High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of; no quashing granted; petition disp...
Geetha Devi K. v. State of Kerala
Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 3764 of 2018
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
- Judgment Date
- 2018-12-03
- Court Decision / Holding
- This petition is disposed of with the above observations.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed of; no quashing granted; petition disposed of with observations; leave to the petitioner to approach Sessions Court for discharge if warranted.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Geetha Devi K., Nursing Superintendent Grade-I (Retired), Government Medical College Hospital, Kotttayam
Respondents
- The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam-682 035
- Dr. Sharmad, the Superintendent, Government Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram
- Udayarani B., Nursing Superintendent Grade-I, Government Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram
- Vijayalekshmy, Nursing Superintendent Grade-II, Government Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram
- The Principal, Government Medical College, Medical College P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. N. Nandakumara Menon (Sr.)
- • Smt. Alice Thomas
- • Smt. M.C. Siny
- • Smt. Smitha S. Pillai
- • Sri P.K. Manojkumar
Counsels for Respondents
- • Smt. M.K. Pushpalath a, Senior Public Prosecutor
- • Sri N.R. Suresh Kumar
Case Synopsis & Summary
The Kerala High Court, in a Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, examines a petition by Geetha Devi K., a retired Nursing Superintendent Grade-I of Government Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.1429 of 2017 pending before the Principal Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The Sessions case charges the petitioner with an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, arising from Crime No.269/2017 at the Medical College Police Station. The alleged incident occurred on 5 November 2016, when the petitioner is said to have insulted and demeaned a de facto complainant belonging to the Scheduled Castes by publicly hurling casteist slurs. The petitioner contends that there is no merit and that a committee headed by the Vice Principal concluded there was no truth in the allegations; the final report purportedly clears the petitioner of the essential ingredients of the offence. The petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash. The contesting de facto complainant argues that Annexure-32 is a laconic, one-page report that does not interrogate key witnesses and cannot justify quashing. The State supports the respondents with the case diary and final report. The Judge emphasizes that, at this early stage, the court should refrain from weighing disputed facts and must assess whether uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish an offence, citing established Supreme Court principles. The petition is disposed of with observations, observing that quashing at the threshold is rare and that the petitioner may seek discharge before the Sessions Court if warranted.
Provisions of Law Cited
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- Power to quash at an early stage should be exercised sparingly to avoid stifling a legitimate prosecution.
- The test at the initial stage is whether uncontroverted allegations in the complaint establish the offence.
- At the early stage, the Court should not analyze materials yet to be adduced or adjudicate disputed questions of fact; prima facie case is the standard.
- If the charge is alleged to be groundless, the petitioner may approach the Sessions Court for discharge.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner's counsel argued lack of merit in the allegations, citing that a detailed enquiry led by a Vice Principal committee concluded there was no truth in the complaint. It was contended that the investigation had concluded and the final report reflected absence of essential ingredients for the offence. The defense urged invocation of the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash, arguing the ingredients are absent and that continuing the prosecution would stifle a legitimate case.
Contentions of Respondents
The de facto complainant's counsel countered that Annexure-32 is a brief, cryptic, one-page report, lacking examination of key witnesses, and cannot justify quashing. It was asserted that the prosecution has laid the prime ingredients of the offence and that witnesses have given statements in terms of the prosecution version, making quashing at the threshold improper. The State's counsel supported the respondents with the case diary and final report.
Cited Precedents (5)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab | AIR 1960 SC 866 | Positive | Cited for the standard test that the court must apply to determine whether uncontroverted allegations establish the offence at the initial stage. |
| State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal | 1992 SCC (Cr) 426 | Positive | Cited as part of the well-settled principles guiding the exercise of inherent powers and quashing. |
| State of Bihar v. PP Sharma | 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 | Positive | Cited in the context of the quashing jurisprudence and the limits of the court's power. |
| Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another | 2005 SCC (Cr.) 293 | Positive | Cited as part of the authoritative discussion on when to exercise inherent powers under Cr.P.C. |
| Tilly Gifford v. Michael Floyd Eshwar and Another | AIR 2017 SC 3823 | Positive | Cited as a more recent authority reinforcing the quashing principles. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Geetha Devi K. v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V**
**MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940**
## **Crl.MC.No. 3764 of 2018**
**SC NO.1429/2017 OF SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**
**CRIME NO.269/2017 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**
## **PETITIONER:**
**GEETHA DEVI K., NURSING SUPERINTENDENT GRADE-I, (RETIRED), GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KOTTTAYAM.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SMT.ALICE THOMAS SMT.M.C.SINY SMT.SMITHA S.PILLAI SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 035.**
**2 DR.SHARMAD, THE SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.**
**3 UDAYARANI B. NURSING SUPERINTENDENT GRADE-I, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.**
**4 VIJAYALEKSHMY, NURSING SUPERINTENDENT GRADE-II, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.**
**Crl.MC.No. 3764 of 2018**
**2**
**5 THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.**
## **R3 BY ADV.SRI.N.R.SURESH KUMAR**
**R1 & R5 BY SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**
**THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
**Crl.MC.No. 3764 of 2018**
**3**
## **ORDER**
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner herein is the accused in S.C.No.1429 of 2017 pending on the files of the Principal Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. In the aforesaid case, she is being proceeded against for having committed offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The above case has arisen from Crime No.269 of 2017 of the Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram registered at the instance of the 3[rd] respondent herein.
3. The petitioner and the de facto complainant, at the relevant time, were working as Nursing Superintendents in the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. With intent to insult and humiliate the de facto complainant, who is a person belonging to the scheduled caste, the petitioner is alleged to have abused her in public view and denigrated her by calling her caste name. The incident occurred on 5.11.2016 at about 12.30 p.m and was
**Crl.MC.No. 3764 of 2018**
**4**
allegedly witnessed by CW's 2 and 3.
4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no merit in the allegations leveled against the petitioner. It is further contended that a detailed enquiry was ordered into the allegations leveled by the de facto complainant and a committee headed by the Vice Principal came to the conclusion that there is no truth in the allegation. It was ignoring the aforesaid aspect that the investigation was concluded and final report was laid. According to the learned Senior counsel, necessary ingredients of the offence being absent, this Court will be well justified in invoking its inherent powers to quash the proceedings.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant contended that Annexure-32 report is a one page report, which is laconic and cryptic and the findings have been arrived at without even questioning CWs. 2 and 3, who are the occurrence witnesses, cited by the prosecution. The report is one sided and cannot be relied on to quash the criminal proceedings, submits the learned counsel. It is submitted that this Court will not
**Crl.MC.No. 3764 of 2018**
**5**
be justified in quashing a legitimate prosecution at the threshold stage when the prime ingredients of the offence has been laid and the witnesses have given statements in terms of the prosecution version.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary as well as the Final Report and would support the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents.
7. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the materials on record.
8. The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is, as to whether uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint establish the offence. While exercising powers under section 482 of the Code, this Court will have to refrain from analysing the materials which are yet to be adduced and seen in their true perspective. Power is to be used sparingly only in rare cases and should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
**Crl.MC.No. 3764 of 2018**
**6**
I refrain from passing opinion on the merits of the allegations at this stage lest it affects the case of either the prosecution or the accused.
9. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 of the Code. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in case of **R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab** (AIR 1960 SC 866), **State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal** (1992 SCC (Cr) 426), **State of Bihar v. PP Sharma** (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192), **Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another** (2005 SCC (Cr.) 293) and more recently in **Tilly Gifford v. Michael Floyd Eshwar and Another** (AIR 2017 SC 3823).
10. Furthermore, if the petitioner has a case that the charge against her is groundless, she can always raise her contentions before the Court of Session where the case is pending and seek for discharge. The learned Senior counsel prays that necessary direction be issued to the Court below to not insist for the personal
**Crl.MC.No. 3764 of 2018**
**7**
appearance of the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to approach the Court below and seek appropriate orders. This Court will not be justified in interfering with the discretion to be exercised by the learned Sessions Judge.
This petition is disposed of with the above observations.
**Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE**
DSV/-
**Crl.MC.No. 3764 of 2018**
**8**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
|**ANNEXURE**|**1**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF TRANSFER**|
|---|---|---|
|||**G.O.(RT)NO.2640/2016/H&FWD DATED 26.9.2016**|
|||**ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE PETITIONER.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**2**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED**|
|||**28.9.2016 IN O.A.NO.2248/2016 PASSED BY THE**|
|||**HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT**|
|||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**3**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER**|
|||**NO.EN6/30272/2016/MCT DATED 29.9.2016 ISSUED**|
|||**BY THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, TO THE**|
|||**SUPERINTENDENT, GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE, TVM.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**4**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER**|
|||**NO.890794/C1/2016/H&FWD DATED 30.9.2016**|
|||**ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO**|
|||**GOVERNMENT, TO THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL**|
|||**EDUCATION, TVM.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**5**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED**|
|||**4.10.2016 IN O.A.NO.2248/2016 PASSED BY THE**|
|||**HOBN'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT**|
|||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**6**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER**|
|||**NO.E1.2947/2016/GMCHT DATED 4.10.2016 ISSUED**|
|||**TO THE SUPERINTENDENT, MEDICAL COLLEGE**|
|||**HOSPITAL, TVM TO THE PETITIONER.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**7**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED**|
|||**5.11.2016 FILED BY THE VIJAYALEKSHMY V. HEAD**|
|||**NURSE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, TVM TO THE**|
|||**SUPERINTENDENT, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL,**|
|||**TVM.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**8**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MEMO NO.E2-**|
|||**14592/2016/M.C.H. DATED 14.11.2016 ISSUED BY**|
|||**THE SUPERINTENDENT, MCH. TVM. TO THE**|
|||**PETITIONER.**|
**Crl.MC.No. 3764 of 2018**
**9**
|**ANNEXURE**|**9**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY DATED**|
|---|---|---|
|||**22.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO**|
|||**THE SUPERINTENDENT, GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE,**|
|||**TRIVANDRUM.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**10**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION**|
|||**DATED 14.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER**|
|||**TO THE PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL,**|
|||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**11**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED**|
|||**5.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE UDHYARANI B.**|
|||**NURSING SUPERINTENDENT MCH.TVM. TO THE**|
|||**SUPERINTENDENT, MCH TVM.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**12**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E2-**|
|||**14846/2016/MCH/ DATED 15.11.2016 ISSUED BY**|
|||**THE SUPERINTENDENT, MCH, TVM TO THE**|
|||**PETITIONER.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**13**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE**|
|||**NO.G2/34046/2016/GMCT DATED 22.11.2016**|
|||**ISSUED BY THE VICE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT**|
|||**MEDICAL COLLEGE, TVM. TO THE PETITIONER.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**14**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED**|
|||**24.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE UDHAYARANI B.**|
|||**NURSING SUPERINTENDENT, NURSING IN CHARGE,**|
|||**MCH.TVM. TO THE SUPERINTENDENT, MEDICAL**|
|||**COLLEGE, TVM.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**15**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT**|
|||**NO.E2/15501/2016/MCH.TVM. DATED 25.11.2016**|
|||**ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT**|
|||**(GENERAL), MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,**|
|||**MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., TVM-695011.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**16**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER**|
|||**NO.E2.15501/2016/GOV. MCH. DATED 25.11.2016,**|
|||**ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT OF**|
|||**KERALA, TVM.**|
**Crl.MC.No. 3764 of 2018**
**10**
|**ANNEXURE**|**17**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER**|
|---|---|---|
|||**NO.J1/36671/2016/MED. DEPT. DATED 7.12.2016**|
|||**ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR INCHARGE, MEDICAL**|
|||**EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TVM.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**18**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION**|
|||**DATED 8.12.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER**|
|||**TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,**|
|||**DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**19**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER**|
|||**NO.G2/34046/2016/GMCT DATED 9.12.2016 ISSUED**|
|||**BY THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL**|
|||**COLLEGE, TVM. TO THE PETITIONER.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**20**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE**|
|||**NO.G2/34678/2016/GMCT DATED 2.12.2016 ISSUED**|
|||**BY THE VICE PRINCIPAL, GOVT. MEDICAL**|
|||**COLLEGE, TVM. TO THE PETITIONER.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**21**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED**|
|||**BY THE UDHYARANI, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL,**|
|||**GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, MEDICAL COLLEGE**|
|||**P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**22**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE**|
|||**NO.J1/36671/16/DME DATED 5.1.2017 ISSUED BY**|
|||**THE JOINT DIRECTOR, (NURSING) MEDICAL**|
|||**EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TVM TO THE PETITIONER.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**23**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED**|
|||**2.2.2017 IN O.A.NO.136/2017 PASSED BY THE**|
|||**KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT**|
|||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**24**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED**|
|||**6.2.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE UDHAYARANI B.**|
|||**NURSING SUPERINTENDENT GRADE-I, MCH, TVM.**|
|||**BEFORE THE SHRI.B.SATHYAN, MLA.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**25**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE FIR NO.0269 DATED**|
|||**9.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF**|
|||**ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,**|
|||**TVM.**|
**Crl.MC.No. 3764 of 2018**
**11**
|**ANNEXURE**|**26**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER**|
|---|---|---|
|||**NO.J1/36671/2016/M.EDN.DEPT. DATED 17.2.2017**|
|||**ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR IN-CHARGE, DIRECTOR,**|
|||**MEDICAL EDUCATION, TVM TO THE PETITIONER.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**27**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED**|
|||**20.2.2017 IN O.A.NOS.2248 OF 2016 AND 136 OF**|
|||**2017 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR**|
|||**(JUDICIAL).**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**28**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT)**|
|||**NO.607/2017/H & FWD DATED 9.3.2017 ISSUED BY**|
|||**THE GOVERNMENT TO THE PETITIONER.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**29**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER**|
|||**NO.E1.1875/2017 GMCHT DATED 17.3.2017 ISSUED**|
|||**BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, MEDICAL COLLEGE**|
|||**HOSPITAL, TVM. TO THE PETITIONER.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**30**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED**|
|||**16.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE SYBER CITY SUB**|
|||**DIVISION POLICE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,**|
|||**KAZHAKOOTTAM.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**31**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT**|
|||**NO.269/2017 DATED 28.8.2017 HON'BLE DISTRICT**|
|||**SESSIONS COURT, TVM.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**32**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT**|
|||**NO.G2/34678/2016/GMCT ISSUED BY THE VICE**|
|||**PRINCIPAL, GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE,**|
|||**TRIVANDRUM.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**32(A)**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER**|
|||**NO.G2/34357/2016/GMCT DATED 8.2.2017 ISSUED**|
|||**BY THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE,**|
|||**TVM. TO THE DIRECTOR, MEDICAL EDUCATION,**|
|||**TVM.**|
|**ANNEXURE**|**33**|**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.**|
|||**(P)NO.3403/2017/H&FWD DATED 30.11.2017**|
|||**ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.**|
**Crl.MC.No. 3764 of 2018**
**12**
## **ANNEXURE 34**
**THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P) NO.524/2018/H&FWD DATED 16.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.**
## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**NIL**
**//TRUE COPY//**
**P.A.TO JUDGE**