IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR]

********

PRESENT: HON’BLE JUSTICE APURBA SINHA RAY

CRR/27/2022

The State (CBI) ... Revisionist

Versus

M.Ravindra Rao and another ... Respondents

For the revisionist : Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind

For the respondents : Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, Sr. Adv.

Mr. S. Ajith Prasad

Heard on : 05.02.2026

Judgment on : 10.02.2026

APURBA SINHA RAY, J.

1. The State (CBI) has filed this criminal revisional

application being No. CRR/27/2022 challenging the order No.

31 dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Special Court at

Port Blair discharging the respondent No. 1 and 2 from the CBI

RC case No. 121 2017 A 0004 dated 07.09.2012 under Sections

120 B/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read

with Section 13 (2)/13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act.

2

Factual Matrix :

2. The brief fact of the said case is that on 07.09.2017 the

FIR bearing No.RC-121/2017 A 0004 was chalked out with the

allegation that M/s Arya Aqua India Private Limited through its

Managing Directors Shri.R. Murugesan and Farida Bibi applied

for loan on subsidy basis through the Directorate of Industries,

A&N Administration in the Andaman and Nicobar State

Cooperative Bank Ltd. The subsidy amount claimed was of 25%

of the Bills worth Rs.2,10,79,094/ (Rupees Two Crores Ten

Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Ninety Four Only) which was

prepared on the basis of false and fabricated documents. The

Directorate of Industries, A&N Administration accepted the

paper on record and on the basis of the Bills and Receipts,

Directorate of Industries, A&N Administration processed and

released the subsidy of Rs.45,47,730/- (Rupees Forty Five

Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Only) in

favour of the Aryan Aqua India Private Limited. It has been

alleged that the Cheque nos. mentioned in the Receipts

purported to be issued from the Accounts of M/s Aryan Aqua

India Private Limited are appears to be false and fabricated and

those were issued to other parties and in some cases cheques

were not at all issued by the Account Holder. It has also been

alleged that the Machineries and equipment mentioned in the

3

original invoice issued by M/s Excel Water System Private

Limited are not tallying with that of the fake invoice as well as in

the Inspection Report of the Directorate of Industries dated

08.12.2014. On commission of this wrongful act the subsidy

amount of Rs.45,47,730/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Forty Seven

Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Only) was gained wrongfully by

the M/s Aryan Aqua India Private Limited, Port Blair causing

corresponding wrongful loss to the Government Exchequer.

Submission from Bar:

3. Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind, learned advocate for the CBI has

submitted that as per the investigating on 18.12.2012 M/s

Aryan Aqua India Private Limited, Port Blair submitted a loan

Application for Individual Term Loan of Rs.1,50,00,000/-

(Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs Only) for establishing Mineral

Water Plant. The Respondent No.1 Mr. M.Ravindra Rao being

the Managing Director of the concerned bank sanctioned the

loan on 30.01.2013 with a condition of disbursement in four

instalments and the Respondent No.2 being the Branch

Manager namely Shri.S.A Khalique, Port Blair Branch

disbursed the loan amount. Mr. Gobind has further submitted

that as per banking norms in all the Term Loans, the Loan

Amount shall be disbursed directly to the dealer/agent by way

4

of Pay Order or Demand Draft through the Bank. In this case,

the loan amount was credited in the Current Account of the

borrower namely M/s Aryan Aqua India Private Limited, instead

of transferring it to the supplier of machineries.

4. Mr. Gobind has further submitted that investigation

reveals that the loan amount was transferred in the Current

account of said company by Credit Vouchers duly signed by S.A

Khalique, Respondent No.2 the then Branch Manager. As per

the Bank records the Bank had not sanctioned any similar type

of loan i.e, Term Loan during the year 2012-13. The

investigation discloses that the amount of Rs.70.00 Lakhs was

transferred in favour of M/s Excel Industry Limited Chennai,

the supplier of Machineries. The balance amount which was

credited in the Current Account No.3781 was utilized by the

borrower. The application form for loan along with enclosure i.e.

the Certificate of Bank, was containing false facts and figures.

As per the Annexure-Form the claim submitted before the

Director of Industry was Rs.1,50,00,000/ (Rupees One Crore

Fifty Lakhs Only) for Plants and Machineries, whereas actually

Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Only) was transferred

for purchase of Plants and Machineries by the Bank. Although

the respondents were aware that the actual amount for Plants

Machineries which was transferred to M/s Excel Industry

5

Limited, Chennai was Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs

Only), the Respondent No.1 issued false certificate which is

annexed at page No.41 in the affidavit of documents. The false

statement/certificate of the Andaman and Nicobar State

Cooperative Bank Private Limited which was duly Signed by

M.Ravindra Rao, Respondent No.1 helped the accused firm M/s

Aryan Aqua India Private Limited to claim the subsidy on the

entire amount i.e. Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty

Lakhs Only) out of the total amount the accused firm received

25% of subsidy i.e. Rs.45,47,730/ (Rupees of Forty Five Lakhs

Forty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Only) from the

Directorate of Industries, A&N Administration.

5. Mr. Gobind has categorically argued that the learned Trial

Court misconstrued the entire facts and the documents in the

Charge Sheet and came to a conclusion that there was no

ground to frame charge against the respondents herein. At the

stage of framing Charge, the Trial Court is required to consider

whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the

accused. At the stage of framing charges it is not obligatory for

the Judge to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive

balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with

the innocence of the accused or not.

6

6. Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, learned Senior Advocate has

submitted that the actual case is against the company Aryan

Aqua (India) Pvt Ltd., its Managing Director being one

Murugesan and Director being one Farida Bibi on the allegation

that they had entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the

Directorate of Industries, Port Blair by submitting forged and

fabricated documents to claim subsidies of Rs. 45 lakhs. From

the copies of the prosecution papers it appears that there is no

element of allegation against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in any

manner or at all and these documents and grounds were

examined carefully by the learned Trail Court and passed a

reasoned, well explained order as to why there is no ground or

material to frame charges against the opposite parties, who

should in fact be witnesses to the main offence by the company

and its officer. Mr. Kabir has drawn the attention of this court to

the following points in support of his contentions that the

impugned order has been rightly passed by the learned Trial

Court:

a) So far as the loan is concerned, it is the admitted position

brought on record by the witnesses of the prosecution in

their statements to the investigating agency, that there were

no irregularities in the loan process, and that it was duly

sanctioned by the Managing Committee of the Bank, after

7

taking legal advice of the then Law Officer of the bank, Mr,

Krishna Rao and verification of all collateral including the

property which was properly valued. Therefore there is

nothing illegal whatsoever to do with the loan

b) The allegation regarding certificate provided by the bank

as used by the accused company A1 along with its officers

A2, and A3 for availing subsidy, is merely a certificate to the

extent of loan taken by the company towards purchase of

plant and machinery, and has no further material therein.

The said certificate is a statement of the correct situation of

loan being taken, and the affairs of the company are not

certified therein, nor are they known to or in any way

concerned with the affairs of the bank.

c) There is no further involvement or allegation of the bank

officials A5 and A6 with the instant case, save and except

these two allegations and it is apparent from the scrutiny of

the case and its papers that the allegations are against the

subsidy scheme of the Directorate of Industries being

misused by the Al company through false and fabricated

documents and claims, none of which involved the bank or

its officers, save and except the sanction of the loan and

issuing of certificate of loan, neither of which constitutes any

offence whatsoever.

8

d) The transfer of funds to the supplier of articles on the

request of the bank account holder by submission of a self

cheque is accepted banking practice and constitutes no

offence whatsoever. The bank merely follows the instructions

of its customer, and accepts the cheque as instruction to

debit his account and credit the account of the supplier

towards the cost of goods supplied. This is simply an

instruction to the bank to pay someone which has been

done.

e) Certain materials relied on in the said chargesheet, would

prima facie , while not admitted to any extent, demonstrate

the truth of the opposite parties' statements, and the fact

that they are completely innocent, and the same may be

briefly reflected hereunder for the consideration of this

Learned Court;

i. Statement of Rathindra Nath, Industry Promotion Officer,

CSW9

ii. Statement of K. Murugan Managing Director, A&N

Cooperative Bank, CSW13

iii. Statement of Anjan Sengupta Deputy General Manager

A&N Cooperative Bank, CSW14

iv. Statement of K. Kathiresan, General Manager, Exel

Water System, Chennai, CSW16

9

v. Statement of N. Ramar, Panel valuer, A&N Cooperative

Bank, CSW19

vi. Application form of subsidy - D3

vii. Annexure IV to the subsidy application form

viii. A&N Cooperative bank opening form- D130

ix. Cheque no. 538954 for Rs. 70,09,832/- dated

09.02.2013 - D132

x. RTGS voucher for Rs. 70,09,832/-- D138

xi. Debit voucher for Rs. 70,00,000/- - D139, including

other vouchers at D140, 141

xii. Account ledger of the bank for this account

7. It is therefore obvious that there is no material whatsoever

against the opposite parties to make out any case of any sort

against them in any manner which was recognized and realized

by the learned Trial Court on a proper assessment of the

prosecution material that did not make out an offence or justify

framing of charges.

8. Mr. Kabir has also submitted that there is no material

showing that the respondents have benefited themselves or that

they have committed forgery of any documents, or that they

have in any manner been party to the offences.

10

9. Mr. Kabir has also pointed out that several steps were

taken by the authority for recovery of the funds including inter

alia:

i. Money Suit no. 47 of 2019 by the Secretary Industries

against the company A1 before the Learned Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Port Blair for a claim of the subsidy

amount plus interest being Rs. 45,47,730 + interest

@12.5% per annum of Rs. 19,45,781 = a total of Rs.

64,93,511.

ii. The recall of subsidy was made on 24.01.2019, with

an order dated 03.10.2019 by Secretary Industries to

Tehsildar, Port Blair to create an encumbrance on the

land of the company for recovery of the amounts

disbursed towards subsidy with interest in terms of the

land regulations

iii. Over these orders the company Al had moved the

Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in W.P. No. 20297(W) of

2019 wherein His Lordship the Hon'ble Justice

Debanshu Basak was pleased to pass Order dated

07.11.2019 directing the company to secure the amount

of the claim by way of a fixed deposit with any

nationalized bank, based on which a stay would operate

11

for steps of implementation of action to recover funds

from the company

iv. Against the said Order, the company had filed an

appeal before the Hon'ble High Court being M.A. 043 of

2019, wherein, by Order dated 02.12.2019, a Bench of

Their Lordships the Hon'ble Justice Dipankar Datta and

the Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya were

pleased to direct that only the principal sum of Rs.

45,47,730/ - was to be secured in a fixed deposit and the

documents handed over to the Secretary Industries

based on which further action would be stayed.

10. In reply to above Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind has submitted

that the respondents admitted that a Money Suit being No.47 of

2019 was filed against M/s Aryan Aqua India Private Limited for

recovery of Rs.45,47,730/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Forty

Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Only) along with 12.5%

Interest. The aforesaid admission of recovery prima facie makes

out the case of prosecution that the 25% of subsidy amount

received by M/s Aryan Aqua India Private Limited because of

the false certificate issued by the respondent No.1 who

facilitated the said Company to avail the subsidy. Similarly, the

respondent No.2 transferred the balance loan amount in the

Current Account bearing Account No.3781 and the said amount

12

was utilized by the said company. The recovery of subsidy

amount in the Civil Suit ipso facto will not wash away the

prosecution Case and in the recent judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Apex court it was held that both civil and criminal

Proceedings can run simultaneously 2025 Supreme (SC) 2000

Rocky -Versus- State of Telangana and others.

11. However, Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind has cited the following

judgments in support of his contention:

1) 1977 Supreme (SC) 256 State of Bihar -Versus-

Ramesh Singh

(2) 1987 Supreme (SC) 139 State of H,P -Versus- Krishan

Lal Pardhan and Others

(3) 2004 Supreme (SC) 1483 State of Orissa -Versus-

Debendra Nath Padhi

4) 2007 Supreme (SC) 697 Soma Chakravarty -Versus-

State Through CBI.

(5) 2008 Supreme (SC) 486 Hem Chand -Versus- State of

Jharkhand.

(6) 2009 Supreme (SC) 1440 CBI -Versus- V.K.Bhutiani.

(7) 2010 Supreme (SC) 104 P. Vijayan -Versus- State of

Kerala and Anr.

13

(8) 2014 Supreme (SC) 14 State of Tamil Nadu by INS. of

Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption -Versus- N. Suresh

Rajan and Ors.

(9) 2017 Supreme (SC) 111 State of Rajasthan -Versus-

Fatehkaran Mehdu.

(10) 2019 Supreme (SC) 262 State Represented by the

Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti-

Corruption, Tamil Nadu -Versus- J. Doraiswamy Etc.

(11) 2019 Supreme (SC) 701 Srilekha Sentilkumar -

Versus- Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB,

Chennai,

(12) 2025 Supreme (SC) 2000 Rocky -Versus: State of

Telangana and Ors.

12. Mr. Gobind has prayed for setting aside the order dated

07.04.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court and to restore the

Special Case No. 11 of 2017 for trial.

13. Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir has enclosed statements of several

witnesses to show that the respondent No. 1 and 2 are innocent.

Court’s View:

14. After going through the order No. 31 dated 07.04.2022 of

Special case No. 11 of2017 pending before the learned Special

Judge, Port Blair it appears that the learned Trial Judge

14

discharged the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 mainly on the grounds

that the loan was sanctioned not on the unilateral decision of

the accused M.Ravindra Rao, the then Managing Director of the

Bank (the respondent No.1 herein) and it is clear from the

statements of the relevant witnesses that the loan was

sanctioned after it was approved by the Managing Committee

after considering all other aspects. The learned Trial Judge has

also observed that from the statement of K. Kathiresan, General

Manager, Excel Water System Private Limited, it appeared that

they had received Rs. 70,00,000/- from the accused company

against the materials supplied worth Rs. 97,00,000/- and

therefore according to learned Judge no question of

misappropriation of Rs. 70,00,000/- disbursed by the

M.Ravindra Rao can arise. The learned Judge did not accept the

allegation against the respondent No.1, M.Ravindra Rao, the

then Managing Director of the Cooperative Bank that he had

issued annexure IV to enable the accused to claim the subsidy

from the Directorate of Industries without any communication

on record showing the value of plant and machineries as Rs.

1,50,00,000/-. According to the learned Judge, from the record

it appeared to him that the accused company had submitted

alleged fabricated bills with the Directorate of Industries for

availing the subsidy and there is no evidence to connect the

15

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with that part of the act of the

accused company. Learned Judge has also observed that the

loan was disbursed worth Rs. 1,45,00,000/- in three uneven

instalments and there is no whisper about the disbursement of

the rest amount and since the entire loan amount was

exhausted in that three instalment it cannot be said that

respondent No.2 had disbursed the same in three instalments

instead of four though his act does not attract penal liability. In

view of the aforesaid reasoning the learned Trial Judge did not

find any evidence connecting the respondents herein i.e.

accused No. 5 and accused No. 6 in the aforesaid Special Case

No. 11 of 2017, with the alleged fraud committed by the rest of

the accused persons and accordingly, he had discharged the

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the aforesaid case under Section

227 of the Cr.P.C.

15. The question of sanctioning the loan of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-

is not the main issue in the relevant case. The most vital issues

are that in disbursing the loan amount banking practice,

procedures and norms are flouted by the respondent No. 1, M.

Ravinder Rao and respondent No. 2 S.A. Khalique. The entire

fund of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was transferred to the account of the

borrower instead of the account of dealer/agents directly. This

clearly violates banking practice, procedures and norms. It is

16

further allegation of CBI that the respondent No.2 transferred

Rs. 70,00,000/- out of Rs 1,50,00,000/- to the account of Excel

Water System Private Limited , and the balance fund was

utilized by the borrower for its own purpose. Another serious

charge is that the annexure IV issued by the respondent

No.1which was also corrected by him in his own handwriting

contained a false and fabricated statement that Rs.

1,50,00,000/- was used for the purpose of plants and

machineries. The record also shows that the Excel Water

System Private Limited which supplied the plants and

machineries to the tune of Rs. 97,00,000/- and out of which

they had received Rs. 70,00,000/- but nowhere it is stated by

the General Manager of Excel Water System Private Limited that

they supplied plant and machineries to the tune of Rs.

1,50,00,000/- . This annexure IV was not properly considered

by the learned Special Judge at the time of making his mind for

discharging him. The issue whether the same can be ignored

particularly when there was serious allegation that annexure IV

issued by M.Ravindra Rao stating that Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was

used for plants and machineries and on the basis of such

certificate, Directorate of Industries had allowed the accused

company and its Directors to have Rs. 45,47,730/- as subsidy

17

after making a gross in road in the Exchequer of the

Government, is not properly dealt with in the impugned order.

16. The learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon

the statements of the several witnesses and he has placed the

Xerox copies of statements of such witnesses. Let us consider

those statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The

statements of Mr. K.Murugan, Managing Director, Andaman &

Nicobar Cooperative Bank Ltd., Port Blair, Mr. Anjan Sengupta,

Deputy General Manager, A&N Cooperative Bank, Port Blair,

Mr. K.Kathiresan, General Manager, Excel Water System Private

Limited are very much important. So far as respondent No.1

and 2 are concerned, both Mr. K.Murugan, Managing Director,

Andaman & Nicobar Cooperative Bank Ltd., Port Blair, and Mr.

Anjan Sengupta, Deputy General Manager, A&N Cooperative

Bank, Port Blair have stated before the concerned Investigating

Officer that:

“Further the general procedure adopted by the bank in all

terms loan cases is availing of the loan through the Savings

Bank/current Account of the borrower depending upon the case.

For example, in Car loan or any purchase of plant and machinery

the entire loan amount along with the margin money shall be

disbursed directly to the dealer/agent by way of Pay Order or

Demand Draft whatever it may be. However, in cases of Project

Loan if the Infrastructure component is present, then the amount of

loan shall be released as per the progress of the work. The bank

has not sanctioned any similar type of loan during the year 2012-

2013.

After the sanction of said term loan the funds was

transferred to the current account No. 3781 which now shown to

me vide using the debit voucher and credit vouchers. Credit

vouchers dated on 09.02.2013 Rs.69,76,407, 11.02.2013 Rs.

30,00,000, on 21.02.2013 Rs.25,00,000 and Debit vouchers dated

09.02.2013 Rs. 70,00,000, 11.02.2013 Rs. 30,00,000, on

18

21.02.2013 Rs. 25,00,000 which now shown to me and I identify

the signature of S.A.Khalique the then Branch Manager.”

17. The said two witnesses further stated that they were also

shown annexure IV duly signed by M.Ravindra Rao, the then

Managing Director of their bank which was enclosed in the

subsidy claim submitted before the Directorate of Industries, by

M/s Aruan Aqua (India) Pvt. Ltd represented by its M.D

R.Murugesan. In the said Annexure IV it was mentioned that

Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was availed for plants and machineries,

instead Rs. 70,00,000/- was transferred for purchase of plants

and machineries. Further on scrutiny of the files maintained in

the Andaman & Nicobar Co-operative Bank no such letter is

available and no correspondence was also taken place. This

Annexure IV was issued by the then Managing director – Shri

M.Ravindra Rao (now Retd) on his own.

18. Therefore, from the above statements of banking

personnel it prima facie appears that disbursement of loan to

the account of borrower was made in violation of established

practice and procedure of bank and further such disbursement

was made exceptionally at the instance of both the respondents.

It is not clear why they have violated such an established

banking procedure. The investigating agency has shown some

acceptable basis of reasonable suspicion against respondent

Nos. 1-2 in this regard at this stage. It is also found from their

19

statements that in the annexure IV issued by respondent No. 1

it was mentioned that Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was used for plants

and machineries instead of Rs. 70,00,000/-. Therefore, it

appears that the learned Special Judge did not consider the

statements of the said witnesses in its proper perspective.

19. Statement of Mr. K.Kathiresan has disclosed that their

company namely M/S Excel Water System Private Limited,

Chennai had supplied materials valuing Rs. 97,00,000/- and

not Rs.1,81,00,000/-. He has also mentioned that he received

payment of Rs. 70,00,000/- in the form of account transfer.

From his statement it is crystal clear that the Directorate of

Industries personnel on the basis of documents including

annexure IV came to the conclusion regarding the value of

plants and machineries to the tune of Rs. 1,81,00,000/-, and

hence, it prima facie appears that annexure IV issued by

respondent No.1 was the foundational basis and the same

prompted them to assess the value to the extent of Rs.

1,81,00,000/-.

20. The case law reported in 2004 0 Supreme (SC) 1483,

State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has been pleased to hold that at the stage of framing of

charge the Trial Court is required to consider whether there are

sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused or not.

20

21. In 1987 Supreme (SC) 139, State of H.P vs. Krishan Lal

Pardhan and others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been

pleased to hold whether materials on record would be sufficient

to record conviction against respondents or weather charges will

eventually stand proved or not can be determined only after

evidence as recorded in the case.

22. In State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh reported in (1977) 4

SCC 39 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that at the stage of

framing of charge it is not obligatory for the Judge to consider in

any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts if

proved would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused

or not.

23. In 2010 0 Supreme (SC) 104, P. Vijayan vs. State of

Kerala and another, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been

pleased to observe that under Section 227 Cr.P.C the Judge can

discharge the accused at the threshold if upon consideration of

the record and documents he find that there is no sufficient

ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words his

consideration of the record and documents at that stage is for

the limited purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is

sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

21

24. All other decisions cited by the learned counsel for the

CBI narrates more or less the same principle and they are now

established principles of law.

25. In view of the above, I do not think that there is no

materials against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for framing

charges against them. In view of the above I find that when

there are sufficient prima facie materials against both the

accused respondent as discussed above the order No. 31 dated

07.04.2022 should not be allowed to stand.

26. Accordingly the order No. 31 dated 07.04.2022 passed by

the learned Special Judge, Port Blair in Special Case No. 11 of

2017 is set aside. The respondent No. 1 M.Ravindra Rao and

respondent No. 2 S.A Khalique are directed to surrender before

the learned Trial Judge, and the learned Trial Judge shall take

them into custody and shall enlarge them on bail on certain

conditions ensuring their presence before the learned Trial

Court on each and every date of hearing, if they are willing to

furnish bonds, and shall thereafter consider the framing of

charges against the accused persons under proper sections of

law after complying with all legal formalities.

27. Accordingly the Criminal Revisional application being

CRR/27/2022 is thus allowed.

28. No order as to costs.

22

29. The criminal revisional application stands disposed of

along with all connected applications, if any.

30. Let the Trial Court Record be sent down immediately to

the Learned Trial Court along with a copy of this judgment.

31. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied

for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual

formalities.

[ APURBA SINHA RAY, J. ]