[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Dwarakanath.N vs Enforcement Officer Employees … on 3 May, 2025
KABC010128362024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-64) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 3rd day of May, 2025
: PRESENT :
Sri. I. P. Naik
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
Crl.A.No.861/2024
APPELLANT: Sri.Dwarakanath.N
(Accused No.2) Director, (former)
M/s. Mindrivers Systems India
Pvt., Ltd.,
#309, DS Max Sanskruthi,
K.Naraanapura Main Road,
Bengaluru-560 077.
(By Sri SHM. Adv)
-V/s-
RESPONDENT : Enforcement Officer,
(complainant) Employee's Provident Funds,
Crl.A.No.861/2024
2
Organization, Sub-Regional Office,
Bommanahalli,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan,
Annaporrnshwari Complex,
Survey No.37/1, 6th Main,
Singasandra,
Bengaluru-560 068.
Represented by:
Sri.Manjunath.S.
Enforcement Officer.
(By Sri.BUV- Adv)
*******
JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred this appeal against the
Judgment and order passed by the learned The Special
Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru in
C.C.No.282/2019 dated 25.04.2024. Hereinafter,
their rank is referred as per the their rank before the
Trial Court.
Crl.A.No.861/2024
3
2. The factual matrix of case:-
The accused No.1 is establishment within the
meaning of employers provident funds and miscella-
neous provision Act, 1962. Accused No. 2 to 4 are the
directors of the accused No.1 and also in charge of the
accused No.1. Accused No. 2 to 4 are responsible for
day to day business of the accused No.1. Accused are
required to pay the employees and employer’ contribu-
tion to the provident funds in respect of employees’ and
employer’s along with administrative charges from every
month within 15 days to the end of every month. The
accused have bound to pay the provident fund contri-
bution and administrative charges as per the chart be-
low:
Crl.A.No.861/2024
4Month & Year Employer’s share
01/2016 Rs.37,080/-
02/2016 Rs.36,012/-
03/2016 Rs.1,09,786/-
Total Rs.1,82,878/-
3. Initially issued notice to accused No.1 and demanded
payment of dues. The accused No.1 fails to deposit
amount dues. Thereafter, an inquiry was held before
competent officer/authority, said authority has passed
an order with direction to accused No.1 to deposit
amount by issuing notice, in spite of service of notice
accused have failed to pay/deposit the aforesaid
amount within stipulated time. Therefore, they have
committed the alleged offence punishable U/s.14-A and
14(1-B) of Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous
Provision Act. The representative of the Employees
Crl.A.No.861/2024
5provident fund Organization has filed complaint before
the Trial Court against accused persons.
4. The learned Trial Court after satisfied with materials
on record regarding allegations made against accused
in the complaint, took cognizance for said alleged of-
fence. Further, recording of the sworn statement has
been dispensed with the due to complainant is Govern-
ment servant.
5. On considering materials on record the learned Trial
Court opined that there is prima-facie case to proceed
against accused No.1 to 4. Accordingly, criminal case
has been registered against them in register-III and is-
sued notice. Accused No.1 is company, accused No.2 to
Crl.A.No.861/2024
6
4 are Directors of the accused No.1 Accused No.2 ap-
peared before the Trial Court through his counsel and
got enlarged on regular bail. Accused No. 3 has failed
to appear before the Trial Court. Accordingly, case
against them ordered to split up and separate case has
been registered against him.
6. Thereafter, one Manjunath examined on behalf of
the Department before recording charge/plea. There-
after plea has been recorded and read over to him. Ac-
cused No.2 has pleaded not guilt and claims to be tried.
Hence, case is posted for evidence.
7. In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.2,
PW.1 examined and tendered for examination before
Crl.A.No.861/2024
7
Trial Court. In support of of his oral evidence he has
produced 10 documents which are marked at Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.10. Thereafter statement of the accused is
recorded U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. accused No.2 has denied
the incriminating evidence and not chosen to lead his
evidence, he has produced memo with documents
(resignation latter, acknowledgment latter and DIR-
12) while recording of his statement U/s.313 of
8. On considering the oral and documentary evi-
dence and hearing of the parties, the learned Trial
Court has convicted the accused No.2 for alleged of-
fences and sentenced him to pay fine and compensa-
tion. The accused No.2 dis-agreed and dis-satisfied
with the said Judgment, preferred the appeal on the fol-
Crl.A.No.861/2024
8
lowing grounds that, the impugned Judgment and or-
der is not in accordance with law and facts. The Trial
Court has not properly ordered at the time of taking
cognizance and passing Judgment in question. The
Trial Court not considered the defence taken by the ac-
cused No.2.
9. Further contented that accused No.2 has not at all
the Director of the said department and he is not liable
to pay contribution to the Provident fund and adminis-
trative charges. He is not responsible for day to day
business. This aspect is not at all considered by the
Trial Court. The approach of the Trial Court is wrong.
The reasons assigned by the Trial Court lacks sufficient
materials and the documents placed by the com-
plainant Department with holds the important docu-
Crl.A.No.861/2024
9
ment. Therefore, it requires to draw an adverse infer-
ence against the Department. The Trial Court has
wrongly drawn an adverse inference U/s.305(6) of
CrPC. The Trial Court has wrongly convicted the ac-
cused No.2 based on vicarious liability.
10. The accused No.2 is nowhere connected to the day
to day affairs of the accused No.1. He was not at all the
Directors of the accused No.1 company. The impugned
Judgment and order is liable to be set aside by inter-
vening and interference by this court. Hence, prays to
allow the petition and set aside the impugned Judg-
ment and order of the Trial Court and acquit the ac-
cused No.2.
Crl.A.No.861/2024
10
11. After registration of the appeal, issued notice to the
respondent. In pursuant to notice, the respondent ap-
peared through his counsel .
12. Heard, both side.
13. The learned counsel for the accused No.2 urged
that in this case, notice as well as summons not served
on the accused No.1. Accused No.1 is a company. Ac-
cused No.2 was one of the Director. The accused No .2
has appeared in his personal capacity, he not repre-
sented by the accused No1 due to he is/was not direc-
tor of accused No.1 due to he tendered his resignation
from said post on 31.03.2016. The learned counsel for
the accused has drawn the attention of this court on
the documents produced along with the memo filed by
Crl.A.No.861/2024
11
the accused No.2 wile recording of statement U/s.313
of Cr.P.C It is specific case of the accused No.2 that he
has submitted resignation on 31.03.2016 from the post
of Director ship fo the accused No.1 Company. On the
same day the resignation submitted by the accused
No.2 is accepted by the Board of Directors of the ac-
cused No.1 company. This fact reveal form the acknowl-
edgment letter issued by the accused No.1. Further, it
reveals that the resignation is also submitted in form
DIR-12. Therefore, the Trial Court has wrongly foisted
the vicarious liability on the accused No.2.
14. Further the learned counsel for the accused No.2
drawn the attention of this court regarding proceedings
held before the Assistant Provident Funds commis-
sioner, Bengaluru. The said notice as well as the pro-
Crl.A.No.861/2024
12
ceedings is not at all intimated to the accused No.2. An
officers of complainant department has issued notice to
accused No.1 company only. At the time of occurrence
of alleged crime, accused No.2 is at at all a Director was
not responsible director of Managing Director of the ac-
cused No.1 company. This aspect is not at all consid-
ered by the Trial Court. Therefore, accused No.2 is enti-
tled for acquittal.
15. The learned counsel for the accused No.2 urged
that there is lot of contradictions in the amount claimed
by the complainant Department. This aspect is not
proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it creates
serious doubt in the case. The accused No.2 is entitled
for benefit of doubt.
Crl.A.No.861/2024
13
16. The learned counsel for the accused No.2 urged
that the complainant Department have initiated 13 dif-
ferent cases have been registered against the accused
No.2. They have clubbed 3 months contribution and
filed one case. Accused No.2 never signed a Managing
Director of accused No.1 or is not responsible for the
day to day business of the accused No.1 company. The
learned counsel for the accused No.2 drawn the atten-
tion of this court on Ex.P.4. It discloses that one Anil
Kumar is in charge and responsible for conduct of the
business of the establishment/accused No.1 company.
But this person is not made as accused in this case.
Therefore, the Trial Court wrongly foisted the vicarious
liability on the accused No.2.
Crl.A.No.861/2024
14
17. The learned counsel for the accused No.2 urged
that the sanction order granted infavour of one Mr.
Manjunath is not at all working at the employees PF Di-
vision Koramangala. This aspect is unequivocally ad-
mitted in his cross-examination. Further, he has not at
all a competent person to institute this complaint. The
complaint is filed by S. Manjunath. Therefore, it is un-
acceptable defence.
18. In this case, the learned counsel for the accused
No.2 produced the documents passed by the Trial Court
in split up case registered against the accused No.3
wherein the Trial Court imposed fine only, There is no
sentence order against the accused No.3. The Trial
court has taken different contention in respect of the
same offence. The learned counsel for the accused No.2
Crl.A.No.861/2024
15
heavily drawn the attention of this court on the sen-
tence recorded by the trial court at the time of hearing
on sentence.
19. The learned counsel for the accused No.2 dr awn
the attention of this court regarding non existence of
the accused No.1 company. They have not conducted
legal inspection, they have wailfully withhold the rele-
vant materials before this court. Therefore, it requires
to draw an adverse inference against the complainant
Department. The Trial Court has wrongly drawn the
adverse inference against the accused No.1 company. In
this case, the learned counsel for the accused strongly
relied on the cross-examination of PW.1 dated
26.03.2024. He has not stated any answer regarding
non existence of the accused No.1 establishment. The
Crl.A.No.861/2024
16
said establishment was strucked off on 20.08.2017 vide
ORC/ notice No.1 in Form-STK-5. The PW.1 pleaded ig-
norance over this fact during cross-examination. The
Trial court has not at all considered all these aspects.
In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.2, the com-
plainant Department mainly relied on the Ex.P.3 to
Ex.P.7. There is no authenticated document or notices
issued to the accused No.1 company is served or not.
The said notice issued in the year 2019. At that time,
the accused No.1 company establishment was strucked
off. Therefore, the present complaint is hit by section
305(6) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, prays for allow the petition
and set aside the Judgment and order passed by the
Trial Court.
Crl.A.No.861/2024
17
20. The learned counsel for the accused has relied on
the following citation in support of his contention.
(2024) 3 SCR 657
Susela Padmavathu Amma Vs. M/s. Bharati Airtl Ltd.,
(2023) 8 SCC 473
Ashok Shewakramani & Ors Vs. State of A.P
(2021) 20 SCC 135
Dayle De’Souza Vs. Govt of India.
(2020) 3 SCC 240
Sushil Sethi & nr. Vs. State of A.P
(2019) 17 SCC 193
Shiv Kumar Jatia Vs. State of NCT of Delhi,
(2015) 12 SCC 781
Shard Kumar Sanghi (2016) 4 SCC609 Sunil Mittal Vs. CBI
(2012) 5 SCC 661 Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels.
(2013) 12 SCC 406
Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam
(2011) 2 SCC 532
Kalyan Kumar Gogoi Vs. Ashuthosh Agnihotri.
Crl.I.O.P.No.26587/2016
M/s. Marshall Sons and Company Vs. Guruswamy.
2005 LLJ B om 2 817
Sampth Vs. State of Maharashtra
1978 CalHN 336
Mahalderam Tea Estate(P) Ltd., Vs. D.N.Prochan
AIR 1971 SC 28
Giridhar Lai Gupta Vs. D.N. Mehta & Anr.
Crl.A.No.861/2024
18
21. As against this, the learned counsel for the com-
plainant Department urged that accused have willfully
failed to contribute and deposit amount as prescribed
under the Employees Provident Fund Act and its
Scheme . Accused No.2 claiming that he was not at all
aware about the proceedings held before the Assistant
Provident Fund Commissioner. One. Mr.Prashanth
represented on behalf of the accused No.1. According
to the resignation letter. The accused No.2 submitted
resignation letter on 31.03.2016 before that he was an
Director at relevant time. The claim of the complainant
Department is prior to 31.3.2016.
22. The learned counsel for the complainant Depart-
ment urged that one Prashanth represented on behalf
of the accused No.1 in the proceedings held before the
Crl.A.No.861/2024
19
Assistant PF Commissioner Sub Regional Office, Bom-
masandra, Bengaluru. This order is not challenged by
the accused persons before appellant authority. Said
order was passed on 09.08.2016. The said notice is
sent to the address of the accused No1. This is duly
served on them, as it reflects from Ex.P.8, demand no-
tice and another demand notice Ex.P.9. The accused
have willfully contributed to PF amount and adminis-
trative purpose.
23. The employees provident fund and Miscellaneous
Provision Act is social beneficial legislature. An em-
ployee of accused No.1 establishment cannot be de-
prived from their rights and benefits from their work
carried out with establishment. The plea recorded
against the accused No.2 is successfully proved by the
Crl.A.No.861/2024
20
complainant Department. The Trial Court has rightly
proved all these aspect and there is no grounds for in-
tervention and interference. Hence, prays to dismiss the
appeal.
24. In this case, there is no dispute that the accused
No.1 i.e., M/s. Mindrivers Systems India Pvt Ltd., was
in existence at relevant time/period i.e., amount was
not deposited within stipulated time.
25. By considering the above rival submission and en-
tire materials on record, the following points arise for
my consideration:
1. Whether the learned trial court has
wrongly foisted/extended the vicarious
Crl.A.No.861/2024
21liability of accused No.1 on accused
No.2.?
2. What order?
26. By considering the materials on record and
hearing of the parties, my answer to the above points
are as under:
Point No.1: in the Negative
Point No.2: As per final order
……………for the following;REASONS
POINT No.1
27. It is specific case of the a that, the accused No.1
M/s. Mindrivers Systems India Pvt Ltd., is established
as defined under the Employees Provident Funds,
Miscellaneous Provision Act. It is specific case that the
Crl.A.No.861/2024
22
accused No.2 and 3 are the directors of the accused
No.1 establishment.
28. The complainant’s specific contention is that the
accused No.1 and its Directors have not paid the
employees and employers PF amount for a period of 3
months from May 2015. Hence, the complainant
Department issued notice as per Ex.P.5 through RPAD
on 15.07.2016. Thereafter, proceeding held and passed
the order as per Ex.P.7 on 09.08.2016. This was also
intimated to the accused No.1 establishment through
registered post and also further issued notice to
defaultors as per Ex.P.9 on 30.08.2019. Thereafter,
present complaint lodged against the accused No.1 to 4
before the Trial Court.
Crl.A.No.861/2024
23
29. In order to prove the accusation made against the
accused No.1 & 2 one witness by name S. Manjunath is
examined as PW.1. PW.1 stated that he was working as
enforcement officer of EPFO Regional office,
Koramangala from July 2019 to May 2021. he further
stated that accused No.1 is private limited company.
Accused No.2 to 4 are Directors of the accused No.1.
The department has issued PF code
No.PY/BOM/1330438. The accused No.1 establishment
are company, it is bound to pay the employees and
employers contribution to Provident Funds and
Administrative charges from May 2015 to May 2016.
In this regard, they have issued notice and also held
proceedings against the accused No.1 and also issued
demand notice on defaultors.
Crl.A.No.861/2024
24
30. During cross-examination PW1 stated that from the
claim of the relevant period as 2015 to 2016. At that
time, PW1 was working as enforcement officer,
Bengaluru Central office, he was not in charge
Koramangala EPF Division, during the said relevant
period, wherein the accused No.1 or establishment was
situated.
31. Further, PW1 stated that he was not aware about
accused No.1 company. Further at the time of inquiry
and default period he was not working in Koramangala
EPF Division. Further stated that on the relevant period
accused No.2 was Director of the accused No.1
company/establishment or not.
Crl.A.No.861/2024
25
32. PW1 categorically denied that accused N.2 is
tendered resignation from Directorship on 31.3.2016.
Further he denied that suggestions regarding at the
time of relevant period accused No.2 was not in charge
of the Management of the accused No.1 company
establishment.
33. The learned counsel for the accused specifically
suggested there is no specifically mentioned regarding
details of employee. This share of contribution was not
remitted by the accused No.1 company. This
suggestions is denied and voluntarily stated that they
have consolidated the default regarding employees of
the accused No.1.
Crl.A.No.861/2024
26
34. The learned counsel for the accused suggested that
notice not served on the accused No.2. This suggestion
is denied in toto. Making suggestions and denial
suggestions is not at all evidence in the eye of law.
35. PW1 admitted he has not furnished authorisation
letter pertaining to authorising to lodged complaint
against the accused persons. Further admitted that
there is no statement of account pertaining to the
employees of accused No.1. PW1 was not verified
regarding existence of accused No.1 and also not aware
about whether the accused No.1 company was Director
on 28.04.2017. Further, he is not aware about the
accused No.2 has tendered his resignation on
31.3.2016.
Crl.A.No.861/2024
27
36. The learned counsel for the accused No.2 urged int
his case, that the complainant Department instituted
13 cases for different period. At this stage, this court
has relied on the section 219(1) of Cr.P.C. If accused
committed more than one offence within one year, the
said offences are tried together not exceeding 3 offence.
Therefore, in the present case, accused No.1 did not
contribute PF amount and administrative charges each
month from May 2015 to May 2016. Therefore, the
complainant department clubbed 3 months offence and
lodged separate complaint in 13 cases. Therefore, the
arguments canvassed by the accused No.2 regarding
consolidation of the all offences is not acceptable one.
Crl.A.No.861/2024
28
37. The accused No.2 has taken the contention that he
has tendered his resignation on 31.3.2016. In this
regard, he has produced the documents along with
memo while recording his statement U/s.313 of Cr.P.C.
all documents i.e., resignation letter acknowledgment
letter, form No.DIR-12, all are disclosing that the
accused No.2 tendered his resignation on 31.03.2016.
Ex.P.7 discloses that accused no.1 company not
contributed PF funds from May 2015 to May 2016. By
considering the said period accused No.2 was the
Director of accused No.1 from May 2015 to March
2016. This is relevant period. Therefore, he cannot
absolve his liability by relying on his resignation letter.
Crl.A.No.861/2024
29
38. The learned counsel for the accused No.2 urged
that the complainant company relied on the digital
evidence. The said digital evidence are not supported
with Certificate as contemplated u/s.63 of BSA.
39. I have carefully perused the entire Trial Court
records, it reveals that the complainant furnished
certificate as contemplated U/s.63 of BSA dated
23.02.2024. Therefore, Ex.P.4, Ex.P.6. Ex.P.8 and
Ex.P.10 are supported with the certificate. Therefore,
Ex.P.4, Ex.P.6, Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.10 even though they
are digital evidence, because the complainant cured the
defect by producing certificate as law laid down by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Karnataka
Lokayuktha Vs. M.R. Hiremath (AIR 2019 SC 2377).
Crl.A.No.861/2024
30
40. The accused No.2 has taken specific contention
that the notice not served on him. As this court held
that he was director of the accused No.1 from May 2015
to March 2016. Therefore, he required and bound to
get information of the accused No.1 day to business
being a Director before he submitted his resignation.
The contention regarding non service of notice is not
acceptable one.
41. Ex.P.4, Ex.P.6, Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.10 are disclosing
that the complainant department issued notice to the
registered address of the accused No1. Therefore, this
court relied on section 119 of BSA and held that notice
is properly dispatched and served on the accused No.1.
Crl.A.No.861/2024
31
42. The learned counsel for the accused No.2 has
taken the contention that he was not in charge or
responsible director of the accused No1. Therefore, this
court has relied on the Ex.P.4. The Ex.P.4 clearly
discloses that being a Director of the employers of the
accused he has mentioned the name of Anil Kumar for
in charge and responsible for conduct of business of
accused No.1 establishment. Therefore, he cannot
absolve his liability by deputing Anil Kumar as director
of accused No.1 establishment. In this case, the learned
Trial Court rightly observed regarding service of notice.
43. The learned counsel for he accused strongly relied
on section 305(6) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, this court has
Crl.A.No.861/2024
32
perused the Judgment of the Trial Court in question at
para No.22 to 26 and observed that accused No.1 being
the director and employer of the accused No.1
establishment he is bound to be responsible for day to
day business of the accused No.1 establishment.
Therefore, he represented the accused No.1 before the
Trial Court. The learned counsel for the accused No2
strongly relied that the accused No.2 appeared before
the Trial Court personally. The recitals of Ex.P.4 itself
discloses that being an employer of the accused No.1
establishment he has made arrangement for in charge
of accused No.1 establishment. Therefore, being a
director and employer of the accused No.1
establishment, he is bound to appear on behalf of
accused No1/Establishment. Therefore, accused No.1 is
the juristic in the eye of law, accused No.2 being a
Crl.A.No.861/2024
33
natural person he is bound to represent the accused
No.1, he cannot escape from his liability by using
technical tactics.
44. The learned counsel for the complainant
department urged that at the time of inquiry before the
Assistant PF Commissioner, one Prashanth. C.S has
represented on behalf of the accused No.1
establishment. This order is at not challenged by the
accused No.2 before the competent authority. The
learned counsel for the accused No.2 has drawn the
attention of this court to the complainant department
when corresponding the accused No.1 after the
resignation. i.e., on 19.07.2016. Accused No.2 being
director and employer of the accused No.1 company he
Crl.A.No.861/2024
34
is bound to verify the right and liabilities of the accused
No.1 before his resignation. Merely because his
resignation is accepted by the Board of Directors of the
accused No.1 establishment, itself is not at all a ground
for absolve of his liability.
45. The learned counsel for the accused drawn the
attention of this court on the Judgment passed against
the accused No.3. After pronouncement of the
Judgment, the learned Trial Court registered split up
case against the accused No.3.
46. After appearance of the accused No. 3 she is also
convicted and sentence of pay Rs.5,000/-each for the
Crl.A.No.861/2024
35
offence punishable U/s.14-A and 14(1-B) of the Act and
also imposed Rs.1,000/- compensation.
47. In the Judgment in question, the Trial Court has
imposed fine amount of Rs.4,000/- each for offence
punishable U/s.14-A and. Section 14(1-B) of the Act
and also imposed 6 months imprisonment.
48. The learned counsel for the accused No.2 urged
that important documents are with held by the
complainant before the court. Before lodging the
complainant independent inquiry was held against the
accused No.1 establishment including its Directors i.e.,
accused No.2 and 3. Now the accused No.2 himself
stated that the accused No.1 establishment was
Crl.A.No.861/2024
36
strucked off on 28.04.2017 by submitted Form STK-5.
In this regard, he has not produced any documents.
Hence, he has show some relevant documents that the
accused No.1 establishment was strucked off in the
month of April 2017. it is the duty of the accused to
challenge the order passed as per Ex.P.5 before the
appellate authority. This remedy is not exhausted by
the accused No.2. In this regard, the Trial Court rightly
observed at para No.30 of the Judgment and Order in
question. By considering all these aspect the Trial
Court has not committed any error in foisted or extend
the liability of the accused No.1 on the accused No.2.
Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
Point No.2:-
Crl.A.No.861/2024
37
49. For the forgoing reasons, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The Appeal filed by the Appellant
U/s.374(3)(a) of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.Further, the Judgment and order passed by
the The Special Court for Economic Offences,
Bengaluru in C.C.No.282/2019 dated
25.04.2024 is hereby confirmed.
Office is directed to sent the TCR along with
the copy of this order forthwith.
(Dictated to Stenographer, typed by her, taken out print corrected by me
and then pronounced in the Open-Court on this the 3rd day of May,
2025)
Digitally signed
irappanna by irappanna
(Sri. I. P. Pavadi
Naik) Naik
Pavadi
LXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Date:
Judge (CCH-64), Bengaluru
Naik City.
2025.05.03
16:26:09 +0530
Crl.A.No.861/2024
38(Order typed vide separate sheet)
ORDER
The Appeal filed by the
Appellant U/s.374(3)(a) of
Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
Further, the Judgment and
order passed by the The
Special Court for Economic
Offences, Bengaluru in
C.C.No.282/2019 dated
25.04.2024 is hereby
confirmed.
Office is directed to sent the
TCR along with the copy of
this order forthwith.
LXIII ACC & SJ(CCH-64),
Bengaluru City
Crl.A.No.861/2024
39
[ad_2]
Source link