STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. versus AKHIL SHARDA & ORS. on 11 July 2022

772

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2022] 6 S.C.R.

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

A

v.

AKHIL SHARDA & ORS.

(Criminal Appeal No.840 of 2022)

B

JULY 11, 2022

[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Quashing ofcriminal proceedings – Sustainability of – On facts, FIRs u/ss. 406and 420 IPC – Allegations relating to disappearance of trucksCloaded with beer from highways – High Court quashed the criminalproceedings arising out of the FIR including the charge-sheet filedby the Investigating Agency as well as the summoning order passedby the trial court – On appeal, held: High Court virtually conducteda mini trial, which was not permissible at this stage – At the stage ofDdeciding the application u/s. 482, the High Court cannot get intoappreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered –Overall allegations are disappearance of the trucks transportingthe beer/contraband goods which are subject to the rules andregulations of the Excise Department and Excise Law – High Courtquashed the criminal proceedings by observing that there was noEloss to the Excise Department – High Court did not appreciate and/or consider the allegations of a larger conspiracy, and that boththe FIRs are interconnected and part of the main conspiracy whichis very serious if found to be true – Thus, the High Court exceededin its jurisdiction – Judgment and order passed by the High CourtFquashing the criminal proceedings is unsustainable, and thus,quashed and set aside.

Judgment/Order: Pronouncement of – Speedy disposal – Needfor – High Court delivered the judgment after a period of six monthsfrom the date it was reserved for judgment – Held: It is alwaysGprudent that the High Court delivers the judgment at the earliestafter the arguments are concluded and the judgment is reserved.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Having gone through the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court by which the High Court setH

aside the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR bearing CaseCrime No. 260 including the charge-sheet filed by theInvestigating Agency as well as the summoning order passed bythe trial court, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,it appears that the High Court virtually conducted a mini trial,which as such is not permissible at this stage and while decidingthe application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No mini trial can beconducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the applicationunder Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get intoappreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered.[Para 7][782-F-H]

1.2 Even the High Court itself has opined that theallegations are very serious and it requires further investigationand that is why the High Court has directed to conduct theinvestigation by CB-CID with respect to the FIR No. 227 of 2019.However, while directing the CB-CID to conduct furtherinvestigation/investigation, the High Court restricted the scopeof investigation. The High Court did not appreciate and considerthe fact that both the FIRs namely FIR Nos.260 of 2018 and 227of 2019 can be said to be interconnected and the allegations of alarger conspiracy are required to be investigated. It is allegedthat the overall allegations are disappearance of the truckstransporting the beer/contraband goods which are subject to therules and regulations of the Excise Department and Excise Law.The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings by observingthat there was no loss to the Excise Department. However, theHigh Court did not at all appreciate the allegations of the largerconspiracy. The FIR need not be an encyclopedia. [Para 7.2,7.3][783-C-E]

Satpal v. Haryana (2018) 6 SCC 110 – relied on.

Satpal v. Haryana (2018) 6 SCC 110 – relied on.

1.3 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that theallegation of missing of two trucks was the beginning of theinvestigation and when during the investigation it was allegedthat earlier also a number of trucks were missing transportingcontraband goods, the FIR should not have been restricted to A

BC

D

EF

G

H

774SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2022] 6 S.C.R.

Amissing of the two trucks only and return of on the goodsthereafter. The High Court has not at all appreciated and/orconsidered the allegation of the larger conspiracy and that boththe FIRs/criminal cases are interconnected and part of the mainconspiracy which is very serious if found to be true. However,Bthis Court refrains from making any further observations as atthis stage of proceedings, the stage is of deciding the applicationunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. only and as the trial of both the caseshave yet to take place. In the facts and circumstances of the casethe High Court has committed a grave/serious error in quashingand setting aside the criminal proceedings arising out of CriminalCCase No.5694 of 2019 and Case Crime No.260 of 2018 PS lodgedunder Section 406. [Para 7.4][783-F-H; 784-A-B]

1.4 The impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt quashing the criminal proceedings is unsustainable. TheDHigh Court exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the criminalproceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court isquashed and set aside to the extent quashing and setting asidethe criminal proceedings under Section 406. The proceedingsbefore the trial court are ordered to be restored to file. [Para 7.1,E8][784-C]

Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty (2021) SCC Online SC1222; CBI v. Thommandru (2021) SCC Online SC 923;Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab (2020) 3 SCC 317;Neeharika Infrastructure v. Maharashtra (2021) SCCFOnline SC 315 – relied on.

Ch. Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana (1992) 1 Suppl.SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259; Indian OilCorporation v. N.E.P.C. India Ltd. and Others (2006) 6GSCC 736 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 704; Jetking InfotrainLtd. v. State of U.P. (2015) 11 SCC 730 : [2006] 3 Suppl.SCR 704; Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3SCC 330 : [2013] 3 SCR 52; Divine Retreat v. Kerala(2008) 3 SCC 542 : [2008] 4 SCR 701 – referred to.

2. The High Court delivered the impugned judgment andorder after a period of six months after the matter was reservedfor judgment. Though the judgment and order passed by the HighCourt may not be set aside on the said ground only, however it isalways advisable that the High Court delivers the judgment atthe earliest after the arguments are concluded and the judgmentis reserved. [Para 6.2][781-G-H; 782-A]

Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318 : [2001] 1Suppl. SCR 298; Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani andOrs. v. HPA International and Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 13 :[2000] 1 SCR 254 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealNo.840 of 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2020 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in U/S 482/378/407 No.2005 of 2019.

With

Criminal Appeal No.841 of 2022

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Sharan Thakur, AAG, Dr. AbhishekManu Singhvi, Ranjeet Kumar, Sidharth Dave, Sr. Advs., AdarshUpadhyay, Siddharth Thakur, Ketan Paul, Pranjal Sharma, Bishwendra A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ASingh, Ms. Shreya Jain, Gaurav Mehrotra, Nadeem Murtaza, Talha AbdulRahman, Amit Bhandari, M. Shaz Khan, Harsh Vardhan Kediya, AjayBhargava, Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Karan Gupta, Ms. Soumya Chaturvedifor M/s Khaitan & Co., Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered byB

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature atAllahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in a Case under Sections482/378/407 No.2005 of 2019 by which the High Court in exercise ofCpowers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the criminal proceedingsarising out of FIR bearing Case Crime No.260 of 2018 lodged underSection 406, registered at PS – Husainganj, District – Lucknow, theState of U.P. as well as the original informant have preferred the presentappeals.

D2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are asunder:

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per thecause title in Criminal Appeal No.840 of 2022 filed by the State of U.P.That the respondent no.4 herein M/s. United Breweries Limited is engagedEin manufacture of sale of beer which is regulated and governed by theExcise Act and other relevant clause of the State. Respondent No.5 –M/s Beehive Alcoveb is the licenced Firm having F.L. 2B licence,engaged in the business of beer etc. by purchasing the goods from thecompany, Respondent No.5 - Sanjeet Jaiwal – original informant of FIRFNo.260 of 2018, Manager of the company – M/s Beehive Alcoweb. On07.09.2018 at 7.56 p.m. respondent no.5 sent a demand order at 7.56p.m. and on 11.09.2018 through e-mail for delivery of three trucks ofbeer to respondent No.4 – M/s United Breweries Limited and transferreda total sum of Rs.92,98,902/- to deliver two trucks in Lucknow and onein Varanasi. The Respondent no.4 directed its transporter SICALGLogistics Limited Company to arrange a vehicle and deliver goods toRespondent no.5/the informant. That in furtherance of the same,M/s. SICAL Logistics Limited Company contacted another transportcompany, who in turn, hired two trucks vide truck registration numbersUP-32HN/3209 and UP-32FN/8048 for delivery of consignment ofHrespondent no.5/informant to Lucknow after obtaining transfer permit FL-36 from Excise Department. The trucks were enabled with GPSsystems as maintained by the Excise Department Track and Trace policy.

2.1 The consignment of beer was dispatched on 11.09.2018through the aforesaid two trucks. The GPS devices of both the truckslost contact with GPS tracking agency on 13.09.2018 after 11.41 pm.On 13.09.2018 at about 16.40 hrs. when the transporter contacted throughhis mobile phone to driver Mukesh on his mobile phone, he was informedthat the vehicles were standing near Junabganj, Lucknow at ChauhanDhaba (outer area of Lucknow) due to “no entry”. It appears thatthereafter neither the tracer could be contacted nor the vehicles couldbe traced. With no positive response from the supplier, respondent no.1and the goods not being delivered though full payment was made andthe goods being missing midway, respondent no.5 lodged the presentFIR bearing Case Crime No.260 of 2018 for the offence under Sections406 & 420 IPC. In the meantime, the Manager of M/s SICAL Logisticalso lodged a separate FIR bearing Case Crime No.390 of 2018 underSections 420 & 406 IPC PS Badalpur, Gautam Budha Nagar againsttwo truck drivers and one unknown person. After the conclusion of theinvestigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet againstrespondent no.5 in Case Crime No.26 of 2018 dated 10.02.2018 andthereafter the learned Magistrate passed the summoning order dated13.02.2019. Even subsequently the Investigating Officer PS Badalpur

has also filed the charge-sheet in the case arising out of Case CrimeNo.227 of 2019 PS – Banthra, District Lucknow (Old No.390 of 2018).Thereafter goods were delivered to the original informant. Also,respondent no.1 to respondent no.4 herein, accused in Criminal CaseNo.5694 of 2019 (arising out of FIR No.260 of 2018) approached theHigh Court by way of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. beingCase Crime No.2005 of 2019 seeking the following main reliefs:

“(i) set aside the impugned summoning order dated 13.02.2019passed in Criminal Case No. 5694/2019, Case Crime No. 0260/2018, under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., PoliceStation-Husainganj, district Lucknow.

(ii) set aside the impugned charge sheet dated 10.02.2019, filedby the Investigating Officer in Case Crime No. 0260/2018, underSection 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Husainganj, District- Lucknow.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

778SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A(iii) set aside the entire proceedings of the Case Crime No. 0260/2018, under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., PoliceStation- Husainganj, District- Lucknow.”

2.2 By the impugned judgment and order the High Court in exerciseof powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the entire criminalBproceedings including the charge-sheet and the summoning order arisingout of Criminal Case No. 5694 of 2019 (arising out of Case Crime No.260 of 2018 PS – Husainganj, District – Lucknow).

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedingsCand the summoning order passed by the learned Trial Court in CriminalCase No.5694 of 2019 (arising out of Case Crime No.260 of 2018 PS –Husainganj, District – Lucknow), the State as well as the originalinformant have preferred the present appeals.

3. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG has appeared on behalf ofDthe appellant - State of UP and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learnedSenior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the original informant. ShriRanjeet Kumar, learned Senior Advocate and Shri Sidharth Dave, learnedSenior Advocate have appeared on behalf of the original accused.

4. Ms. Bhati, learned ASG and Dr. Singhvi, learned SeniorEAdvocate appearing on behalf of the original informant have vehementlysubmitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Courthas committed a grave/serious error in quashing the entire criminalproceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4.1 It is submitted on behalf of the State as well as the originalFinformant that while passing the impugned judgment and order whilequashing the criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.260 of2018 the High Court has not properly appreciated and/or considered thelarger conspiracy.

G4.2 It is submitted that the High Court has not appreciated and/orconsidered the fact that both the FIRs being Case Crime Nos. 260 of2018 and 227 of 2019 are interconnected and cannot be separated. It issubmitted that the High Court ought not to have set aside the criminalproceedings arising out of one FIR being Case Crime No.260 of 2018.

H

4.3 It is submitted that the High Court has failed to note and/orappreciate the allegations in the FIR being FIR No.260 of 2018 whichwere relating to disappearances of trucks loaded with beer from highwaysin Uttar Pradesh which involve allegations of forging data and uploadingincorrect data against the Respondent-Accused.

4.4 It is further submitted that by passing the impugned judgmentand order the High Court has curtailed and narrowed the scope of theinvestigation.

4.5 It is submitted that even the High Court agrees that theallegations are serious and require investigation. However, without afurther prayer in that regard and at the instance of the accused, the HighCourt has transferred the investigation to CB-CID to investigate theFIR being FIR No.227 of 2019 lodged by the accused themselves.

4.6 It is further submitted that while passing the impugned judgmentand order and quashing the criminal proceedings the High Court has notproperly appreciated and considered various aspects of the case and thecomplicity of the accused have not been considered.

4.7 It is submitted that two whole trucks loaded with beer wentmissing and the beer bottles was not found. There was no recovery orseizure of the goods concerned. It had come during investigation thatthere were other such instances of disappearance of trucks loaded withbeer bottles. It is submitted that there is a syndicate operating with theconnivance of the accused persons.

4.8 It is submitted that the manner in which the trucks loaded withbeer bottles went missing and the modus operandi adopted, in such aserious matter but the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings;that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while exercising thepowers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4.9 It is submitted that while quashing the criminal proceedings inexercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court hasconducted a mini trial which as such is not permissible while exercisingthe powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4.10 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respectiveappellants have heavily relied upon the following decisions of this Court A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ain support of their above submissions and the prayer to quash and setaside the impugned judgment and order.

(i) Odisha vs. Pratima Mohanty, 2021 SCC Online SC 1222 [paras14, 15, 16, 18 & 22]

(ii) CBI vs. Thommandru, 2021 SCC Online SC 923B

(iii) Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab, (2020) 3 SCC 317

(iv) Neeharika Infrastructure vs. Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnlineSC 315

(v) Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330.C

(vi) Divine Retreat vs. Kerala, (2008) 3 SCC 542.

4.11 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalfof the appellants that in the present case the High Court delivered thejudgment after a period of six months from the date it was reserved forDjudgment. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by theHigh Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. Reliance is placed inthe decision of this Court in the case of Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar,(2001) 7 SCC 318.

Making the above submissions and relying upon the above decisionsEit is prayed to allow the present appeals and quash and set aside theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing andsetting aside the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR bearing CaseCrime No. 260 of 2018 lodged under Section 406, registered at PS –Husainganj, District – Lucknow.F5. Both these appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri RanjeetKumar, learned Senior Advocate and Shri Sidhartha Dave, learned SeniorAdvocate appearing on behalf of the respective accused.

5.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original accusedhave vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of theGcase and after having satisfied that the ingredients of Sections 406, 420IPC are not made out and the case falls within the parameters laid downby this Hon’ble Court in the case of Ch. Bhajan Lal vs. State ofHaryana 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 which are required to be consideredwhile quashing the criminal proceedings, the Hon’ble High Court hasH

not committed any error in quashing and setting aside the criminalproceedings.

not committed any error in quashing and setting aside the criminalproceedings.

5.2 It is submitted that as such the respondents herein - originalaccused are not at all in anyway responsible for the missing of the trucksloaded with beer after the same were dispatched from their company.It is submitted that in fact the respondents – original accused deliveredthe goods to the transporter namely SICAL Logistic and in turn hiredtwo trucks. It is submitted that it was the SICAL Logistic who arrangedthe vehicles to deliver goods to the informant. It is submitted that thereafterthe goods have been delivered. It is also found by the High Court thatthere was no loss caused to the Excise Department. It is submitted thatthe main grievance/dispute by the informant was with respect to therebate and therefore with a mala fide intention, the FIR was lodged.That so far as the rebate is concerned, no allegation was made in theFIR. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case the HighCourt has not committed any error in quashing and setting aside thecriminal proceedings, as it was nothing but an abuse of process of law.Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ch. Bhajan Lal(supra); Indian Oil Corporation vs. N.E.P.C. India Ltd. and others-reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736; Rajiv Thapar (supra) and JetkingInfotrain Ltd. vs. State of U.P., (2015) 11 SCC 730., it is prayed todismiss the present appeals.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties atlength.

6.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugnedjudgment and order the High Court in exercise of powers under Section482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of FIRbearing Case Crime No.260 of 2018 including the charge-sheet filed bythe Investigating Agency as well as the summoning order passed by thelearned Trial Court.

6.2 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the High Court hasdelivered the impugned judgment and order after a period of six monthsafter the matter was reserved for judgment. Though the judgment andorder passed by the High Court may not be set aside on the aforesaidground only, however it is always advisable that the High Court deliversthe judgment at the earliest after the arguments are concluded and the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ajudgment is reserved. While emphasizing the need to pronounce thereserved judgment at the earliest and within a reasonable time this Courtin the case of Anil Rai (supra) has observed and held in para 9 asunder:

“9. It is true, that for the High Courts, no period forBpronouncement of judgment is contemplated either under the CivilProcedure Code or the Criminal Procedure Code, but as thepronouncement of the judgment is a part of the justice dispensationsystem, it has to be without delay. In a country like ours wherepeople consider the Judges only second to God, efforts be madeto strengthen that belief of the common man. Delay in disposal ofCthe cases facilitates the people to raise eyebrows, sometimesgenuinely which, if not checked, may shake the confidence of thepeople in the judicial system. A time has come when the judiciaryitself has to assert for preserving its stature, respect and regardsfor the attainment of the rule of law. For the fault of a few, theDglorious and glittering name of the judiciary cannot be permittedto be made ugly. It is the policy and purpose of law, to have speedyjustice for which efforts are required to be made to come up tothe expectation of the society of ensuring speedy, untainted andunpolluted justice.”

EIn the aforesaid decision this Court has also taken note of theobservations made by this Court in another case in the case ofBhagwandas Fatechand Daswani and Ors. vs. HPA Internationaland Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 13 that “a long delay in delivery of the judgmentgives rise to unnecessary speculations in the minds of the parties in acase”.F

7. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminalproceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appearsthat the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such isnot permissible at this stage and while deciding the application underGSection 482 Cr.P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a catena ofdecisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise ofpowers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of decidingthe application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot getinto appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered.

H

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. v. AKHIL SHARDA &ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

(See Pratima (supra); Thom (supra); Rajiv (supra) andNiharika (supra).

7.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaiddecisions to the facts of the case on hand and the manner in which theHigh Court has allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., we areof the opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt quashing the criminal proceedings is unsustainable. The High Courthas exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings inexercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7.2 It is also required to be noted that even the High Court itselfhas opined that the allegations are very serious and it requires furtherinvestigation and that is why the High Court has directed to conduct theinvestigation by CB-CID with respect to the FIR No.227 of 2019.However, while directing the CB-CID to conduct further investigation/investigation, the High Court has restricted the scope of investigation.The High Court has not appreciated and considered the fact that boththe FIRs namely FIR Nos.260 of 2018 and 227 of 2019 can be said to beinterconnected and the allegations of a larger conspiracy are required tobe investigated. It is alleged that the overall allegations are disappearanceof the trucks transporting the beer/contraband goods which are subjectto the rules and regulations of the Excise Department and Excise Law.

7.3 The High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings byobserving that there was no loss to the Excise Department. However,the High Court has not at all appreciated the allegations of the largerconspiracy. The FIR need not be an encyclopedia (See Satpal vs.Haryana, (2018) 6 SCC 110 Para 7).

7.4 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that the allegation ofmissing of two trucks was the beginning of the investigation and whenduring the investigation it was alleged that earlier also a number of truckswere missing transporting contraband goods, the FIR should not havebeen restricted to missing of the two trucks only and return of on thegoods thereafter. The High Court has not at all appreciated and/orconsidered the allegation of the larger conspiracy and that both the FIRs/criminal cases are interconnected and part of the main conspiracy whichis very serious if found to be true. We however refrain from making anyfurther observations as at this stage of proceedings as we are at thestage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only and as A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe trial of both the cases have yet to take place. Therefore, we refrainfrom making any further observations which may affect the case of theeither of the parties. Suffice it to say and mention that in the facts andcircumstances of the case the High Court has committed a grave/seriouserror in quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings arising outof Criminal Case No.5694 of 2019 and Case Crime No.260 of 2018 PSBlodged under Section 406, registered at PS – Husainganj, District –Lucknow.

8. In view of the above and for the reason stated above boththese Appeals Succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent quashingCand setting aside the criminal proceedings Criminal Case No.5694 of2019 arising out of Case Crime No.260 of 2018 PS lodged under Section406, registered at PS – Husainganj, District – Lucknow.

The proceedings before the learned Trial Court in Criminal CaseNo.5694 of 2019 are ordered to be restored to file. Present Appeals areDaccordingly Allowed to the aforesaid extent.

Nidhi Jain

Appeals allowed.

E

F

G

H