# Jeeshan @ Jeeshan Ansari v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 594
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-01
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 17844 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jeeshan-jeeshan-ansari-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46642
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A.G.A.

A.
Criminal
matter
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482, 311 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) -
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012-Section 3/4- challenge to-dismissal
of application u/s 311 seeking recall of the
witness-examination
of
chief
and
crossexamination of the victim was recorded on the
same date-application filed only with a view to
delay the proceedings despite the proceedings
being under the POCSO Act, requires to be
concluded expeditiously-the power to summon
material witnesses u/s 311 Cr.P.C. confer a
very wide power on the courts for summoning
witnesses
and
accordingly
the
discretion
conferred is to be exercised judiciously -The
determinative factor in this regard would be
whether the summoning or recalling of the
witness is in fact, essential to the just decision
of the case keeping in view that fair trial which
entails the interests of the accused, victim, and
of the society-No material error or illegality is
found
in
the
exercise
of
the
aforesaid
discretion by the court below.(Para 1 to 27)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the issue for taking cognizance and summoning
the applicants and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law keeping in view the
observations made by this Court as well as the
direction contained in the judgments referred to
above within a period of two months from the
date of production of a certified/computer
generated copy of this order.
----------
(2021)12ILR A594
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 17844 of 2021

Jeeshan @ Jeeshan Ansari ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Mohammad Waseem, Sri M.P. Singh Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A.
Criminal
matter
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482, 311 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) -
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012-Section 3/4- challenge to-dismissal
of application u/s 311 seeking recall of the
witness-examination
of
chief
and
crossexamination of the victim was recorded on the
same date-application filed only with a view to
delay the proceedings despite the proceedings
being under the POCSO Act, requires to be
concluded expeditiously-the power to summon
material witnesses u/s 311 Cr.P.C. confer a
very wide power on the courts for summoning
witnesses
and
accordingly
the
discretion
conferred is to be exercised judiciously -The
determinative factor in this regard would be
whether the summoning or recalling of the
witness is in fact, essential to the just decision
of the case keeping in view that fair trial which
entails the interests of the accused, victim, and
of the society-No material error or illegality is
found
in
the
exercise
of
the
aforesaid
discretion by the court below.(Para 1 to 27)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ajmer Vs St. of U.P. (2021) 115 ACC 409

2. Manish Vs St. of U.P. & anr., Appl. u/s 482 No.
23428 of 2021

3. Mohanlal Shamji Soni Vs U.O.I . & anr, (1991) SCC
(Cri) 595

4. U.T. of Dadra & Nagar Haveli Vs Fatehsinh
Mohansinh Chauhan (2006) 7 SCC 529

5. Zahira Habibullah Shelkha (5) & anr. Vs St. of Guj.
& ors. (2006) 3 SCC 374

6. P. Sanjeeva Rao Vs St. of A.P.(2012) 7 SCC 56

7. Hoffman Andreas Vs Inspector of Customs (2000)
10 SCC 430

8. Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes Vs Erasmo
Jack de Sequeria (2012) 5 SCC 370

9. Natasha Singh Vs C.B.I .(2013) 5 SCC 741

10. Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs St. of Bih. & anr.(2013)
14 SCC 461

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri M.P. Singh Yadav, holding
brief of Sri Mohammad Waseem, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri Vinod Kant,
learned Additional Advocate General along with
Sri
Arvind
Kumar,
learned
Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the Stateopposite party.

2. The present application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking to quash the
11 All. Jeeshan @ Jeeshan Ansari Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
595
order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act)
Court No.1, District Bareilly in Special Case No.
10 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 154
of 2018 (State vs. Jeeshan) under Sections 363,
366, 376 (2) N IPC and Section 3/4 of Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20121,
Police Station Hafizganj, District Bareilly on the
application filed by the applicant under Section
311 Cr.P.C. dated 10.08.2021 and also to direct
the court below to re-consider the application
filed by the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
dated 10.08.2021.

3. The order dated 12.08.2021 dismissing
the application filed by the applicant herein
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has taken notice of
the fact that the examination-in-chief of PW-2
(victim) was recorded on 21.01.2021 and on the
same date the counsel for the accused-applicant
had cross-examined her. The court has also
recorded that the accused-applicant has sought
recall of the witness who has been already
examined on the earlier date as PW-2. It has also
been taken note that the cross-examination of the
other witnesses is continuing and information
regarding the questions which are sought to be
put to PW-2, can be elicited from the other
witnesses. Considering that the matter is pending
since the year 2018 an inference has been drawn
that the application filed under Section 311
Cr.P.C. is only to delay the proceedings. The
court below further taking note that the trial is
under POCSO Act which contains a provision
for concluding the proceedings expeditiously,
has concluded that there was no reason to allow
the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
seeking recall of the witness and accordingly the
same has been rejected.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General
supporting the order passed by the court below
has pointed out that the testimony of the PW-2
having already been recorded long back and no
plausible ground having been made out by the
accused-applicant for recall of the witness, the
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has
rightly been turned down. Learned Additional
Advocate General also points out that the
POCSO Act is a special Act which contains a
specific provision for expeditious disposal of
trial.

5. On the scope of powers to be exercised
under Section 311 Cr.P.C., reliance has been
placed on the decision of this Court in Ajmer
vs. State of U.P.2, and also a recent decision
dated 22.11.2021 in Manish vs. State of U.P.
and another3.

6. The facts as noticed by the court below
in the order dated 12.08.2021 whereunder the
application under Section 311 has been rejected,
indicate that the examination-in-chief of the
victim PW-2 was recorded on 29.01.2021 and
her cross-examination was also completed by
the counsel for the accused-applicant on the
same date. The court below has also noticed that
the questions which are proposed to put to the
aforesaid witness, as stated in the application
under Section 311, have already been put to the
witness earlier on behalf of the defence counsel.
Further, the fact that the cross-examination of
the other witnesses was still continuing and that
the information with regard to the age of the
brothers and sisters and other family members of
the victim could be elicited from them, has also
been taken into consideration to draw a
conclusion that the application under Section
311 had been filed only with a view to delay the
proceedings.

7. Another fact which has been taken note
of is that the matter is pending since the year
2018 and the proceedings being under the
POCSO Act, the same were required to be
concluded expeditiously.

8. In this regard, it would be relevant to take
notice of the fact that the POCSO Act has been
596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
enacted as a self contained comprehensive
legislation interalia to provide for protection of
children from the offences of sexual assault, sexual
harassment and pornography with due regard for
safeguarding the interest and well being of the child
at every stage of the judicial process, incorporating
child-friendly procedures for reporting, recording of
evidence, investigation and trial of offences and
provision for establishment of Special Court for
speedy trial of such offences.

9. The relevant provisions of the POCSO Act,
which shall shortly be referred to, are being
extracted below:-

"28. Designation of Special Courts.-
(1) For the purposes of providing a speedy trial,
the State Government shall in consultation with the
Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in
the Official Gazette, designate for each district, a
Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the
offences under the Act:

Provided that if a Court of Session is
notified
as
a
children's
court
under
the
Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act,
2005 or a Special Court designated for similar
purposes under any other law for the time being in
force, then, such court shall be deemed to be a
Special Court under this section.

(2) While trying an offence under this
Act, a Special Court shall also try an offence other
than the offence referred to in sub-section (1)],
with which the accused may, under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, be charged at the same
trial.

(3) The Special Court constituted under
this Act, notwithstanding anything in the
Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000),
shall have jurisdiction to try offences under section
67-B of that Act in so far as it relates to publication
or transmission of sexually explicit material
depicting children in any act, or conduct or manner
or facilitates abuse of children online.

33. Procedure and powers of Special
Court.- (1) A Special Court may take
cognizance of any offence, without the accused
being committed to it for trial, upon receiving a
complaint of facts which constitute such offence,
or upon a police report of such facts.

(2) The Special Public Prosecutor, or as
the case may be, the counsel appearing for the
accused shall, while recording the examination-inchief, cross-examination or re-examination of the
child, communicate the questions to be put to the
child to the Special Court which shall in turn put
those questions to the child.

(3) The Special Court may, if it considers
necessary, permit frequent breaks for the child
during the trial.

(4) The Special Court shall create a
child-friendly atmosphere by allowing a family
member, a guardian, a friend or a relative, in
whom the child has trust or confidence, to be
present in the court.

(5) The Special Court shall ensure that
the child is not called repeatedly to testify in the
court.

(6) The Special Court shall not permit
aggressive questioning or character assassination
of the child and ensure that dignity of the child is
maintained at all times during the trial.

(7) The Special Court shall ensure that
the identity of the child is not disclosed at any
time during the course of investigation or trial:

Provided that for reasons to be
recorded in writing, the Special Court may
permit such disclosure, if in its opinion such
disclosure is in the interest of the child.
11 All. Jeeshan @ Jeeshan Ansari Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
597

Explanation.- For the purposes of this
sub-section, the identity of the child shall
include the identity of the child's family, school,
relatives,
neighbourhood
or
any
other
information by which the identity of the child
may be revealed.

(8) In appropriate cases, the Special
Court may, in addition to the punishment, direct
payment of such compensation as may be
prescribed to the child for any physical or
mental trauma caused to him or for immediate
rehabilitation of such child.

(9) Subject to the provisions of this
Act, a Special Court shall, for the purpose of the
trial of any offence under this Act, have all the
powers of a Court of Session and shall try such
offence as if it were a Court of Session, and as
far as may be, in accordance with the procedure
specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973(2 of 1974) for trial before a Court of
Session.

35. Period for recording of evidence
of child and disposal of case.- (1) The
evidence of the child shall be recorded within
a period of thirty days of the Special Court
taking cognizance of the offence and reasons
for delay, if any, shall be recorded by the
Special Court.

(2) The Special Court shall complete
the trial, as far as possible, within a period of
one year from the date of taking cognizance
of the offence." (emphasis supplied)

10. The POCSO Act, which is a special
enactment, contains provisions for designation
of Special Courts under Chapter VII, and subsection (1) of Section 28 provides for
designation of a Court of Session to be a Special
Court for each district to try the offences under
the Act, for the purposes of providing a speedy
trial.

11. The procedure and powers of Special
Courts and recording of evidence is contained
under Chapter VIII of the POCSO Act. Section
33 (1) empowers the Special Court to take
cognizance of any offence, without the accused
being committed to it for trial, upon receiving a
complaint of facts which constitute such offence,
or upon a police report of such facts.

12. Section 35 is with regard to the period
for recording of evidence of child and disposal
of case, and sub-section (1) thereof mandates
that the evidence of the child shall be recorded
within a period of thirty days of the Special
Court taking cognizance of the offence and
reasons for delay, if any, shall be recorded by
the Special Court. Sub-section (2) of Section 35
provides that the Special Court shall complete
the trial, as far as possible, within a period of
one year from the date of taking cognizance of
the offence.

13. It would be seen that the POCSO
Act has been enacted as a self contained
comprehensive legislation to provide for
protecting of children from the sexual
assault, sexual harassment and pornography
with due regard for safeguarding the interest
and well being of the child at every stage of
the judicial process, incorporating childfriendly procedures for reporting, recording
of evidence, investigation and trial of
offences and also provision for establishment
of Special Courts for speedy trial of such
offences.

14. One of the principal objectives of
enactment of the POCSO Act as a special Act
being for providing a special procedure to ensure
speedy trial so as to protect the children in
respect of certain specified offences, the
provisions of the enactment would have to be
interpreted in a manner so as to effectuate the
object of the enactment and not to frustrate the
same.
598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. Having regard to the aforesaid, the
conclusion drawn by the court below with regard
to the application under Section 311 having been
filed so as to delay the proceedings, cannot be
said to be without basis in view of the object of
ensuring the speedy trial under the special Act.

16. As regards, the nature and scope of the
power of the court to summon, examine, recall
and re-examine any witness in the context of
Section 311 Cr.P.C., the said provision (and also
the corresponding provision as contained in
Section 540 of the Old Code of 1898) was
subject matter of consideration in Mohanlal
Shamji Soni v Union of India and another4,
and it was held that the power in this regard is in
the widest terms exercisable at any stage so long
as the court is in seisin of the proceeding as may
be considered essential for a just decision of the
case.

17. In U.T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli v
Fatehsinh
Mohansinh
Chauhan5,
while
considering the power of the court to summon
material witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C., it
was opined that the said power can be exercised
only with the object of finding out the truth or
obtaining proper proof of facts which may lead
to a just and correct decision.

18. The nature, scope and object of Section
311 Cr.P.C. came to be extensively discussed in
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) and another v
State of Gujarat and others6, and a view was
taken that the underlying object of the provision
is that there may not be failure of justice on
account of mistake of either party in bringing the
valuable
evidence
on
record
or
leaving
ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses
examined from either side.

19. A similar view was reiterated in P.
Sanjeeva Rao v State of A.P.7, after referring
to the earlier decisions in Hoffman Andreas v
Inspector of Customs8, Mohanlal Shamji
Soni v Union of India4 and Maria Margarida
Sequeria Fernandes v Erasmo Jack de
Sequeria9.

20. Considering the scope and object of
Section 311 Cr.P.C. in Natasha Singh v CBI10,
it was held that the power conferred is to be
invoked by the court only in order to meet the
ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons, and
the same must be exercised with great caution
and circumspection.

21. The nature and scope of the powers to
be exercised by the court under Section 311
Cr.P.C. was elaborately considered in the case of
Rajaram Prasad Yadav v State of Bihar and
another11 and after considering the earlier
precedents, the principles to be followed by the
courts with regard to exercise of powers under
the said section have been explained and
enumerated. It has been stated thus:-

"14. A conspicuous reading of Section
311 CrPC would show that widest of the powers
have been invested with the courts when it
comes to the question of summoning a witness
or to recall or re-examine any witness already
examined. A reading of the provision shows that
the expression "any" has been used as a prefix to
"court", "inquiry", "trial", "other proceeding",
"person as a witness", "person in attendance
though not summoned as a witness", and
"person already examined". By using the said
expression "any" as a prefix to the various
expressions mentioned above, it is ultimately
stated that all that was required to be satisfied by
the court was only in relation to such evidence
that appears to the court to be essential for the
just decision of the case...It is, therefore,
imperative that the invocation of Section 311
CrPC and its application in a particular case can
be ordered by the court, only by bearing in mind
the object and purport of the said provision,
namely, for achieving a just decision of the case
as noted by us earlier. The power vested under
11 All. Jeeshan @ Jeeshan Ansari Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
599
the said provision is made available to any court
at any stage in any inquiry or trial or other
proceeding initiated under the Code for the
purpose of summoning any person as a witness or
for examining any person in attendance, even
though not summoned as witness or to recall or
re-examine any person already examined. Insofar
as recalling and re-examination of any person
already examined, the court must necessarily
consider and ensure that such recall and reexamination of any person, appears in the view of
the court to be essential for the just decision of
the case. Therefore, the paramount requirement is
just decision and for that purpose the essentiality
of a person to be recalled and re-examined has to
be ascertained. To put it differently, while such a
widest power is invested with the court, it is
needless to state that exercise of such power
should be made judicially and also with extreme
care and caution.

x x x

17. From a conspectus consideration of
the above decisions, while dealing with an
application under Section 311 CrPC...we feel the
following principles will have to be borne in mind
by the courts:

17.1. Whether the court is right in
thinking that the new evidence is needed by it?
Whether the evidence sought to be led in under
Section 311 is noted by the court for a just decision
of a case?

17.2. The exercise of the widest
discretionary power under Section 311 CrPC
should ensure that the judgment should not be
rendered on inchoate, inconclusive speculative
presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of justice
would be defeated.

17.3. If evidence of any witness
appears to the court to be essential to the just
decision of the case, it is the power of the court
to summon and examine or recall and reexamine any such person.

17.4. The exercise of power under
Section 311 CrPC should be resorted to only
with the object of finding out the truth or
obtaining proper proof for such facts, which will
lead to a just and correct decision of the case.

17.5. The exercise of the said power
cannot be dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a
prosecution
case,
unless
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case make it apparent that
the exercise of power by the court would result
in causing serious prejudice to the accused,
resulting in miscarriage of justice.

17.6. The wide discretionary power
should be exercised judiciously and not
arbitrarily.

17.7. The court must satisfy itself that
it was in every respect essential to examine such
a witness or to recall him for further
examination in order to arrive at a just decision
of the case.

17.8. The object of Section 311 CrPC
simultaneously imposes a duty on the court to
determine the truth and to render a just decision.

17.9.
The
court
arrives
at
the
conclusion that additional evidence is necessary,
not because it would be impossible to pronounce
the judgment without it, but because there would
be a failure of justice without such evidence
being considered.

17.10. Exigency of the situation, fair
play and good sense should be the safeguard,
while exercising the discretion. The court should
bear in mind that no party in a trial can be
foreclosed from correcting errors and that if
proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant
600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
material was not brought on record due to any
inadvertence, the court should be magnanimous
in permitting such mistakes to be rectified.

17.11. The court should be conscious
of the position that after all the trial is basically
for the prisoners and the court should afford an
opportunity to them in the fairest manner
possible. In that parity of reasoning, it would be
safe to err in favour of the accused getting an
opportunity
rather
than
protecting
the
prosecution against possible prejudice at the
cost of the accused. The court should bear in
mind that improper or capricious exercise of
such a discretionary power, may lead to
undesirable results.

17.12. The additional evidence must
not be received as a disguise or to change the
nature of the case against any of the party.

17.13. The power must be exercised
keeping in mind that the evidence that is likely
to be tendered, would be germane to the issue
involved and also ensure that an opportunity of
rebuttal is given to the other party.

17.14. The power under Section 311
CrPC must therefore, be invoked by the Court
only in order to meet the ends of justice for
strong and valid reasons and the same must be
exercised
with
care,
caution
and
circumspection. The court should bear in mind
that fair trial entails the interest of the accused,
the victim and the society and, therefore, the
grant of fair and proper opportunities to the
persons concerned, must be ensured being a
constitutional goal, as well as a human right."

22. The power to summon material
witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. which
falls under Chapter XXIV containing the
general provisions as to inquiries and trials has
been held to confer a very wide power on the
courts
for
summoning
witnesses
and
accordingly the discretion conferred is to be
exercised judiciously as wider the power the
greater is the necessity for application of
judicial mind.

23. The power conferred has been held to
be discretionary and is to enable the court to
determine the truth after discovering all relevant
facts and obtaining proper proof thereof to arrive
at a just decision in the case. The power
conferred under Section 311 is to be invoked by
the court to meet the ends of justice, for strong
and valid reasons and it is to be exercised with
great
caution
and
circumspection.
The
determinative factor in this regard would be
whether the summoning or recalling of the
witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of
the case keeping in view that fair trial - which
entails the interests of the accused, the victim
and of the society - is the main object of the
criminal procedure and the court is to ensure that
such fairness is not hampered or threatened in
any manner.

24. The aforementioned legal position has
been discussed in detail in a recent decision of
this court in Ajmer vs. State of U.P.2 and
Manish Vs. State of U.P. and another3.

25. Counsel for the applicant has not been
able to dispute the aforestated legal position with
regard to the scope of the powers of the court
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and has not been able
to point out any material error or illegality in the
exercise of the aforesaid discretion by the court
below, which may warrant interference.

26. Having regard to the aforesaid, this
Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the
facts of the case.

27. The application stands accordingly
dismissed.
----------
11 All. Mohit Srivastava Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
601
(2021)12ILR A601
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 19058 of 2021
AND
Application U/S 482 No. 20723 of 2021

Mohit Srivastava ...Applicant
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vinayak Mithal, Sri Sagar Mehrotra, Sri Dileep
Kumar (senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Ishwar Kumar Upadhyay, Sri G.S.
Chaturvedi (Senior Adv.)

A.
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860-Sections 120, 120-B 427, 436 -
quashing
of
entire
proceeding-AC
was
fitted in the hotel and it got disturbed
again
and
again
and
the
same
was
guaranteed by the Company-mechanic was
sent by the company to get it repaired-it is
stated that it got short circuit due to supply
of oxygen instead of nitrogen-but after
examination of all witnesses it is found
that there was no error committed by the
applicants in repairing AC nor the fire
ablazed in the hotel due to inadvertant
mistake
of
the
company's
mechanicLearned court below committed material
error
or
illegality
while
passing
the
summoning
order-the
same
is
set
aside.(Para 1 to 22)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Vijay Dhanuka & ors. Vs Najima Mamtaj & ors.
(2014) 14 SCC 638
2. Abhijit Pawar Vs Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar &
anr. (2017) 3 SCC 528

3. National Bank of Oman Vs Barakara Abdul Aziz &
anr. (2013) 2 SCC 488

4. Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs Khazir Mohammad Tunda
& ors. (2015) 12 SCC 420

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary, J.)

1& vkosnd eksfgr JhokLro dh vksj ls /kkjk 482
na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr vkosnu i= la0 19058 lu 2021]
ifjokn okn la0 2264 lu 2019] vUrxZr /kkjk 120] 427]
436 Hkk0na0fo0] Fkkuk QsQuk] ftyk cfy;k esa eq[; U;kf;d
eftLVzsV] cfy;k }kjk ikfjr rych vkns'k fn0 18&8&2021
dh dk;Zokgh rFkk ifjokn okn dh laiw.kZ dk;Zokgh dks
vikLr djus gsrq nk;j fd;k x;k gSA

2& vkosnd jkgqy flag dh vksj ls /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0
ds vUrxZr vkosnu i= la0 20723 lu 2021] ifjokn okn
la0 2264 lu 2019] vUrxZr /kkjk 120&ch] 427] 436
Hkk0na0fo0] Fkkuk QsQuk] ftyk cfy;k esa eq[; U;kf;d
eftLVzsV]cfy;k }kjk ikfjr rych vkns'k fn0 18&8&2021
dh dk;Zokgh rFkk ifjokn okn dh laiw.kZ dk;Zokgh dks
vikLr djus gsrq nk;j fd;k x;k gSA

3& nksuksa oknksa esa mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa dk
dFku gS fd mijksDr nksuksa oknksa dh ?kVuk] ifjokn okn rFkk
izlaKku@rych vkns'k leku gSa] blfy, nksuksa oknksa dks ,d
lkFk lac) djrs gq, mudh lquokbZ ,oa fuLrkj.k ,d lkFk
dj fn;k tk;A

4& mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa ds dFkuksa ,oa
ekeys ds rF;ksa dks ns[krs gq, bu nksuksa oknksa dks ,d lkFk
lac) fd;k tkrk gS rFkk mudh lquokbZ ,oa fuLrkj.k ,d
lkFk fd;k tk jgk gSA

5& vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k us viuk&viuk
iwjd 'kiFki= izLrqr fd;k] mUgsa muds i=kofy;ksa ij j[kk
tk;A

6& vkosnu i= la0 19058 lu 2021 esa vkosnd
eksfgr JhokLro ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k loZJh fouk;d
feRFky ,oa lkxj esgjks=k rFkk muds ofj"B vf/koDrk Jh
fnyhi dqekj] foi{kh la0 2 ds fo}ku ofj"B vf/koDrk Jh
xksiky prqosZnh rFkk foi{kh la0 1 m0 iz0 jkT; dh vksj ls
Jh vfer flag pkSgku fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk dks
lquk rFkk i=koyh dk ifj'khyu fd;kA