from the court.

16. PW5 in his cross-examination admitted that his daughter

(PW3) had no prior history of stomach pain and that he possessed

no medical records concerning her condition.

17. I also make a brief reference to the evidence adduced by

the accused. DW1, receptionist in the clinic of the accused deposed

that on 25.04.2017, while he was at the clinic, at about 12:00 -

01:00 p.m., the prosecutrix came to the clinic and asked for the

doctor (the accused). He took her into the cabin of the accused,

where she was medically examined. He was inside the cabin

during the check-up. The accused gave her (PW3) some medicines

and prescribed some medicines to purchase from the medical store.

About 05 to 07 days before 25.04.2017, PW3 had come to the

clinic along with another lady. After the accused was taken away

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 15 of 28

by the police, he went to the police station at about 08:00 - 09:00

p.m. The accused informed him that PW3 had been demanding

money from the former. According to DW1, no wrong act had

been committed on PW3 in his presence.

17.1 DW1 in his cross-examination denied the suggestion

that on 25.04.2017, the accused had administered an injection due

to which PW3 became unconscious, during which time the accused

removed her clothes and raped her.

18. The accused offered himself as a witness and hence he

was examined as DW2. DW2 deposed that on 25.04.2017 at about

12:00 p.m., a lady (PW3) came to his clinic for a check-up. His

receptionist brought her into his cabin. He examined her (PW3),

gave her some medicines and prescribed some medicines to be

purchased from the medical store. She (PW3) told him that she did

not have any money. His receptionist/compounder, namely, Ram

Baran Das (DW1), was present at the time of check-up. Later, he

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 16 of 28

came to know from Ram Baran Das (DW1) that PW3 was

threatening to file a case against him. About 05 to 07 days prior to

25.04.2017, she (PW3), along with another woman had visited the

clinic. The police took him to the police station. While he was

sitting in the police station, PW3 demanded money from him.

During this period, he received phone calls from unknown

numbers, which turned out to be from PW3 and Saima. He had not

wronged PW3 who, with the assistance of Saima, has falsely

implicated him in the present case.

18.1. DW2, in his cross-examination, deposed that he does

not remember the phone number from which PW3 and Saima had

called him. He denied the suggestion that during the checkup, his

receptionist/compounder, DW1 was not present. He denied the

suggestion that on 25.04.2017, he had injected any drug into PW3

or that due to the injection, she had become unconscious during

which time he raped her.

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 17 of 28

19. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is

whether, from the materials on record, the trial court was right in

concluding that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing

beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant/accused committed the

offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The reasoning given by

the trial court in concluding that the prosecution succeeded in

establishing the case contained in paragraph 24 of the impugned

judgment reads thus:

“24. The following facts surfaced in the trial which are essential to be

considered in order to reach a conclusion whether the testimony of the

prosecutrix is trustworthy, reliable, unblemished, inspires confidence

and is of sterling quality:-

Prosecutrix/ PW-1 is the star witness of the present case. In her

testimony before the Court the prosecutrix has categorically stated that

on 25 .04.2017 she visited the clinic of the accused. He gave some

intoxicants to her due to which she felt giddiness and when she woke up

she found that her clothes were not on her body and she has been

feeling that she has been raped. She promptly approached the police.

Her internal medical examination was done, sexual assault kit was

opened, exhibits collected, scaled by Doctor, same were sent to FSL

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 18 of 28

and the FSL report (Ex. PW-6/F) has concluded that human semen

found from cervical mucus, washing from vagina and vaginal secretion

as well as jeans pant of the prosecutrix were found similar to the DNA

profile generated from the blood sample of accused.

From the testimony of the prosecutrix corroborated by medical and

scientific evidence, it has been proved on record that the prosecutrix

was raped by the accused on 25.04.2017.”

(Emphasis supplied)

Was the trial court right in concluding that the testimony of

PW3 is “trustworthy, reliable, unblemished, inspires confidence

and of sterling quality”? Let me examine.

20. The prosecution case is founded on the testimony of

PW3, the prosecutrix. There can be no quarrel with the settled

proposition that conviction for an offence of rape can rest upon the

sole testimony of the prosecutrix if such testimony is found to be

wholly reliable and inspires confidence (See Ganesan v. State,

(2020) 10 SCC 573).The absence of corroboration alone is not a

ground to discard her evidence. At the same time, where the

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 19 of 28

testimony of the witness suffers from material contradictions,

omissions and inconsistencies on matters going to the root of the

prosecution case, the Court is required to examine the evidence

with appropriate caution and determine whether the standard of

proof beyond reasonable doubt has been satisfied.

21. At the risk of reputation, I once again refer to the version

of PW3 contained in the FIS/FIR; her 164 statement and her

testimony before the trial court. In Ext. PW3/A FIS/FIR, the case

is that on 25.04.2017, after being administered an injection, PW3

became slightly unconscious and that, during such state, the doctor

raped her. She stated that her clothes had been removed and that,

upon regaining consciousness, she dressed herself and came

outside. However, Ext. PW3/X2 164 statement presents a

materially different version. In the Section 164 statement, her case

is that as soon as she reached the clinic, she felt dizzy and became

unconscious. She was shifted to the doctor’s bedroom. The doctor

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 20 of 28

woke her by splashing water on her. When she woke up she found

her shirt pulled up. She was incited/provoked/instigated by the

other patients, which made her nervous. The ultrasound technician

told her that she had been wronged. She became mentally

disturbed and hence, informed the police. PW3 also stated further

that nobody had wronged her (िकसी ने भी मेरे साथ कुछ गलत नहीं

िकया है।). Therefore, in her 164 statement PW3 has no case that the

accused had administered any injection due to which she felt giddy

and became unconscious. On the other hand, her case is that as

soon as she reached the clinic she became unconscious. She has

also no case that the accused had raped her or assaulted her in

anyway. On the other hand, she has stated that no wrong had been

done to her. This version is totally against what has been stated in

the FIS/FIR. The discrepancy is significant as the 164 statement

was not recorded after long lapse of time. Ext. PW3/A FIS/FIR of

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 21 of 28

PW3 is seen recorded on 25.04.2017. Ext. PW3/X2 164 statement

is seen recorded after just two days, that is, on 27.04.2017.

22. The relevant portion of the testimony of PW3 in the box

reads thus:

“Accused had gave me some medicine for my illness and

asked me to come next date for ultrasound. On next day,

accused did my ultrasound and told me that I had swelling in

my stomach and asked me to come again on next day as he

will give medicine on next day. I do not remember the date or

month when accused had done my ultrasound. I went to Dr.

Rajender /accused. Accused gave me one tablet and injection

and asked me to take rest in bed as I might have feeling of

giddiness due to injection. I lie down on bed as I was having

feeling of giddiness. When I woke up, I found that my salwar

was not on my body and I felt that the wrong act had been

done by accused (jab main uthi to mere sath bahut gal at ho

chuka tha, meri salwar utri hui thi).

Q. What do you mean by “mere sath bahut galat ho chuka

tha”?

Ans. When I woke up, I was not able to get up and I felt

something has been done with me (mere sath kuch hua tha).

Q. What do you mean by “mere sath kuch hua tha”?

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 22 of 28

Ans. Mere sath rape hua tha.

I started weeping and went to PS Bhajanpura while weeping.

I do not remember the date, month and time of the said

incident but it was of afternoon time. I lodged the complaint

in the PS which was written by some lady police official on

my instructions……”

However, PW3 when asked about her 164 statement in her

cross examination deposed thus:- “The Ld. Magistrate who

recorded my statement has asked me that I am coming to the court

and giving statement without any force and pressure from

anybody. I had given my statement to Ld. MM in my full

consciousness. I have given my correct statement to the Ld. MM.”

23. PW3 has no case that her 164 statement is wrong. On

the other hand, she has asserted that the said statement is true and

that she had given the same voluntarily and being fully aware and

conscious of the same. If that be so, she has no case of rape in her

164 statement. It is true that no attempt had been made on behalf

of the appellant to bring out and prove the contradictions between

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 23 of 28

her 164 statement and her testimony before the Court. But, Section

164 statement can be used for corroboration as well as for

contradicting the maker. The prosecution here relies on the 164

statement of PW3 for the purpose of corroborating her version in

the box. However, the same in no way corroborates the version of

PW3 in the box. On the other hand, the 164 statement disproves

the version of rape. In the box, her case seems to be that she felt

that “wrong act had been done by the accused.” Of course she also

further clarified that the accused had raped her. In the box she has

again a case of injection being administered by the accused, loss of

consciousness and rape during her state of unconsciousness. But at

the same time she also asserts that her 164 statement is true and

correct. In the light of such highly inconsistent versions of PW3, it

is beyond my comprehension as to how the trial court found the

testimony of PW3 to be “trustworthy, reliable, unblemished,

inspires confidence and of sterling quality.”

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 24 of 28

24. Further, the trial court is seen to have believed PW3’s

version of losing consciousness due to the accused administering

some intoxicants. It is true that the trial court did not find the

accused guilty under Section 328 IPC. Nevertheless, the court

seems to have believed the version of PW3 regarding

administering of some intoxicant. As noticed earlier, PW3 has no

such case in her 164 statement. Further, though her blood sample

is alleged to have been taken on the day of her medical

examination which was on 25.04.2017, the date of the incident, the

prosecution has failed to produce the result. Therefore, there is

absolutely no evidence of PW3 being administered any intoxicant.

Apparently, the trial court went wrong in believing the version of

PW3 that she had been administered some intoxicant which made

her unconscious.

25. Further, PW3 admits that DW1 was present in the clinic

on the said day. She has no case that DW1 was also hand in glove

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 25 of 28

with the accused in the crime. DW1 asserted that no wrong had

been done to PW3 in his presence. If the accused had done any

wrong act on her, why did she not raise any alarm? Going by the

version of PW3, there were other patients also present in the clinic,

who are supposed to have goaded her into believing that she had

been wronged. However, none of them were examined. In the light

of such unsatisfactory materials, the trial court clearly erred in

concluding regarding the guilt of the accused based on the highly

inconsistent testimony of PW3.

26. It is true that Ext. PW6/F FSL report establishes that

human semen was detected on the cervical swab, vaginal swab and

smear, vaginal washing and jeans of PW3. PW8, Junior Forensic

Chemical Examiner, Biology, was examined to prove Ext. PW6/F

the FSL report. As per the report, the male DNA profile generated

from Exts. ‘1h, 1i and 1k’ (cervical swab, vaginal swab & smear

and vaginal washing) and ‘2a’ (jeans), was found similar to the

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 26 of 28

DNA profile generated from the source of Ext. ‘3’ (blood sample

of accused). Thus, the forensic evidence supports the prosecution

case. However, the forensic evidence alone cannot establish rape,

especially when PW3 herself admits in her 164 statement that no

wrong had been done to her. The medical and forensic evidence

admissible under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can

only corroborate the testimony of the witness. The purpose of an

expert opinion is primarily to assist the court in arriving at a

conclusion. Such report is not binding upon the court. The court is

expected to analyse the report, read it in conjunction with the other

evidence on record and then form its opinion as to whether such

report is worthy of reliance or not.

27. The appellant/accused has also led oral evidence in

support of his defence. DW1, the receptionist/ultrasound

technician, asserted his presence at the clinic on the relevant day

and denied any wrongdoing by the accused. The accused himself

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 27 of 28

entered the box and asserted his innocence. Though, the accused

has a case that CCTV cameras have been installed in his clinic, no

footage was produced by the accused. However, in the case on

hand, the prosecution has failed to discharge the initial burden of

proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the defence

evidence does not inspire complete confidence, the accused would

still be entitled to the benefit of doubt as the prosecution evidence

has failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

28. The aforesaid aspects raise doubts in the mind of the

Court regarding the prosecution case, and hence it cannot be held

that the materials on record are sufficient to conclude that the

prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, I find that the

appellant/accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

29. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned

judgment is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted under Section

CRL.A. 1056/2024 Page 28 of 28

235(1) Cr.P.C. of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.

He shall be set at liberty, and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

30. Applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed.

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

(JUDGE)

SEPTEMBER 02, 2026

mj/p’ma