[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
Tarun Kumar vs Somil Kumar on 15 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RISHABH TANWAR,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS/NI ACT-01/WEST/TIS
HAZARI COURT/DELHI
CT Cases no. 14112/2016
CNR No. DLWT020046602016
Sh. Tarun Kumar
S/o Sh. Pradeep Kumar Joshi,
R/o D-24 (3rd Floor),
Saraswati Garden, Delhi-110015 ......Complainant
Vs.
Sh. Somil Kumar
S/o Sh. Subhash Chander,
R/o J-60 (Ground Floor),
Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018 ......Accused
::J U D G M E N T:
:
1. Date of institution of case : 22.01.2016
2. Date of reserving the judgment : 24.02.2025
3. Date of pronouncement of judgment : 15.04.2025
4. Offence complained or proved : 138 N.I. Act
5. Plea of Accused : “Not Guilty”
6. Final Order : ACQUITTAL
7. Date of Final Order : 15.04.2016
CC No. 14112/2016 Tarun Kumar Vs. Somil Kumar pg. no. 1/17
Digitally signed
by RISHABH
RISHABH TANWAR
Date:
TANWAR 2025.04.15
16:38:49
+0530
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The present case has arisen out of a complaint filed under section 138
read with section 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘NI Act‘) by one Tarun Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Complainant’) for dishonor of cheque bearing number 009419 dated
25.08.2015 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Vikaspuri
branch, cheque bearing number 000023 dated 01.10.2015 for an amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vikaspuri branch and
cheque bearing number 000026 dated 01.11.2015 for an amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vikaspuri branch,
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the cheques in question’) issued by one Somil
Kumar, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) in favor of the complainant.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The accused had been
acquainted with the complainant for over three years and had shared a good
friendly relationship. It is alleged that in the first week of April 2015, the
accused represented that he was in urgent need of Rs.6,32,000/- to invest in
his business. Consequently, he requested a friendly loan of Rs.6,32,000/-
from the complainant for a period of seven months. As per the request, the
complainant provided Rs.6,32,000/- in cash to the accused on 10.04.2015 as
a friendly loan and the accused also executed a loan agreement with
complainant in this regard on 10.04.2015. The accused has issued the
cheques in question to discharge his liability of Rs.6,32,000/- towards the
complainant.
CC No. 14112/2016 Tarun Kumar Vs. Somil Kumar pg. no. 2/17
Digitally signed
RISHABH by RISHABH
TANWAR
TANWAR Date: 2025.04.15
16:38:54 +0530
3. It is further alleged that the cheques in question came to be dishonored
upon presentation through the return memos all dated as 10.11.2015 issued
by the complainant’s bank with the remark ‘funds insufficient’. The
complainant issued the legal demand notice dated 11.12.2015 under section
138(b) NI Act. The present complaint came to be filed by the complainant
when the accused failed to pay the amount of the cheque despite receipt of
the legal demand notice.
4. The complainant examined himself as CW-1 on 22.01.2016 and
tendered his evidence on affidavit which was exhibited as Ex. CW-1/A. He
also placed reliance on the following documents: –
(a) Ex. CW-1/1, Ex. CW-1/2 and Ex. CW-1/3 are the cheques in
question.
(b) Ex. CW-1/4 is the loan agreement dated 10.04.2015.
(c) Ex. CW-1/5, Ex. CW-1/6 and Ex. CW-1/7 are the returning memo
dt. 30.10.2015.
(d) Ex. CW-1/8 is the demand notice dated 11.12.2015.
(e) Ex. CW-1/9 and Ex. CW-1/10 are the postal receipts.
(f) Mark X is the copy of the Aadhaar Card of the accused.
(g) Ex. CW-1/11 and Ex. CW-1/12 are the returned envelope
5. The defense of the accused under section 251 Cr.P.C. was recorded,
after serving upon him the substance of accusation on 19.05.2016 wherein
he pleaded not guilty and stated that he had no legal liability towards the
complainant as the cheque was given for security purposes. He further stated
CC No. 14112/2016 Tarun Kumar Vs. Somil Kumar pg. no. 3/17
Digitally signed
by RISHABH
TANWAR
RISHABH Date:
TANWAR 2025.04.15
16:38:58
+0530
that no loan was actually paid by the complainant to him and the cheques
were not returned even after demand. He asserted that the complainant has
misused the cheque in question. He further admitted his signature on the
cheques in question but denied filling all other particulars on the cheque. He
denied receiving the legal notice; however, he stated that the address upon
the same was his correct address.
6. This court had allowed the accused to cross-examine the complainant
under section 145(2) NI Act on 12.08.2016. The complainant’s evidence on
affidavit (Ex. CW-1/A) was read as his examination in chief under section
145(1) NI Act. CW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the
accused. CW-1 brought on record his Income Tax Returns (I.T.R.) which
was marked as Ex. CW-1/X and his detailed ITR for the assessment year
2015-16 and the same were marked as Ex. CW-1/D1.
7. The Statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on
28.07.2023 wherein he reiterated his defence taken under section 251 Cr.P.C
and further stated that complainant was running a committee and he was a
member of the said committee and he gave cheques in question as security
which complainant has misused and he had not taken any loan from the
complainant and do not owe the cheque amount to the complainant. The
accused admitted receiving legal notice.
8. The accused examined himself as a witness under section 315 Cr.P.C.
as DW-1 and he was duly cross examined and subsequently, the case was put
up for final arguments.
CC No. 14112/2016 Tarun Kumar Vs. Somil Kumar pg. no. 4/17 Digitally signed by RISHABH TANWAR RISHABH Date: TANWAR 2025.04.15 16:39:02 +0530 THE APPLICABLE LAW
9. Before appreciating the facts of the case in detail for the purpose of
decision, let relevant position of law be discussed first. It is well settled
position of law that to constitute an offence under S.138 N.I. Act, the
following ingredients are required to be fulfilled:
(1) That the cheque in question has been drawn by a person on an
account maintained by him with a banker, for payment to another
person from out of that account for discharge in whole/part any debt
or liability.
(2) That the said cheque has been presented to the bank within a
period of six months (now three months) from the date on which it is
drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier.
(3) That the cheque was returned dishonoured by the drawee bank for
want of sufficient funds or the same exceeded any arrangement with
the banker to pay the sum covered by the cheque.
(4) That the complainant gave a notice in writing to the drawer of the
cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the
bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid demanding payment
of the cheque amount.
(5) Lastly that the accused failed to make payment to the payee (the
complainant), or the holder in due course, the cheque amount within
15 days of the receipt of the notice.
10. It is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the
person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an
CC No. 14112/2016 Tarun Kumar Vs. Somil Kumar pg. no. 5/17
Digitally signed
by RISHABH
RISHABH TANWAR
TANWAR Date:
2025.04.15
16:39:06 +0530
offence under Section 138 of the N I Act. The Act also raises two
presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque namely first, in Section
118(a) which says that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for
consideration, and, second, a presumption under Section 139, that the holder
of cheque receiving the same of the nature referred to in Section 138 for
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Analysing all the
concerned provisions of law and various pronouncements in this regard, the
Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, AIR 2019 SC 1983′,
noted at para 23 Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin
Chand Pyarelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35; M.S. Narayana Menon alias Mani v. State
of Kerala and another, (2006) 6 SCC 39; Krishna Janardhan Bhat v.
Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54; Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets,
(2009) 2 SCC 513; Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441]:
(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the
Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge
of any debt or other liability.
(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption
and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The
standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of
preponderance of probabilities.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on
evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials
submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence.
Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only
from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by
CC No. 14112/2016 Tarun Kumar Vs. Somil Kumar pg. no. 6/17
Digitally signed
by RISHABH
RISHABH TANWAR
TANWAR Date:
2025.04.15
16:39:09 +0530
reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box
in support of his defence, Section 139 imposes an evidentiary
burden and not a persuasive burden.
(v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to
support his defence.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES
11. Sh. Anil Panwar, Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the
complainant has been able to prove all the pre-requisites of Section 138 NI
Act against the accused and the accused has failed to rebut the presumption
u/s. 138 NI Act. Ld. counsel has prayed that the accused be convicted of the
offence u/s. 138 NI Act.
12. Per contra, Sh. S. K. Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for the accused has filed his
written submission and has argued that the accused was one of the members
of the committee run by the complainant and the cheques in question were
given as security to the complainant. He has further argued that the
complainant has misused the cheque in question. He has further challenged
the financial capacity of the complainant to extend the alleged loan and
highlighted inconsistencies in the testimony of the complainant. Ld. Counsel
for the accused has further prayed that the accused be acquitted of the
offence alleged against him.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION
CC No. 14112/2016 Tarun Kumar Vs. Somil Kumar pg. no. 7/17
Digitally signed
RISHABH by RISHABH
TANWAR
TANWAR Date: 2025.04.15
16:39:13 +0530
13. The following points of determination arise in the present case:
A. Whether the complainant has successfully proven the facts which
would raise the presumption u/s. 118 r/w Section 139 of NI Act by
proving that the cheque in question bears the signature of the accused?
B. If yes, whether the accused has been successful in raising a probable
defence to rebut the presumption under section 139 NI Act?
C. If yes, whether the complainant has proved its case, beyond the
shadow of reasonable doubt, without taking the aid of presumption
under section 139 NI Act?
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
Points of determination number (A):
14. Whether the complainant has successfully proven the facts which
would raise the presumption u/s. 118 r/w Section 139 of NI Act by proving
that the cheque in question bears the signature of the accused?
15. It is settled law that once the signature upon the cheques in question
has been admitted by the accused, certain presumptions are drawn, which
result in shifting of onus. Section 118(a) of the NI Act lays down the
presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for
CC No. 14112/2016 Tarun Kumar Vs. Somil Kumar pg. no. 8/17
Digitally
signed by
RISHABH
RISHABH TANWAR
TANWAR Date:
2025.04.15
16:39:17
+0530
consideration. Another presumption is enumerated in Section 139 of NI Act.
The provision lays down the presumption that the holder of the cheque
received it for the discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other liability.
16. The combined effect of these two provisions is a presumption that the
cheque was drawn for consideration and given by the accused for the
discharge of debt or other liability. Both the sections use the expression
“shall”, which makes it imperative for the court to raise the presumptions,
once the foundational facts required for the same are proved. Reliance is
placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Hiten P. Dalal
vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16′.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Kumar Exports vs. Sharma Carpets
(2009) 2 SCC 513′, while elaborating upon the interplay of section 118(a)
r/w 139 of the N I Act, has held that:
“14. Section 139 of the Act provides that it shall be presumed,
unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the
cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in
whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
15. Applying the definition of the word “proved” in section 3 of
the Evidence Act to the provisions of sections 118 and 139 of the Act,
it becomes evident that in a trial under section 138 of the Act a
presumption will have to be made that every negotiable instrument
was made or drawn for consideration and that it was executed for
discharge of debt or liability once the execution of negotiable
CC No. 14112/2016 Tarun Kumar Vs. Somil Kumar pg. no. 9/17Digitally signed
by RISHABH
TANWAR
RISHABH Date:
TANWAR 2025.04.15
16:39:21
+0530
instrument is either proved or admitted. As soon as the complainant
discharges the burden to prove that the instrument, say a note, was
executed by the accused, the rules of presumptions under section 118
and 139 of the Act help him shift the burden on the accused. The
presumption will live, exist and survive and shall end only when the
contrary is proved by the accused, that is, the cheque was not issued
for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability. A
presumption is not in itself evidence but only makes a prima facie
case for a party for whose benefit it exists.”
18. In the present case, the accused – at the time of recording his defense
under section 251 Cr.P.C. and statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C –
has admitted his signatures on the cheques in question. Once signatures are
admitted, the presumption under section 118(a) r/w 139 NI Act becomes
operative in favour of the complainant in the present case. Therefore, even in
the present case, the said presumption has been raised in favour of the
complainant.
19. Accordingly, the point of determination number A is decided in the
affirmative.
Points of determination number (B):
20. Whether the accused has been successful in raising a probable defence
or in another words, whether he had been able to prove that the cheques in
question were not issued towards any legally recoverable debt or any other
CC No. 14112/2016 Tarun Kumar Vs. Somil Kumar pg. no. 10/17
Digitally signed
by RISHABH
RISHABH TANWAR
TANWAR Date:
2025.04.15
16:39:25 +0530
liability?
21. Let us discuss the factual matrix of the present case. On one hand, the
complainant alleges that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,32,000/-
from him on 10.04.2015 and he had provided the same to the accused. On
the other hand, the accused alleges that he was one of the committee mem-
bers being organized by the complainant and the cheque in question were
taken by the complainant towards security for the committee amount.
22. The accused has argued that the complainant did not have the where-
withal to arrange a loan of Rs. 6,32,000/- in cash, which the complainant al-
leges to have given to him. The accused has categorically denied receiving
any such amount from the complainant throughout the trial. CW-1 has ad-
mitted in his cross-examination that he files income tax returns and that he
had been working in tandem with banks for realization of amounts from the
customers due to the banks. CW-1 further admitted that he had not shown
the loan amount in his ITR. While it is not hard to imagine that not all citi –
zens of this country are tax paying citizens, but those who do file their ITR
are not expected to hide cash loan transactions from the income tax authori-
ties. If one does so, he does that at his own perils. No reason has been
demonstrated by CW-1 as to why he had not declared the present transaction
in his ITRs.
23. Furthermore, in his cross-examination, CW-1 testified that he could
verify the cash in hand shown in his Income Tax Returns (ITR) by checking
his records. On the following day of his testimony, he did not review his
CC No. 14112/2016 Tarun Kumar Vs. Somil Kumar pg. no. 11/17
Digitally signed
by RISHABH
RISHABH TANWAR
TANWAR Date:
2025.04.15
16:39:28 +0530
ITRs and was asked again to check them. In his subsequent cross-examina-
tion, CW-1 stated that for the financial year 2015-16, the cash in hand
recorded by him was Rs. 6,41,000/- as of 31.03.2015. However, when con-
fronted with his balance sheet filed along with his ITRs (Ex. CW-1/D1) for
the same assessment year, he conceded that the cash in hand reflected
therein was Rs. 2,74,514/-. Consequently, the complainant’s statement was
contradicted by his own admission. It seems improbable that an individual
who declares Rs. 2,74,514/- as cash in hand in his ITRs would be capable of
extending the amount of Rs. 6,32,000/- to the accused in cash. Therefore, the
assertion made by CW-1 in his cross-examination that he could have ar-
ranged Rs. 15,00,000/- on any given day or that he typically had Rs.
5,00,000/- to Rs. 6,00,000/- available at any time does not appear to be cred-
ible.
24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rajaram (since deceased)
through LRs. Vs. Maruthachalam (since deceased) through LRs.’ Criminal
Appeal No. 1978/2013 decided on 18.01.2023 had upheld the finding of the
trial court on this aspect and held that ” … The certified copies of the Income
Tax Returns established that the complainant had not declared that he had
lent Rs.3 lakh to the accused. It further established that the agricultural in-
come also was not declared in the Income Tax Returns. ” and ultimately up-
held the findings of the trial court and observed that ” After analyzing all
these pieces of evidence, the learned Trial Court found that the Income Tax
Returns of the complainant did not disclose that he lent amount to the ac-
cused, and that the declared income was not sufficient to give loan of Rs.3
lakh. Therefore, the case of the complainant that he had given a loan to the
CC No. 14112/2016 Tarun Kumar Vs. Somil Kumar pg. no. 12/17
Digitally signed
by RISHABH
TANWAR
RISHABH Date:
TANWAR 2025.04.15
16:39:32
+0530
accused from his agricultural income was found to be unbelievable by the
learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court found that it was highly doubt-
ful as to whether the complainant had lent an amount of Rs.3 lakh to the ac-
cused.” and further held that “In the present case, we are of the considered
opinion that the defence raised by the appellant satisfies the standard of pre-
ponderance of probability.” For the sake of full disclosure, the fact of non-
disclosure of loans in the ITRs was not the only ground on which the
Hon’ble had held the abovestated, however it was one of the grounds. In the
present case, it is also not one of the only grounds to doubt the case of the
complainant. The other grounds are discussed hereinafter.
25. CW-1 deposed in his cross-examination that he had withdrawn money
from his bank account between 01.04.2015 – 15.04.2015 and he was asked
to bring his account statement as he failed to disclose how much amount he
had withdrawn and from which bank. On his subsequent cross-examination,
he did not produce his account statement, which compels this court to raise
an adverse inference against the complainant. CW-1 further failed to dis-
close, in his cross-examination, from where he had arranged the amount in
cash, the date when he had arranged for it and from whom he had arranged
the same. This raises suspicion on the story of the complainant. Furthermore,
when asked regarding his source of income, he stated that he had tied up
several banks and helped them with their loan collection and help Telecoms
to recover their loans. He agreed to bring the agreements with the banks in
this regard, but he failed to produce the same subsequently, which in turn
raises grave doubts about his source of income and his credibility.
CC No. 14112/2016 Tarun Kumar Vs. Somil Kumar pg. no. 13/17 Digitally signed by RISHABH TANWAR RISHABH Date: TANWAR 2025.04.15 16:39:35 +0530
26. Furthermore, CW-1 has relied upon an agreement Ex. CW-1/4 claim-
ing it to be an acknowledgement of the liability of the accused. It is pertinent
to note that Ex. CW-1/4 has not been notarized. While notarizing is not
mandatory, the same may add up to the evidential value of the document, as
the notary may always be examined to prove the attestation of the document
in case of a dispute. Further, in his cross-examination CW-1 had deposed
that the loan was given to the accused on 04.04.2015, which contradicts with
the date of the loan in agreement Ex. CW-1/4. Ex. CW-1/4 reads that ” That
the second party has received the said loan amount of Rs.6,32,000/- (Rupees
Six Lacs Thirty Two Thousand Only) from the first party on 10.04.2015…”
(sic) Furthermore, CW-1 admitted that there is a correction on the said date
in the agreement with white fluid and the same has been converted to
10.04.2015. It is also pertinent to note that while the agreement Ex. CW-1/4
starts with the name of the complainant showing him as a first party/lender,
however CW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that the signature of the
accused appears against the space provided to sign by the first party/lender.
This fact raised suspicion and gives credence to the defense of the accused
that the complainant might have taken his signature on a blank piece of pa-
per.
27. Furthermore, Ex. CW-1/4 has been witnessed by one Ravi Sharma. If
the complainant had examined the said witness, his testimony might have
proved the execution of the document. However, the complainant not only
failed to examine the said witness as his witness, but he also failed to even
mention his name in the list of witnesses. Therefore, for the aforesaid rea-
CC No. 14112/2016 Tarun Kumar Vs. Somil Kumar pg. no. 14/17
Digitally signed
RISHABH by RISHABH
TANWAR
TANWAR Date: 2025.04.15
16:39:39 +0530
sons, the accused has been able to raise a probable suspicion on the believ-
ability of the document Ex. CW-1/4 and the same has remained not proved
during the trial. The complainant cannot be allowed to derive any strength
from the same to buttress his case.
28. Moreover, the cheques in question (Ex. CW-1/1, Ex. CW-1/2 and Ex.
CW-1/3) are dated 25.08.2015, 01.10.2015 and 01.11.2015 respectively. The
date of presentation as well as the date of the return memo in the present
case as per Ex. CW-1/5, Ex. CW-1/6 and Ex. CW-1/7 for all the cheques is
10.11.2015. So far so good. Here is where the trouble for the complainant
begins. The demand notice (Ex. CW-1/8) has been sent by the complainant
to the accused on 11.12.2015 as per the postal receipts (Ex. CW-1/9 and Ex.
CW-1/10). As per section 138(b) NI Act reads “(b) the payee or the holder in
due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the pay-
ment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the
drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him
from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid ” (Emphasis is of
the undersigned). Therefore, the complainant should have sent the demand
notice under section 138(b) latest by 10.12.2015, however the complainant
exceeded the time and sent the legal notice on 11.12.2015 with a delay of 01
day. It is surprising that this lacuna has escaped the attention of the accused,
however the complainant himself has failed to mention, leave alone explain,
the delay in his complaint and has come to this court with unclean hands.
However, this court cannot eschew such a fundamental aspect and hold the
accused guilty for an offence, where one of the pre-requisites of the offence
has not been satisfied. The complainant had kept his mouth sealed during the
CC No. 14112/2016 Tarun Kumar Vs. Somil Kumar pg. no. 15/17
Digitally signed
RISHABH by RISHABH
TANWAR
TANWAR Date: 2025.04.15
16:39:43 +0530
entire trial hoping this fact would go unnoticed and had not brought any ma-
terial which would remotely suggest that he had received the information of
the dishonor of the cheque from his bank later. The complaint is liable to be
dismissed solely on this ground.
29. Therefore, the defense raised by the accused satisfies the test of pre-
ponderance of probability and in the considered finding of this court, the ac-
cused has successfully rebutted the presumption under section 139 NI Act
and on the other hand, the complainant has not led any further evidence to
prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.
30. Accordingly, the point of determination no. (B) is found to be affirma-
tive. The complainant has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of rea-
sonable doubt, the point of determination no. (C) is decided in the negative.
CONCLUSION
31. Accordingly, this Court finds the accused Sh. Somil Kumar S/o Sh.
Subhash Chander ‘not guilty’ of the offence under Section 138 NI Act and
accordingly he is acquitted of the said offence.
32. This judgement contains 17 pages, and each page has been signed by
the undersigned as per rules.
CC No. 14112/2016 Tarun Kumar Vs. Somil Kumar pg. no. 16/17
Digitally signed
RISHABH by RISHABH
TANWAR
TANWAR Date: 2025.04.15
16:39:47 +0530
33. Let the copy of digitally signed judgment be uploaded on the website
of Tis Hazari District Court as per rules.
Digitally signed
by RISHABH
TANWAR
RISHABH Date:
TANWAR 2025.04.15
16:39:51
+0530
Announced in open Court (RISHABH TANWAR)
On 15th Day of April 2025 JMFC (NI ACT-01)/WEST/DELHI
CC No. 14112/2016 Tarun Kumar Vs. Somil Kumar pg. no. 17/17
[ad_2]
Source link