# Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Balrampur Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 872
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-28
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 1687 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/executive-officer-nagar-palika-parishad-balrampur-rakesh-kumar-jaiswal-anr-v-51688
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 156(3), 197, 197(1), 200,
202 & 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323, 504 & 506 - Application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing the Chief
Judicial Magistrate's order by which took
cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 504,
and 506 IPC - complaint case - alleging abuse
and threats during a dispute over property
mutation - St.ment recorded u/s 200 & 202 of
Cr.P.C. - trial court summoned the applicant to
face trial - Applicants contested the summoning
order by filing criminal revision - dismissed -
revision court upheld the summoning order -
hence the instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -
applicants argued that the Magistrate failed to
comply with a 2007 circular requiring St.ments
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. to be recorded in the
Magistrate's
handwriting
and
that
prior
government sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
was necessary - court observed that, prima
facie trial court's satisfaction were deemed
sufficient, and the revision was dismissed as
lacking merit - Court held that, the mere
violation of any executive instruction by a
Magistrate will not vitiate the validity of the
criminal proceedings, unless there is violation of
any provision of Cr.P.C. in conducting the
proceedings - and - there is absolutely no
requirement of obtaining a prior sanction for
prosecuting the applicants for such offences and
Section 197 Cr.P.C. would not apply in such a
situation - consequently, application under
section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed being found no
illegality in lower court orders.
(Para - 9, 13, 17, 18)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

## Text

872 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 872
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 1687 of 2024

Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad,
Balrampur Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal & Anr.
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ankit Mishra, Mohd. Ali

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 156(3), 197, 197(1), 200,
202 & 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323, 504 & 506 - Application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing the Chief
Judicial Magistrate's order by which took
cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 504,
and 506 IPC - complaint case - alleging abuse
and threats during a dispute over property
mutation - St.ment recorded u/s 200 & 202 of
Cr.P.C. - trial court summoned the applicant to
face trial - Applicants contested the summoning
order by filing criminal revision - dismissed -
revision court upheld the summoning order -
hence the instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -
applicants argued that the Magistrate failed to
comply with a 2007 circular requiring St.ments
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. to be recorded in the
Magistrate's
handwriting
and
that
prior
government sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
was necessary - court observed that, prima
facie trial court's satisfaction were deemed
sufficient, and the revision was dismissed as
lacking merit - Court held that, the mere
violation of any executive instruction by a
Magistrate will not vitiate the validity of the
criminal proceedings, unless there is violation of
any provision of Cr.P.C. in conducting the
proceedings - and - there is absolutely no
requirement of obtaining a prior sanction for
prosecuting the applicants for such offences and
Section 197 Cr.P.C. would not apply in such a
situation - consequently, application under
section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed being found no
illegality in lower court orders.
(Para - 9, 13, 17, 18)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

1. Hamid Ali Vs St. of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All
1567,

2.
St.
of
Gujarat
Vs
Afroz
Mohammed
Hasanfatta: (2019) 20 SCC 539,

3. Shambhu Nath Misra [(1997) 5 SCC 336,

4. St. of Orissa Vs Ganesh Chandra Jew, (2004)
8 SCC 40,

5. Shadakshari Vs St. of Karn., 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 48.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Ali, the learned
counsel appearing for the applicants and Sri
Anant Pratap Singh, the learned AGA for
the State and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant application
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
applicants have challenged the validity of
the order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur in
Complaint No. 678 of 2021, whereby the
Magistrate
has
taken
cognizance
of
offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC
on the basis of a complaint filed by the
opposite party no. 2. The applicant has also
challenged the validity of the judgment and
order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Balrampur dismissing
3 All. Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Balrampur Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal & Anr.
 Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
873
Criminal Revision No. 67 of 2022 filed
against
the
aforesaid
order
dated
10.05.2022 and affirming the order.

3. The opposite party no. 2 filed an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
alleging that his father had died on
04.10.2012 and he had applied for mutation
of his name in the record of Nagar Palika
Parishad, Balrampur and had deposited
house-tax and water-tax on 22.01.2015 and
he had also deposited Rs. 500/- towards
mutation charges. He had submitted all the
relevant documents to the Nagar Palika
Parishad, Balrampur on 10.09.2015, which
included a recommendation made by the
corporator. Even after it, on 28.09.2016, the
Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad
(the applicant no. 1) uploaded information
on the web portal that recommendation of
corporator
was
not
attached
to
the
application.

4. When the complainant sought
information under the Right to Information
Act, 2005, on 18.12.2020 he was informed
that a final order had been passed on his
application, whereas the house continued to
be
recorded
in
the
name
of
the
complainant's deceased father. When the
complainant contacted the applicants to
know the cause of the aforesaid fact, both
of them abused him and threatened to
assault him and pushed him outside the
office.

5. The magistrate registered the
application as a complaint by means of an
order
dated
20.03.2021.
Thereafter
statement of the complainant was recorded
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 27.09.2021
and statements under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
were
recorded
on
08.10.2021
and
22.10.2021 and thereafter the Magistrate
has passed an order summoning the
applicants to face the trial. It is recorded in
the order dated 10.05.2022 that a perusal of
the
record
prima
facie
indicates
commission of offences under Section 323,
504, 506 IPC and summoned the applicants
to face the trial.

6. In Criminal Revision No. 67 of
2022 filed by the applicant against the
summoning order dated 10.05.2022, it was
argued that the trial court could not have
taken cognizance of the offences without
previous sanction of the Government as
provided under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The
Session Judge held that the offences
alleged were not committed by the
applicants while exercising their official
duties and, therefore, no previous sanction
was required in respect of those offences.
The learned Sessions Judge further held
that at the stage of taking cognizance of the
offences and summoning the accused
persons merely a prima facie satisfaction is
required to be recorded for trial of the
accused persons and a thorough scrutiny of
the offences is not required to arrive at a
satisfaction that there is sufficient material
for conviction of the accused person.
Accordingly, the Sessions Judge dismissed
the revision.

7. While assailing the validity of both
the aforesaid orders, the learned counsel for
the applicants has submitted that C.L. No.
53/2007Admin(G):Dated:
13.12.2007
issued by this Court mandates that all the
Magistrates to record statements under
Section
200
Cr.P.C.
in
their
own
handwriting, whereas in the present case
the statement has been transcribed by the
reader of the Court.

8. C.L. No. 53/2007Admin(G):Dated:
13.12.2007 reads as follows: -

"The Hon'ble Court has been
pleased to observed that section 200
874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cr.P.C. mandates that the substance of the
information/statement only is required to
be recorded by the magistrate which should
be done by him in his handwriting as that
should
facilitate
in
pinpointing
the
controversy
and
check
frivolous
complaints.
Therefore, in continuation of earlier
Circular letter no. 6 Admin. (B) dated 1st
May 1971,

I have been directed to
say that all the Magistrate working under
your administrative control may please be
directed to record statements under Section
200 Cr.P.C. in their own handwriting.

I am, further, to request you to
kindly bring the contents of this Circular
letter to all the Judicial Officers working
under your administrative control for strict
compliance"

9. From a bare reading of the
aforesaid circular letter, it is not clear as to
whom the aforesaid communication was
addressed and there is nothing on record to
indicate as to whether the authority to
whom this communication was addressed,
had actually issued any such direction to
the Magistrate or not and whether in fact
such direction was communicated to the
Magistrate who has recorded the statement
in question or not. Moreover, the mere
violation of any executive instruction by a
Magistrate will not vitiate the validity of
the criminal proceedings, unless there is
violation of any provision of Cr.P.C. in
conducting the proceedings.

10. The Court cannot ignore the
ground reality that all the Magistrates are
working under immense work pressure and,
in
these
circumstances,
making
it
mandatory for all the Magistrates to record
all statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in
their own handwriting and not to take the
assistance of a stenographer, will create
unnecessary
hurdles
in
expeditious
dispensation of justice, which is the
ultimate goal of all the courts and other
persons acting in aid and assistance of the
courts. Therefore, I am of the considered
view that the proceedings cannot be
vitiated on the ground that the statement
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was transcribed
by the reader of the Court on the dictation
of the Magistrate.

11. The learned counsel for the
applicant next submitted that the Magistrate
has not conducted an inquiry as mandated
by Section 202 Cr.P.C. and in support of
this contention, he has relied upon a
judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench
of this Court in Hamid Ali v. State of
U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 1567, wherein
it was held that: -

"12. It is settled principle that
while summoning an accused, the court has
to see prima facie evidence. The "prima
facie
evidence'
means
the
evidence
sufficient for summoning the accused and
not the evidence sufficient to warrant
conviction. The enquiry u/s 202 CrPC is
limited only to ascertain of truth or
falsehood of allegations made in the
complaint and whether on the material
placed by the complainant a prima facie
case was made out for summoning the
accused or not.

13. As held by the Courts as
above, the passing of order of summoning
any person as accused is a very important
matter, which initiates criminal proceeding
against him. Such orders cannot be passed
summarily or without applying judicial
mind."

12. However, in State of Gujarat v.
Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta: (2019) 20
SCC 539, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that: -
3 All. Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Balrampur Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal & Anr.
 Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
875

"19. Section 190(1)(a) CrPC
provides for cognizance of complaint.
Section 190(1)(b) CrPC deals with taking
cognizance of any offence on the basis of
police report under Section 173(2) CrPC.
"Complaint" is defined in Section 2(d)
CrPC which reads as under:

"2. Definitions.-(a)-(c) * * *

(d)
"complaint"
means
any
allegation made orally or in writing to a
Magistrate, with a view to his taking action
under this Code, that some person, whether
known or unknown, has committed an
offence, but does not include a police
report."

The
procedure
for
taking
cognizance upon complaint has been
provided under Chapter XV - Complaints
to Magistrates under Sections 200 to 203
CrPC. A complaint filed before the
Magistrate may be dismissed under Section
203 CrPC if the Magistrate is of the
opinion that there is no sufficient ground
for proceeding and in every such case, he
shall briefly record his reasons for so
doing. If a complaint is not dismissed under
Section 203 CrPC, the Magistrate issues
process under Section 204 CrPC. Section
204 CrPC is in a separate chapter i.e.
Chapter
XVI
-
Commencement
of
Proceedings
before
Magistrates.
A
combined reading of Sections 203 and 204
CrPC shows that for dismissal of a
complaint, reasons should be recorded. The
procedure for trial of warrant cases is
provided in Chapter XIX - Trial of
Warrant Cases by the Magistrates. Chapter
XIX deals with two types of cases - ACases instituted on a police report and BCases instituted otherwise than on police
report. In the present case, cognizance has
been taken on the basis of police report.
* * *

22. In summoning the accused, it
is not necessary for the Magistrate to
examine the merits and demerits of the case
and whether the materials collected is
adequate for supporting the conviction. The
court is not required to evaluate the
evidence and its merits. The standard to be
adopted for summoning the accused under
Section 204 CrPC is not the same at the
time of framing the charge. For issuance of
summons under Section 204 CrPC, the
expression used is "there is sufficient
ground for proceeding..."; whereas for
framing the charges, the expression used in
Sections 240 and 246 IPC is "there is
ground for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence...".

13. The Magistrate after recording
statement of the complainant under Section
200 Cr.P.C. has recorded statements of two
witnesses of the complaint under Section
202 Cr.P.C., who stated that they were
accompanying the complainant at the time
of the incident. The Magistrate has made a
mention of these statements, which were
available on record, in the order dated
10.05.2022, wherein he has recorded that
he has perused the record. In view of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta
(Supra) the aforesaid enquiry is sufficient
for the Magistrate to arrive at a conclusion
that
there
is
sufficient
ground
for
proceeding. At this stage, the Magistrate is
not required to evaluate the evidence and
its merits. Therefore, I find no merit in this
submission of the learned Counsel for the
applicants.

14. The learned Counsel for the
applicants
next
submitted
that
the
applicants
are
public
servants
and,
therefore, the Court could not have taken
cognizance
of
offences
allegedly
committed by them without prior sanction
of the State Government.
876 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. Section 197 (1) Cr.P.C. reads as
under: -

197. Prosecution of Judges and
public servants.-(1) When any person
who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a
public servant not removable from his
office save by or with the sanction of the
Government is accused of any offence
alleged to have been committed by him
while acting or purporting to act in the
discharge of his official duty, no Court
shall take cognizance of such offence
except with the previous sanction save as
otherwise provided in the Lokpal and
Lokayuktas Act, 2013-

(a) in the case of a person who is
employed or, as the case may be, was at the
time of commission of the alleged offence
employed, in connection with the affairs of
the Union, of the Central Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is
employed or, as the case may be, was at the
time of commission of the alleged offence
employed, in connection with the affairs of
a State, of the State Government:

Provided that..."

16. In Shadakshari v. State of
Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 48, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

"21. The ambit, scope and effect
of Section 197 Cr. P.C. has received
considerable attention of this court. It is
not necessary to advert to and dilate on all
such decisions. Suffice it to say that the
object of such sanction for prosecution is
to protect a public servant discharging
official duties and functions from undue
harassment by initiation of frivolous
criminal proceedings.

22. In State of Orissa v. Ganesh
Chandra Jew, (2004) 8 SCC 40, this court
explained
the
underlying
concept
of
protection under Section 197 and held as
follows:

"7. The protection given under
Section 197 is to protect responsible public
servants against the institution of possibly
vexatious criminal proceedings for offences
alleged to have been committed by them
while they are acting or purporting to act
as public servants. The policy of the
legislature is to afford adequate protection
to public servants to ensure that they are
not prosecuted for anything done by them
in the discharge of their official duties
without reasonable cause, and if sanction is
granted, to confer on the Government, if
they choose to exercise it, complete control
of the prosecution. This protection has
certain limits and is available only when
the alleged act done by the public servant
is
reasonably
connected
with
the
discharge of his official duty and is not
merely a cloak for doing the objectionable
act. If in doing his official duty, he acted in
excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable
connection between the act and the
performance of the official duty, the excess
will not be a sufficient ground to deprive
the public servant of the protection. The
question is not as to the nature of the
offence such as whether the alleged
offence contained an element necessarily
dependent upon the offender being a
public servant, but whether it was
committed by a public servant acting or
purporting to act as such in the discharge
of his official capacity. Before Section 197
can be invoked, it must be shown that the
official concerned was accused of an
offence alleged to have been committed by
him while acting or purporting to act in the
discharge of his official duties. It is not the
duty which requires examination so much
as the act, because the official act can be
performed both in the discharge of the
official duty as well as in dereliction of it.
3 All. Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Balrampur Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal & Anr.
 Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
877
The act must fall within the scope and
range of the official duties of the public
servant concerned. It is the quality of the
act which is important and the protection
of this section is available if the act falls
within the scope and range of his official
duty. There cannot be any universal rule to
determine whether there is a reasonable
connection between the act done and the
official duty, nor is it possible to lay down
any such rule. One safe and sure test in
this regard would be to consider if the
omission or neglect on the part of the
public
servant
to
commit
the
act
complained of could have made him
answerable for a charge of dereliction of
his official duty. If the answer to this
question is in the affirmative, it may be
said that such act was committed by the
public servant while acting in the
discharge of his official duty and there
was every connection with the act
complained of and the official duty of the
public servant. This aspect makes it clear
that the concept of Section 197 does not
get immediately attracted on institution of
the complaint case."

23.
This
aspect
was
also
examined by this court in Shambhu Nath
Misra [(1997) 5 SCC 336]. Posing the
question as to whether a public servant
who allegedly commits the offence of
fabrication of records or misappropriation
of public funds can be said to have acted in
the discharge of his official duties.
Observing that it is not the official duty to
fabricate records or to misappropriate
public funds, this court held as under:

"5. The question is when the
public
servant
is
alleged
to
have
committed the offence of fabrication of
record or misappropriation of public fund
etc. can he be said to have acted in
discharge of his official duties. It is not
the official duty of the public servant to
fabricate
the
false
records
and
misappropriate the public funds etc. in
furtherance of or in the discharge of his
official duties. The official capacity only
enables him to fabricate the record or
misappropriate the public fund etc. It does
not mean that it is integrally connected or
inseparably interlinked with the crime
committed in the course of the same
transaction,"

24. Even in D. Devaraja [(2020)
7 SCC 695] relied upon by learned counsel
for respondent No. 2, this court referred to
Ganesh Chandra Jew (supra) and held as
follows:

"35. In State of Orissa v. Ganesh
Chandra Jew this Court interpreted the use
of the expression "official duty" to imply
that the act or omission must have been
done by the public servant in course of his
service and that it should have been in
discharge of his duty. Section 197 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure does not
extend its protective cover to every act or
omission done by a public servant while in
service. The scope of operation of the
section is restricted to only those acts or
omissions which are done by a public
servant in discharge of official duty."

25. Thus, this court has been
consistent in holding that Section 197 Cr.
P.C. does not extend its protective cover to
every act or omission of a public servant
while in service. It is restricted to only
those acts or omissions which are done by
public servants in the discharge of official
duties."

17. The act allegedly committed by
the applicants, i.e. abusing, threatening and
manhandling the complainant, was in no
way connected with the discharge of public
duty of the applicants and in view of the
law propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the above mentioned cases, there
878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is absolutely no requirement of obtaining a
prior
sanction
for
prosecuting
the
applicants for such offences and Section
197 Cr.P.C. would not apply in such a
situation.

18. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, there appears to be no illegality
in the order dated 10.05.2022 taking
cognizance
of
the
offence
and
the
summoning the accused to face the trial and
in the judgment and order dated 25.01.2024
passed by the Sessions Judge, Balrampur in
Criminal revision
No.
67
of
2022,
affirming
the
aforesaid
order
dated
10.05.2022.

19. The revision lacks merit and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 878
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 1712 of 2024

Murari Kumar @ Murari Kumar Yadav
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Dr. Pooja Singh, Digvijay Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

आपराकिि कवकि : र्ारतीय दंि संकहता, 1860 - िारा 419,
420, 120ख - दंि प्रकक्रया संकहता, 1973 - िारा 204 - र्ैर
िमािती वारंट िे कवरुद्ध - वैिता - प्रस्ट्तुत प्रिरण कवपक्षी सं. 2 िी
प्राथकमिी पर संकस्ट्थत हुआ, किसमें संज्ञेय अपराि िा आरोप था -
कववेचिा उपरांत अपराि कसद्ध पाए िािे पर कववेचि िे आरोप पत्र प्रस्ट्तुत
किया - कवचारण न्यायालय िे आरोप पत्र एवं संिकलत सामग्री िा
अवलोिि िर अपराि िा संज्ञाि लेिे हेतु पयागप्त आिार पािर संज्ञाि
कलया - माििीय उच्चतम न्यायालय िे स्ट्टेट ऑफ र्ुिरात बिाम अफरोि
मोहम्मद हसिफत्ता (िीचे) में प्रकतपाकदत किया कि समि िारी िरते समय
मकिस्ट्रेट िो िेवल कशिायत एवं सहायि साक्ष्यों िे आिार पर यह
संतोष िरिा होता है कि अकर्युक्त िे कवरुद्ध िायगवाही हेतु आिार है,
आदेश में िारण अंकित िरिा आवश्यि िहीं है - इसिे अलावा िहााँ
पुकलस कववेचिा िे उपरांत आरोप पत्र प्रस्ट्तुत िरती है, वहााँ न्यायालय िो
आरोप पत्र, र्वाहों िे बयाि एवं संिकलत साक्ष्यों िा पररशीलि िरिे िा
अवसर प्राप्त होता है। अतः पुकलस ररपोटग पर आिाररत मामलों में
आदेकशिा िारी िरते समय न्यायालय िो िारण दशागिे िी आवश्यिता
िहीं होती - अकर्कििागररत, इस पररप्रेक्ष्य में, आलोच्य आदेश कदिांि
07.09.2016 कवकिसम्मत है तथा अकर्युक्त िी अिुपकस्ट्थकत में र्ैर-
िमािती वारंट िारी िरिे में र्ी िोई अवैिाकििता िहीं है - अतः प्राथगिा
पत्र बलहीि है। (पैरा 3, 5, 8, 9)

आवेदि किस्ट्ताररत I (E-13)

प्रोद्धृत मामलों िी सूची:

1. स्टेट ऑफ गुजराि राज्य बनाम अफरोज मोहम्मि हसनफिा 2019 20
एससीसी. 539

2. सिेन्र कुमार अांविल बनाम सी.बी.आई. (2021) 10 एस.सी.सी.
773

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. प्रार्थी के विद्िान अधििक्ता डा.
पूजा ससिंह तर्था राज्य सरकार के विद्िान
अधििक्ता श्री पुनीत कुमार यादि को सुना
तर्था पत्रािली का अिलोकन ककया।

2. िारा 482 दण्ड प्रकिया सिंहहता के
अन्तगगत प्रस्तुत इस प्रार्थगना पत्र द्िारा
प्रार्थी ने प्रर्थम सूचना ररपोटग सिंख्या 559
सन 2015 अन्तगगत िारा 420 िा०दिं०सिं०
एििं आरोप पत्र के अन्तगगत िारा 419,
120B िा०दिं० सिं०, र्थाना मडडयाि जनपद
लखनऊ के अनुिम में प्रस्तुत आरोप पत्र