Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Panchananda Jana vs The State Of West Bengal And Anr on 20 August, 2025
2025:CHC-AS:1589
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
C.R.R. 3857 of 2024
Panchananda Jana
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya, Adv.
Ms. Anita Shaw, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. PP
Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Adv.
Mr. Karan Bapuli, Adv.
Heard on : 01.08.2025
Judgment on : 20.08.2025
2
2025:CHC-AS:1589
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:
1.
The petitioner being the accused preferred this Criminal
Revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘CrPC‘) corresponding to
Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short
‘BNSS’) seeking quashing of the impugned Charge Sheet being No.
191/2024 dated 21.05.2024 submitted in connection with
Mahishadal P.S. Case No. 130/2024 dated 22.03.2024 under
Sections 341/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections
10/12 of the POCSO Act and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act,
pending before the Court of Learned Judge, Special Court, POCSO,
Haldia at Purba Medinipur.
2. The factual matrix of the instant case is that mother of the
victim girl lodged a written complaint to the Officer-in-Charge,
Mahishadal Police Station accusing to the effect that her daughter
aged about 13 years (herein after referred to as ‘victim girl’) studying
in class VI in xxxxxxxx School. The headmaster of the said school on
the pretext of seeing the neck chain, inserted his hand inside her
school dress, with intent to outrage her modesty and/or committed
aggravated sexual assault and/or sexual harassment. It was further
alleged that on the previous day i.e. on 21.03.2024, the headmaster
assaulted her and other students, when they went to report that
3
2025:CHC-AS:1589
there was no fan in the class room. In addition, it was further alleged
that the headmaster has a bad character, similar types of incident
happened earlier with other students. When the parents of the
students went to inquire about such incident, he threatens them with
dire consequence that nobody can do anything against him, which
resulted in registration of an FIR being Mahishadal P.S. Case No.
130/2024 dated 22.03.2024 under Sections 341/323/506 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 10/12 of the POCSO Act as
well as Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act and initiated
investigation.
3. The Petitioner was arrested and subsequently enlarged on
bail. He denies the allegations and contended that he is innocent and
has been falsely implicated into this case asserting that no such
incident ever happened. However, after culmination of the
investigation, a Charge Sheet being No. 191/2024 dated 21.05.2024
under Sections 341/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Sections 10/12 of the POCSO Act as well as Section 75 of the
Juvenile Justice Act has been submitted by the investigation officer is
under the subject matter of challenge as it was filed mechanically and
without proper investigation or scanning of the oral and documentary
evidence of the witnesses, collected in course of investigation.
4
2025:CHC-AS:1589
4. According to the Petitioner, the whole case is based on false,
fabricated and concocted story. If it would have been properly
scanned with the oral and documentary evidence of witnesses, the
result would have been different and charge sheet would not have
been submitted against the petitioner, as such, he preferred this
revisional application seeking quashing of the charge sheet and
proceedings thereof.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
5. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharya, appearing on behalf of
the petitioner vociferously argued and further submitted that the
present case is based on false, fabricated, concocted and only to
canvass ulterior motive of the complainant to defame the petitioner,
who was discharging his duties as headmaster of a school since
2019. The allegation is out and out false. The allegations are not
supported by any reliable evidence. The FIR is not corroborated or
supported by the victim girl herself. Incident shifted from the venue of
running class room to headmaster’s office room in presence of other
students on next date although complaint was different regarding
place and date of incident. Even, other witnesses narrated about the
incident differently, no specific date, time and manner of incident
narrated to justify the incident happened with the victim girl. No
5
2025:CHC-AS:1589
reliable evidence transpired from the charge sheet about his previous
bad character or conducts as alleged by the witnesses.
6. It was further added by the learned counsel that apart from
her friends, no other students had been examined by the
Investigating Officer though the alleged incident occurred in the class
room of the school. The allegations of committing the said offence
with a minor girl inside the running class room in front of other
students are unbelievable. No prudent man could even imagine of
such incident be happened in the running class room in presence of
other students. If such incident really had been happened then real
truth would have bound to come from the statements of other
students, who were very much present in the class room or the
students who accompany with the victim girl to the headmaster’s
office room but, no other independent students have been examined
though they were vital witnesses to unearth the actual truth. There
are vital discrepancies and inconsistencies amongst the witnesses.
7. Under such vital discrepancies and inconsistencies of the
statements of the complainant, victim girl and other witnesses touch
the root of the allegation. If such proceedings, based on patently
absurd and inherently improbable in presence of other students in
the broad day light either in the running class room or headmaster’s
6
2025:CHC-AS:1589
office room, would continue then it would be gross abuse of process
of law. If proceeding based on such baseless charge sheet allowed to
be continued, the petitioner would prejudice and suffer irreparable
loss and injury. It would damage his reputation and career in future.
It would also adversely impact on other students and institution.
Therefore, Court should be very careful and cautious while dealing
with such types of cases.
8. Finally, learned counsel candidly submitted that though the
allegation, is serious in nature, falls under the POCSO Act, but Court
while exercising inherent power under Section 482 of CrPC should
look into the entire facts narrated in the FIR and evidence collected in
the course of investigation very carefully and cautiously to prevent
gross abuse of process of law and also secure the ends of justice.
Petitioner was arrested and he spent 43 days in judicial custody
without any fault and his life became miserable in the society due to
false implication. Therefore, this Court can exercise inherent power
under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent the abuse of process of law
and to secure the ends of justice.
9. Learned counsel has also placed reliance of a decision in the
case of Ganesh Orang Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.1 to support
1
CRA 248 of 2019 with CRAN 2 of 2021 (Old CRAN 2848 of 2019)
7
2025:CHC-AS:1589
his contention that place, time and circumstances under which
alleged offence was committed by the petitioner are the essential
parameters to be required to establish in order to prove even the
prima facie prosecution case and, in the instant case, vital
contradictions and inconsistencies are appearing on the face of
records and, in such a situation, the Investigating Officer ought not
to have been filed charge sheet against the petitioner. Only on such
ground, the Revisional application can be allowed and charge sheet
should be quashed
10. On the other hand, none appeared on behalf of the opposite
party no. 2/victim girl despite service of notice. In addition, this
Court also directed the State to serve the notice to the opposite party
no. 2 through concerned jurisdictional Police Station but none
appeared on her behalf even after receiving of notice.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
11. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the State produced
the case diary and vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner
and further submitted that during investigation, statements of the
victim, her friends and other teachers of the school were recorded
under Section 161 of CrPC. Statement of the victim girl was also
recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. Statement of two other students
8
2025:CHC-AS:1589
were also recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. They have
established the prima facie case against the offence committed by the
petitioner in the school premises. Though, there are some
inconsistencies but this Court cannot embark upon such
inconsistencies at this stage. The petitioner must have to face trial
and opportunity need to be given to the victim girl and vital eye
witnesses to uncover the real truth otherwise faith of public on the
judicial process will be undermined. Finally, learned counsel prays
for dismissal of the application.
DISCUSSIONS, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF THIS COURT:
12. Considering the arguments advanced and submissions made
on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of materials available on
records, core legal issues arise for determination are as follows: –
1. Whether contradictions or inconsistencies in the
statements of the witnesses recorded in course of
investigation can be a ground for quashing of the charge
sheet?
2. Whether incomplete or mechanical or perfunctory
investigation warrants quashing of the Charge Sheet in
exercising inherent power under Section 482 of the
CrPC?
9
2025:CHC-AS:1589
3. Whether prima facie material exists in the charge
sheet to allow to proceed with the case falls under
POCSO Act?
13. All the issues are taken up together for the purpose of the
fair and effective disposal of this case for the sake of convenience and
to avoid repetition. Upon meticulously perusal of the case diary
particularly the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of
the CrPC, this Court finds there are vital contradictions,
inconsistencies and dichotomies between the FIR and statements of
the witnesses recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the CrPC. The
comparative chart of the Statements of the witnesses is given in
details as under: –
Point of FIR Victim and Victim’s Witnesses’ Contradictions
Comparison (Mother’s Other witnesses’ Statement statements /observations
Complaint) statements under Section under
under Section 164 of CrPC Section
161 of CrPC 164 of
CrPCManner of I) On I) She stated I) She along I) Victim’s I) There exist
commission 21.03.2024, without with other friend clear
of the the victim mentioning any students went (Class VI) contradictions
offence girl along particular date to the mentions regarding the
with her that she and her headmaster’s incident date and place
classmates classmates went office to report happened of occurrence of
went to the to the as the fan was in the offence.
headmaster’s headmaster’s not working classroom
II) No specific
office to office to report as without but does
10
2025:CHC-AS:1589
report as the fan was not mentioning not specify time has been
there was no working but he any specific date or specified by the
fan in the did not listen, date but, he time. witnesses.
classroom, rebuke and drive did not listen
II) Student III) Complainant
but, the out them. and ask to go
of Class IX said there was
headmaster to the class.
II) Again on mentions no fan whereas
did not listen
21.03.2024, she II) Again on incident others said fan
and start
along with her the next day, happened was not
assaulting
classmates went she along with in working.
her daughter
to report the other students classroom
as well as her
same issue of fan, went to the based on
classmates.
but the headmaster's hearsay but
II) On headmaster did office to report without
22.03.2024, not listen. about the mentioning
she alleged Rather, on same issue any date or
on the pretext of seeing but he time.
pretext of the neck chain he assaulted her
seeing the inserted his hand as well as
neck chain, into the victim's other students
the school dress. without
headmaster indicating the
III) Two teachers
inserted his date and time.
of the same
hand inside
school stated III) On the
the victim's
about the same date, on
school dress
aforesaid facts pretext of
in the
without seeking the
running
indicating any neck chain,
class.
particular date the head
III) Parents of and place on the master
the students basis of hearsay inserted his
went to the evidence without hand inside
headmaster's naming who the school
office to informed them. dress of the
inquire about
11
2025:CHC-AS:1589
the incident, victim girl.
he
threatened
with dire
consequence
and said that
nobody can
do anything
against him.
Place of Inside Headmaster's Headmaster's I) Victim's Contradictions
Occurrence classroom office room in office room in friend said between
during presence of presence of in the classroom (FIR/
running students. students. classroom. witnesses) and
class in office room by
II) Student
presence of victim girl.
of Class IX
students.
said in the
classroom
based on
hearsay.
Presence of Other Other students No clarity. I) Hearsay
Witnesses students were present. evidence of the
were present. teachers is not
Two teachers
admissible.
stated that they
only heard about II) No
the incident from independent
others; without students
indicating names examined to
and the actual corroborate the
place of incident.
occurrence.
12
2025:CHC-AS:1589
Assault Headmaster Victim girl stated In her 164 I) The Class Allegations of
assaulted the that the statement, the friend assault are
victim girl headmaster did victim girl said mentioned inconsistent
and other not listen and that on the that on the and
students send them back first day the same day, uncorroborated;
when they to class by headmaster the
II) No medical
complained threatening them. sent them headmaster
evidence
about the fan back and on beaten a
supports
on the next day boy when
injuries.
21.03.2024. he beaten up he went
some students outside and III) The victim
and inserted returned to girl herself
his hand into class. refused to
her school undergo
II) The
dress. medical
Class IX
examination.
witness
There is no
stated the
corroboration
headmaster
about the
once beaten
assault to the
her for
victim girl
wearing
and/or other
different
students while
coloured
they went to the
leggings
headmaster's
without
office room to
mentioning
report the issue
date, time
of fan.
and place.
III) She said
nothing
about the
alleged
assault of
other
students
13
2025:CHC-AS:1589
14. From the materials available on the case diary, there exist
material contradictions from the statements of the victim girl and her
mother. Actual incidents are not supported by any independent
witnesses including school teachers or students despite the alleged
incident occurred in running class room of a School in the broad day
light. The victim girl also refused medical examination. Furthermore,
no medical report corroborated allegation of physical assault to
support the offence. Statement of one another student of the said
school was also recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC but the
narration of incident is wholly unmatched.
15. Another student of class IX of the same school narrated in
her statement recorded in 164 Statement of the CrPC about some
other incident without mentioning date and time of the incident,
which is not any way connected with the present incident. She
further stated about the incident of the victim girl on the basis of
hearsay evidence without naming the person, who informed her.
16. Overall consideration of evidence collected in course of
investigation found to be absurd and not inconsistencies in respect of
time, place and manner of offence narrated in the FIR and statements
of the witnesses including victim girl and others. Complainant stated
14
2025:CHC-AS:1589
there was no fan in the class room and her daughter as well as other
students stated the fan was not working. Victim girl stated
headmaster assaulted her and other students, when they went to
report to the headmaster in office room about the issue of fan but
same is not corroborated by other students. The statements recorded
under Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC found altogether two different
stories regarding place of occurrence and wholly inconsistencies with
regard to the place of incident and no specific time is mentioned. This
Court is conscious that Statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC
are not substantive evidence and cannot form the sole basis for
quashing a criminal proceeding unless such contradictions appear
vital with FIR and Section 164 Statements and go to the root of the
prosecution case and render it manifestly untenable. Therefore, in
the present case, the internal inconsistencies and the Investigating
Officer’s failure to examine other independent witnesses particularly
who were present in the class room and/or office room raise a serious
question regarding the genuineness of the case and the legality of the
charge sheet.
17. The POCSO Act, 2012 is a special legislation enacted to
protect children from sexual offences by ensuring child-friendly
procedures during investigation and trial, and imposing stringent
punishments for perpetrators. While the statute is protective in
15
2025:CHC-AS:1589
nature, it does not presume guilt and the principles of fair trial and
natural justice remain fully applicable to an accused person. Courts
are also required to adopt a cautious but balanced approach,
especially when the facts present significant contradictions,
procedural irregularities, or non-compliance with statutory
safeguards.
18. In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the allegations in the FIR or
the supporting material do not disclose the commission of any offence
or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide
intention, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under
Section 482 of CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of law. In the
present case, the material on record, even if taken at face value, fails
to disclose a prima facie case for the offences under Sections 10 and
12 of the POCSO Act or Section 75 of the JJ Act. The mechanically
filing of the charge sheet without sufficient material appears to be not
sufficient to hold petitioner has committed such offence even prima
facie, therefore, it is an abuse of the legal process and continuation of
such proceedings would result in undue harassment and oppression
to the accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court finds it just and proper
to invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC.
2
[(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335],
16
2025:CHC-AS:1589
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in Vineet Kumar
& Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.3 held in paragraph 39 thereof that
inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case
solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with
some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very
threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case
falls in one of the Categories as illustratively enumerated in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal4. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding
which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of
operation or harassment. When there are materials to indicate that a
criminal proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an
instrument of operation or harassment. When there is material to
indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive,
the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as
enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra), which is to
the following effect:
“(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is3 2017 (13) SCC 369: AIR 2017 SC 1884
4
AIR 1960 SC 866
172025:CHC-AS:1589
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
20. Similarly, in another decision in Mahmood Ali v. State of
U.P.5, the Apex Court while considering the power under Section 482
of Cr.P.C, in paragraph 12 thereof held that whenever an accused
comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground
that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or
instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in
such circumstances, the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with
care and a little more closely. We say so because once the
complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior
motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure
that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made
in the FIR/complainant are such that they disclose the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be
5
[2023 KHC 7029 : 2023 KHC OnLine 7029 : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613 : 2023 KLT OnLine 175 : AIR 2023 SC 3709 : AIR
OnLine 2023 SC 602 : 2023 CriLJ 3896]
18
2025:CHC-AS:1589
just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complainant alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed
or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to
look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the
record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with
due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The
Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not restrict
itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into
account the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in
the course of investigation.
(Emphasis supplied)
21. Therefore, the legal position is clear that when the petitioner
seeks quashing of charge sheet or criminal proceedings can be
resorted to when the prosecution materials do not constitute
materials to attract the offence alleged to be committed. Similarly, the
Court owes a duty to look into the other attending circumstances,
over and above the averments to see whether there are materials to
indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
19
2025:CHC-AS:1589
fide and proceeding instituted maliciously with ulterior motives. Once
the said fact is established, the same is a good reason to quash the
charge sheet and criminal proceedings thereof.
22. The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court was also
cognizant of the seriousness of offences under the POCSO Act and
the imperative of protecting child victims. However, it is equally
essential to guard against the misuse of penal provisions for
extraneous motives. As observed in Sanjay Sharma (supra)6, Courts
must intervene where prosecution is manifestly vexatious or premised
on insufficient material, to prevent miscarriage of justice.
23. In the case of Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P.7, while
dealing with similarly sensitive provisions, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court cautioned against the mechanical prosecution of accused
persons emphasising the need for judicial scrutiny to prevent
harassment. Although the case arose under Section 498A of IPC, the
underlying principle against mechanical and mala fide prosecution is
equally relevant in the present context.
24. In the case of Sanjay Sharma v. State of Himachal
Pradesh, the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court reiterated as
follows:
6
[(2022) SCC Online HP 3327]
7
[(2017) SCC OnLine SC 821]
202025:CHC-AS:1589
“The inherent powers of the High Court under Section
482 CrPC may be invoked in cases where the
allegations are ex facie absurd or where continuation of
proceedings would result in injustice or oppression to
the accused. The Court observed that while such power
must be exercised with circumspection, it cannot be
withheld in cases where the prosecution amounts to a
misuse of judicial process”.
(Emphasis supplied)
25. Similarly, in Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra8,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thereof as under:
“The seriousness of the offence should not deter the
Court from quashing the proceedings if the material on
record fails to disclose a prima facie case.”
These principles fully apply to the facts of the present case in hand,
where the allegations are inconsistent, unsupported and do not make
out the basic ingredients of the alleged offences. This Court also fails
to repose confidence upon the evidence collected in course of
investigation with regard to the alleged offence.
26. In the case in hand, at the cost of repetition this Court finds
the vital contradictions and inconsistencies with regard to the
8
[(2008) 16 SCC 117]
21
2025:CHC-AS:1589
allegations in the FIR and the statements of the victim girl. Other
statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC are also
not found any consistency rather there is vital dichotomy, shaky and
week piece of evidence. There is no specific time, date and place in
connection with the alleged offence, some times during running class
room and, on the other hand, in Headmaster’s office. Several
students were available in the school premises but none of
independent witnesses called for as witnesses to corroborate the
actual incident.
27. Two teachers of the same school were examined by the
investigating officer. They have narrated nothing about the actual
incidents as alleged by the complainant though they were very much
present in the school premises. They have heard about the incident
from others without naming any one from whom they had heard
about the incident, therefore, their hearsay evidences are not
admissible in law.
28. The tendency to implicate in the case falls under the
stringent POCSO Act is also not uncommon now a day. Even after
conclusion of criminal trial, it is often difficult to ascertain the real
truth and ultimately, maximum cases come to end with acquittal
and/or not proved. The Courts have to be extremely careful and
22
2025:CHC-AS:1589
cautious while dealing with these complaints and material collected
during investigation and should take pragmatic realities into
considerations while handling criminal case based on false
allegations.
29. This Court finally finds the following vital facts and
circumstances: –
a) There are material contradictions and dichotomies
amongst the victim’s statement, her mother’s version, other
witnesses and the FIR;
b) No date, time, place and manner of incident matched
with the evidence of the witnesses;
c) No independent students witnesses from the class (VI)
have been examined;
d) No seizure has been made like neck chain, attendance
register of the school, injury report etc.;
e) The procedural mandates of POCSO Act–such as child-
friendly protocols and presence of a support person–have
not been followed;
f) The charge sheet appears mechanically filed without
considering or assessing the evidence of the witnesses
23
2025:CHC-AS:1589
collected in course of investigation and further failed to
establish the prima facie case of the offence as alleged.
30. After careful scrutiny of the materials available in the case
diary, this Court does not find any sufficient materials to establish at
least prima facie case against the present petitioner, who was
headmaster of a school. Even if, for the sake of argument, this
proceeding is allowed to be continued, the conviction of petitioner
appears bleak and remote. To secure the ends of justice, the Charge
Sheet deserved to be quashed under the inherent power granted
under Section 482 of the CrPC insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
31. In the light of above discussion and analysis, this Court
finally comes to a conclusion that the object of POCSO Act is to
protect children, not to prosecute innocents. Law must not be
weaponised. The judicial conscience must be satisfied that sufficient
material exists to put a person on trial, especially under a stringent
statute. In its absence, quashing is not only permissible but
necessary.
32. In the back drop of aforesaid reasons, CRR 3857 of 2024
is, thus, allowed. Consequently, the Charge Sheet being No.
191/2024 dated 21.05.2024 submitted by the Mahishadal Police
Station arising out of Mahishadal P.S. Case No. 130/2024 dated
24
2025:CHC-AS:1589
22.03.2024 under Sections 341/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Sections 10/12 of the POCSO Act as well as Section 75 of
the Juvenile Justice Act pending before the Court of Learned Judge,
Special Court, POCSO, Haldia at Purba Medinipur is hereby quashed.
33. Connected applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of.
34. Case Diary, if any, is to be returned to the learned Advocate
for the State.
35. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned Court
below for information.
36. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
37. Parties shall act on the server copies of this Judgment
uploaded on the website of this Court.
38. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied
for, is to be given as expeditiously to the parties on compliance of all
formalities.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J)
P. Adak (P.A.)
[ad_1]
Source link