# Noor Fatima v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 278
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-11
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/noor-fatima-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48175
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 372 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364, 302 &
201 - circumstantial evidence - limitations
of exercise of power of scrutiny by the
High Court in an appeal against an order
of acquittal passed by a Trial Court -
unless the High Court finds that there is
complete
misreading
of
the
material
evidence which has led to miscarriage of
justice, the view taken by the trial court
which can also possibly be a correct view,
need not be interfered with.(Para -22 )

(B) Criminal Law - Indian Evidence Act,
1872 - circumstantial evidence - motive
alone in the absence of any other
circumstantial evidence would not be
sufficient to convict the appellant - settled
principle of law that an accused person
cannot be penalized only on the basis of
motive.(Para -17,20)

Respondents-accused charged for committing
an offence - kidnapping or abducting in order to
murder - informant gave typed information to
the Superintendent of Police - allegation -
Respondent no. 2 and 3 abducted her son along
3 All. Noor Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
279
with their companions - they have killed her son
- Trial Court held - case is based on
circumstantial evidence, motive for committing
the murder assumes much significance -
acquitted all accused persons for charges
leveled against them - hence appeal.

HELD:-Judgment of the Trial Court acquitting
accused the persons based on a proper
appreciation of the evidence and findings of the
court below are not perverse and it needs no
interference by Court. No sufficient grounds for
admitting the appeal. Appeal dismissed
summarily at the stage of admission. (Para -
23,24)
Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
having spikes (kantedar) and thus will
leave different cut marks on the body.

15. In such view of the matter, we
find that the court below has rightly held
that the weapon used could not be
connected with the offence. We, therefore,
in such circumstances, are of the opinion
that it is a case of circumstantial evidence,
where the chain of circumstances were not
so complete so as to arrived at the
conclusion that the accused persons have
committed the offence by using the weapon
allegedly recovered.

16. We also find that the motive
attributed is extremely weak, which is
stated to be of the year 2003, whereas the
incident is of the year 2011, that too in
relation to daughter of the informant and
niece
of
the
deceased.
The
other
circumstantial evidence are only to the
extent that the dead body was found in a
field and except the bald statement of P.W.-
1 to the extent that the accused persons
were coming from the direction of the spot,
where dead body was found and recovery
of alleged weapon which, infact, could not
be connected with the crime, having been
made after two months, there is no other
evidence, we do not find that the findings
recorded by the trial court are perverse in
nature so as to warrant any interference by
this Court in exercise of the powers under
Section 384 Cr.P.C.

17. In the totality of circumstances,
we find that the trial court has taken
possible view of the matter on appreciation
of the evidence and we do not find that it is
a fit case for interference in the judgment
of trial court.

18. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2022)03ILR A278
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Appl. u/s 372 Cr.P.C.
(Leave To Appeal) No. 452 of 2018

Noor Fatima ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Parvez Alam, Sri Akash Deep Srivastava

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

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 372 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364, 302 &
201 - circumstantial evidence - limitations
of exercise of power of scrutiny by the
High Court in an appeal against an order
of acquittal passed by a Trial Court -
unless the High Court finds that there is
complete
misreading
of
the
material
evidence which has led to miscarriage of
justice, the view taken by the trial court
which can also possibly be a correct view,
need not be interfered with.(Para -22 )

(B) Criminal Law - Indian Evidence Act,
1872 - circumstantial evidence - motive
alone in the absence of any other
circumstantial evidence would not be
sufficient to convict the appellant - settled
principle of law that an accused person
cannot be penalized only on the basis of
motive.(Para -17,20)

Respondents-accused charged for committing
an offence - kidnapping or abducting in order to
murder - informant gave typed information to
the Superintendent of Police - allegation -
Respondent no. 2 and 3 abducted her son along
3 All. Noor Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
279
with their companions - they have killed her son
- Trial Court held - case is based on
circumstantial evidence, motive for committing
the murder assumes much significance -
acquitted all accused persons for charges
leveled against them - hence appeal.

HELD:-Judgment of the Trial Court acquitting
accused the persons based on a proper
appreciation of the evidence and findings of the
court below are not perverse and it needs no
interference by Court. No sufficient grounds for
admitting the appeal. Appeal dismissed
summarily at the stage of admission. (Para -
23,24)
Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Heera Lal & ors. Vs St. of U.P., 2011 (8) ADJ
189 = 2011 (75) ACC 8

2. Sampath Kumar Vs Inspector of Police,
(2012) 4 SCC 124

3. Jayamma Vs St. of Karna., 2021 (6) SCC 213

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

1. Heard Sri Akash Deep Srivastava,
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Ratan Singh, learned AGA for the State on
admission of the appeal and perused the
record.

2. The respondents-accused were
charged for committing an offence under
Section 364, 302 and 201 IPC in Case
Crime No.56 of 2012, P.S. South, District,
Firozabad.

3. The prosecution case, briefly
stated, is that on 07.01.2012, the informant
Noor Fatima gave a typed information to
the Superintendent of Police, firozabad
stating that her son Furkan had enticed
away Sindal daughter of Late Khalil and
had married her after running away from
the home. Danish (respondent no.2) brother
of Sindal used to keep animosity from the
informant's son and Danish forcibly took
away his sister Sindal from the informant's
house.
Thereafter
he
got
a
forged
Talaknama prepared. It is alleged that
Danish used to beat and threaten the
informant's son. On 1.1.2012 at about 08:00
P.M., informant's son Furkan received a
call on his mobile no. 7417110595 and
when she asked her son that who had made
phone call, she said that Zubair alias
Chapta (respondent no.3) had made the
phone call and he left home. Nadeem son
of Manjoor and Irfan son of Zahid had seen
Furkan with Zubair alias Chapta at Urvashi
Chauraha at 08:30 P.M. and Danish was
also standing there at a short distance.
Since then informant's son did not return
home. The informant alleged that Danish
and Zubair alias Chapta have abducted her
son along with their companions and they
have killed her son. During trial, as many
as nine witnesses were produced by the
prosecution to prove its case. Accused
produced Mohd. Monis as D.W.-1. The
learned Trial Court has stated that as the
case is based on circumstantial evidence,
motive for committing the murder assumes
much significance. The informant Noor
Fatima (P.W.1) has stated in the FIR that
her son had enticed away and married
Danish's sister Sindal and due to this
Danish used to keep animosity against
Furkan. Danish is a man of criminal nature.
Along with his accomplices, Danish
threatened and forcibly took away Sindal
from the informant's house and he got a
fictious Talaknama prepared. However, in
her cross examination, P.W.1 stated that
Danish or any member of his family did not
register any case against Furkan. She
expressed ignorance regardding whether
both the families were at talking terms or
whether there was any tension between
their families.
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. Analyzing the statements of the
witnesses to ascertain the motive for
committing the offence, the learned Trial
Court held that as the informant herself
stated that Danish had pressurised his sister
and she had been taken away to her home,
the motive for murder could have vanished.
But at this stage it cannot be denied that he
might be having some annoyance for the
reasons that the deceased had taken away
his sister and had married her. Therefore,
Danish had a motive to kill the deceased.

5. The deceased is said to have gone
missing on 01.01.2012 and the informant
reported matter to the Superintendent of
Police, Firozabad on 07.01.2012. The
Superintendent of Police instructed the
Sub-Inspector concerned to lodge an FIR
on
the
same
day.
Even
after
the
superintendent of Police had issued a
direction for lodging the FIR on 07.01.2012
and had handed over the application to the
informant herself, she did not go to the
police station till as late as on 15.01.2012.
The explanation given by the informant
that the accused persons used to threaten
her, was not found to be believable as she
clearly stated that she kept on visiting the
police station and when the police did not
register her report, she had submitted the
application to the Superintendent of Police.
Taking into consideration all these facts,
the learned court below recorded a finding
that in spite of the Superintendent of Police
having issued a direction for registration of
the FIR on 07.01.2012, the failure of the
informant to lodge the FIR for eight more
days clearly indicates that the informant
has lodged the FIR with delay, for which
no explanation has been given by her.

6. In the present case, there is no
direct evidence to prove the guilt of the
accused persons and it is a case of
circumstantial evidence. It is obligatory
upon the prosecution to form a chain of
circumstances so complete that there is
no evidence from the conclusion that the
crime was committed by the accused
persons. The informant alleged that the
deceased Furkan had received a phone
call on his mobile no. 7417110595 and he
told him that Zubair alias Chapta had
made
the
phone
call.
Furkan
left
immediately after receiving the call.
However, the Investigating Officer did
not obtain call details record of the
mobile number of the deceased, which
was a serious error in carrying out
investigation of the case and due to which
it cannot be ascertained as to whether the
accused Zubair alias Chapta had made a
phone call on the number of the deceased
or not and no finding to this effect could
be recorded in absence of the call details
record.

7. Regarding the allegation that the
deceased was last seen with the accused
persons, learned Trial Court analysed the
statement of the prosecution witnesses and
found that there were serious contradictions
in the statements of P.W.2 Irfan. In his
cross examination, P.W.2 stated that on
01.01.2012, he and his uncle Nadeem had
seen the deceased with Zubair alias Chapta
and Danish was standing at some distance.
P.W.2- Irfan stated that after returning from
the godown he had gone to his uncle's
home without having his dinner. He stated
that when he returned from the godown,
Furkan was at his residence. After returning
from the godown he had dinner but Furkan
did not eat with him. At one place he stated
that Furkan left hom after he had gone from
there while at another place he stated that
Furkan left in his presence wearing grey
colour pants. Then P.W.2- Irfan has made
self-contradictory statements in his cross
3 All. Noor Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
281
examination due to which the learned Trial
Court has found his statements notworthy
of belief.

8. P.W.2-Irfan stated that when he last
saw Furkan with the accused Zubair alias
Chapta, Nadeem was also there but the
prosecution did not examine Nadeem as
witness.

9. The prosecution relied upon a decision
of the High Court in Heera Lal and others
vs. State of U.P., 2011 (8) ADJ 189 = 2011
(75) ACC 8, in which the High Court has held
that "the prosecution is not bound to produce
all the ocular witnesses to prove a paticular
fact. It is the quality and not quantity of
evidence which matters more in criminal cases
to prove a particular fact. No adverse
interference can be drawn against the
prosecution on the ground of non-examination
of other ocular witnesses of the incident."
However, as in the evidence must be
corroborated
by
examination
of
an
independent witness. In the present case,
P.W.2- Irfan is the real brother of deceasedFurkan and as such, he is an interested witness
and there are material self contradictions in his
statement, the other witness Nadeem ought to
have been examined by the prosecution but it
has not been done. P.W.-3, Afsar has also
stated that he did not see the deceased-Furkan
with the accused persons. He stated that
although he saw the deceased-Furkan for the
last time on 01.01.2012 but does not recognize
the persons, who were sitting with the
deceased-Furkan.
After
examining
and
analyzing the statements of prosecution
witnesses, the learned Trial Court came to a
conclusion that the prosecution could not
establish that the deceased was last seen with
the accused persons.

10. The prosecution case was that
after the arrest of accused persons on
15.01.2012 and on their pointing out the
knife used in the murder, the clothes of the
deceased, a skeleton and shoes were
recovered from Bhuda Nahar and the
deceased's brother P.W.-2-Irfan identified
the skeleton on the basis of his clothes and
no such evidence was produced by the
defence to doubt the identification of the
dead body of the deceased. However,
independent witness of recovery, P.W.-3
Afsar has stated that no knife was
recovered in his presence. P.W.-7 and
P.W.-9, the Investigating Officers have
stated that knives were not sent for forensic
examination. It could only be ascertained
by a forensic examination as to whether
there was human blood on the knives or not
but this has not been done by the
Investigating Officers. Further the sample
of soil from the place of alleged occurrence
has not been taken and sent for forensic
examination. For these reasons, the alleged
knives recovered cannot be connected with
the incident so as to prove that the same
were used in committing murder of the
deceased.

11. The skeleton received had some
flesh only on the toes of foot and there was
no flesh on any other part of the body. The
skeleton consisted of only skull, nose, the
bones of upper and lower jaws and there
were only 13 partial ribs and ten rings of
spinal cord and parts of the hip bones of
both sides.

12. The Investigating Officer P.W.-9
has stated that the skeleton was found in
the canal and there were a jacket, shoes and
socks on the skeleton. He has stated that in
both the sleeves of the jacket, some portion
of the hand were there which had been torn
away by the animals but this statement was
not supported by the statement of P.W.5Dr. Prakash Mohan, who carried out the
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
postmortem. He has stated that there were
no signs of animal bite on the skeleton.
P.W.-4,
Dr.
Suresh
Chandra
Mittal,
Government Medical Jurisprudence Expert
has stated that a dead body gets converted
into a skeleton within a period of one to
three months and it depends upon the place
from where the body is found. As per the
statement of P.W.-4, even the minimum
duration within which a dead body is
converted into a skeleton is one month. In
the present case, the period between
disappearance of the deceased and recovery
of skeleton is merely 15 days and it is not
possible that during this period a dead body
can get converted into skeleton having no
pieces of flesh on it.

13. The learned Trial Court has also
taken into consideration the fact that for
establishing that the skeleton recovered was
of the deceased-Furkan. It was incumbent
upon the prosecution to conduct a DNA test
which was not done in the present case.
P.W.-4 has stated that on the basis of X ray
only, he could not tell as to whether the
skull and the other body parts of the
skeleton were of the same person or not. He
further stated that, he ascertained the age of
the deceased from his skull. As the hip
bones were not complete and only a part of
which was found, the age of deceased
could not have been ascertained from the
hip bones. For ascertaining as to whether
the skull and the bones of the other parts of
body belonged to the same person, DNA
test was necessary, which was not done.

14. P.W-7 the Investigating Officer
has stated that requisite documents relating
to the skeleton were not sent to the forensic
laboratory and a report was prepared
merely on the basis of X-Ray. During this
period, the skeleton was kept in the police
station but no entry of this fact was made in
the general diary. In these circumstances,
there is an apprehension regarding proper
preservation of skeleton kept in the police
station as also against the identity of the
same to ascertain as to whether the skeleton
on which the postmortem was conducted
and the skeleton on which the X-Ray was
the same as was recovered in this case.
However, the prosecution could not prove
these facts.

15. Regarding the clothes and shoes
recovered with the skeleton, the learned
Trial Court has taken into consideration the
evidence on record and has observed that
the informant has not described that the
deceased was wearing the aforesaid clothes
when he left his home for the last time. In
the statement of the informant and Nadeem
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also
these persons did not give any information
regarding the clothes worn by the deceased.
The Investigating Officer has stated that the
jacket and jeans were present on the
skeleton
but
the
court
below
has
disbelieved this statement of Investigating
Officer on the ground that as per the
statements of the expert witnesses P.W.-4
and P.W.-5, the condition of the skeleton
was such as makes it impossible that it had
a jacket put on it and a jeans tied around its
waist.

16. Keeping in view the statement of
expert witnesses, the learned court below
came to a conclusion that the statement of
the Investigating Officer in this regard is
not believable. Even the other Investigating
Officer P.W.-9 has admitted that the jacket
was found near the body of the skeleton
and not on it. Moreover the clothes on the
basis of which the skeleton has been
identified to be of Furkan are only jacket,
jeans, shoes and socks but the other clothes
such as shirt, vest and sweater etc. have not
3 All. Noor Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
283
been recovered from the place of of
occurrence. After a thorough discussion of
these facts, learned Trial Court has came to
a conclusion that on the basis of the clothes
it cannot be held that the skeleton was of
the deceased-Furkan and while arriving at
this conclusion, the learned Trial Court has
also kept into consideration the fact that the
clothes which are said to have been
recovered from the place near the skeleton,
have not been produced before the court.

17. After a detail analysis of the entire
evidence, the learned Trial Court has arrived
at a finding that in a case based on
circumstantial evidence the prosecution has
failed to complete the chain of circumstances
implicating
the
accused
persons
for
committing the alleged offence. It is a settled
principle of law that an accused person
cannot be penalized only on the basis of
motive. The prosecution could not prove that
the deceased was last seen with the accused
persons. It could not establish that the
recovered skeleton was of the deceasedFurkan. As per the principles of medical
jurisprudence as well as the statement of the
expert witness, it was not possible that within
a period of 15 days from the disappearance of
the deceased, his body could have converted
into a skeleton having no flesh on it. The
DNA test of recovered skeleton was also not
conducted. So the prosecution could not
establish as to whether the skull and other
bones of the body of the recovered skeleton
were of the same person or not. There were
severe discrepancies in the statement of
clothes found from the place of occurrence.
Keeping in all these facts, the Trial Court has
recorded that it cannot be said that the
prosecution could not establish its case only
because of the defects in investigation and the
evidence adduced by the prosecution could
not establish even a single link of the chain to
prove the guilt of the accused persons.
Accordingly, the Trial Court acquitted all the
accused persons for the charges leveled
against them.

18. Sri Akash Deep Srivastava, learned
counsel for appellant has assailed the
aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal
mainly on the ground that the accused
persons had a motive for committing murder
of the deceased. He has also submitted that
the dead body of the deceased and the
weapon used in the murder were also
recovered at the pointing out of the accused
persons. The body of the deceased was
identified by the informant in presence of the
Investigating Officer. The sole ground for
acquittal of the accused persons is that the
prosecution did not get a DNA examination
conducted which was not required in as much
as the brother of the deceased had identified
the dead body of the deceased and, therefore,
there is no doubt regarding the identification
of the dead body of the deceased. His
submission is that when the prosecution has
clearly established the motive behind the
murder of the deceased, then merely because
of certain negligence during investigation by
the Investigating Officer, an order of acquittal
cannot be passed.

19. So far as the submission of
learned counsel for appellant that the
accused persons had a motive to commit
murder of the deceased, we may see that
although, in a case based on circumstantial
evidence, motive assumes significant, but
the existence of motive alone can hardly be
a ground for conviction in absence of other
material sufficient to establish a single link
of the chain to prove the guilt of the
accused persons.

20. In Sampath Kumar v. Inspector
of Police, (2012) 4 SCC 124, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court referred to and relied upon
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
its previous decisions and proceeded to
hold that motive alone can hardly be a
ground
for
conviction.
The
relevant
passage of the aforesaid judgment is as
follows: -

"29. In N.J. Suraj v. State the
prosecution case was based entirely upon
circumstantial evidence and a motive.
Having discussed the circumstances relied
upon by the prosecution, this Court rejected
the motive which was the only remaining
circumstance
relied
upon
by
the
prosecution stating that the presence of a
motive was not enough for supporting a
conviction, for it is well settled that the
chain of circumstances should be such as to
lead to an irresistible conclusion, that is
incompatible with the innocence of the
accused.

30. To the same effect is the
decision of this Court in Santosh Kumar
Singh v. State and Rukia Begum v. State of
Karnataka where this Court held that
motive alone in the absence of any other
circumstantial evidence would not be
sufficient
to
convict
the
appellant.
Reference may also be made to the decision
of this Court in Sunil Rai v. UT,
Chandigarh. This Court explained the legal
position as follows: (Sunil Rai case, SCC p.
266, paras 31-32)

"31. ... In any event, motive alone
can hardly be a ground for conviction.

32. On the materials on record,
there may be some suspicion against the
accused, but as is often said, suspicion,
howsoever strong, cannot take the place of
proof."

21. Regarding the second contention
of learned counsel for appellant that the
dead body and the weapon used in the
murder were recovered at the pointing out
of the accused persons and the body was
identified by the informant in presence of
the Investigating Officer, the learned court
below examined the evidence on record in
minute details and after a detal examination
of the same has recorded a finding that the
body recovered was merely a skeleton with
only traces of flesh on the toes of foot and
it was not possible that a dead body can be
converted into such a skeleton within a
short period of merely 15 days. Morever,
the skeleton was also not complete and the
P.W.4- Government Medical Jurisprudence
Expert stated that the hip bone was not
complete and age determination was not
possible from it. The age of the deceased
had been determined from the skeleton. It
could have been established as to whether
the skull and the remaining body of the
skeleton is of the same person or not, could
have been established only by a DNA test
which has not been done. Since, it is a case
based on circumstantial evidence, the
opinion of the expert witnesses namely
P.W.-4
the
Government
Medical
Jurisprudence Expert and P.W.-5, the
doctor who conducted the postmortem
examination of the dead body assumed a
greater significance. The statements of
witnesses regarding recovery of clothes are
also contradictory as the prosecution could
not establish the complete chain of
circumstances to establish the guilt of the
accused persons.

22. In Jayamma vs. State of
Karnataka, 2021 (6) SCC 213, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased
to explain the limitations of exercise of
power of scrutiny by the High Court in an
appeal against against an order of acquittal
passed by a Trial Court in the following
words:
3 All. Mohammad Sikandar Bhai Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
285

"The
power
of
scrutiny
exercisable by the High Court under
Section 378, CrPC should not be routinely
invoked where the view formed by the trial
court was a ''possible view'. The judgment
of the trial court cannot be set aside merely
because the High Court finds its own view
more probable, save where the judgment of
the trial court suffers from perversity or the
conclusions drawn by it were impossible if
there was a correct reading and analysis of
the evidence on record. To say it
differently, unless the High Court finds that
there is complete misreading of the
material evidence which has led to
miscarriage of justice, the view taken by
the trial court which can also possibly be a
correct view, need not be interfered with.
This self-restraint doctrine, of course, does
not denude the High Court of its powers to
re-appreciate the evidence, including in an
appeal against acquittal and arrive at a
different firm finding of fact."

23. After a thorough scrutiny of
statements of witnesses, we find that the
judgment of the Trial Court acquitting the
accused persons is based on a proper
appreciation of the evidence and the
findings of the court below are not perverse
and it needs no interference by this Court.

24. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we are of the view that there are
no sufficient ground for admitting the
appeal. The appeal is dismissed summarily
at the stage of admission.
----------
(2022)03ILR A285
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
Application U/S 482 No.617 of 2009

Mohammad Sikandar Bhai ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Dr. S.B. Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Mohamad Aslam Ansari

A. Civil Law - Negotiable Instrument Act,
1881 - Sections 138 & 142 - Application
preferred for quashing the summoning order
under NI Act.- Applicant issued 4 cheques. All
were dishonoured due to the fact that the
account of payee was closed.-Legal notice sent
to the applicant for making payment. O.P.
No.02 filed complaint before court below-
St.ment u/S 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. recordedSummons issued against applicant- After legal
notice of one month, 15 days' period for
committing the offence will start and thereafter
after expiry of 15 days, the offence is
completed and within one month if no
complaint filed, Magistrate is barred to take
cognizance of the complaint which is filed
beyond limitation period, if delay has not been
properly explained. Application allowed.

Application allowed. (E-12)

List of Cases cited:-
1. Prem Chandra Vijay Kumar Vs Yashpal Singh
& anr.

2. SII Import, USA Vs Exim Aides Silk Exporters
Bangalore

3. Sadanandan Bhadran Vs Madhavnan Sunil
Kumar (1998)6 SCC 514

(Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. Heard Dr. S.B. Singh, learned
counsel for the applicant and learned
A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1.
No one appears on behalf of opposite party
no.2, even in the revise call.