Kerala Assistant Public Prosecutors Association represented by its General Secretary Kilithattil, Cheru vallimukku, Attingal P.O., Thiruvananthapuram 695101 v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 2ND MAGHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.14714 OF 2020(R)** ## **PETITIONER:** **KERALA ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTORS ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY KILITHATTIL, CHERUVALLIMUKKU, ATTINGAL P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 101** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS SRI.S.AJITH (PALAKKAD)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME(C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001** - **2 HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, ERNAKULAM 680 031** - **3 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, NEW DELHI 110 001** - **4 KERALA STATE COMMISSION FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, TC 14/2036, VANROSS JUNCTION, KERALA UNIVERSITY P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034** - **5 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTIONS, DIRECTORATE OF PROSECUTION, KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 018** W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 2 - **6 SUSMITHA JOHN, AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, W/O.NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER, THARAMACKALAM HOUSE, CHELIMADA, KUMALY P.O.-685 509.** - **7 SANEESH S.S.,** - **AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER, SREEKRISHNA BHAVAN, HALIEYBURIA P.O., ELAPPARA-685 501.** - **8 S. REGHU,** - **AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER, ALEKALATHIL, PUTHIYAVILA P.O., KAYAMKULAM-690 531.** - **9 PAUL K.ABRAHAM, AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER, KALAMBUKATTUSSERIL, KUMARAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 563.** - **10 P.S. MANOJ, AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER, MADHAVASRAMAM, PERUNNA P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM-686 101.** - **11 KIRAN RAJ R.,** - **AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER, EETTIVIAYIL, KOODAL, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 693.** - **12 R.N. RANJITH,** **AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER, THAPANI HOUSE, MELUR P.O., KOYILANDY-673 306.** - **13 JETHIN P., AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.P. VISHWAN, PALOTTERI HOUSE, MELUR P.O., KOYILANDY-673 305.** W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 3 **14** **PRIYA U.K., AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, W/O.NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER, PAROTTIYIL HOUSE, MEENANGADI P.O., WAYANAD-673 591.** **RESPONDENTS 6 TO 14 ARE IMPLEADED AS SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENTS 6 TO 14 VIDE ORDER DATED 17/08/2020 IN IA.3/2020 IN WPC.** **R1, R5 BY SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 BY ADV. SHRI.B.G.HARINDRANATH R2 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW R3 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ R7 BY ADV. SRI.RAJIV NAMBISAN R8 BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL R10 BY ADV. SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP R11 BY ADV. SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN R12-14 BY ADV. SRI.P.FAZIL R12-14 BY ADV. SRI.V.S.SREEJITH R12-14 BY ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ R12-14 BY ADV. SRI.SAJU THALIYATH R12-14 BY ADV. SRI.JITHIN PAUL VARGHESE** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **N. MANOJ KUMAR SPL GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-11-2020, THE COURT ON 22-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 4 ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.14714 of 2020** # **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22[nd] day of January, 2021** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:- _“i) declare that Assistant Public Prosecutors/ Deputy Director of prosecution are entitled to be considered as advocates for the purpose of appointment to the post of Special Public Prosecutors in Fast Track Special Courts (Fast Track Special Courts) for expeditious trial of Rape cases and cases registered under POCSO Act proposed to established in the State and further that respondents 1 and 2 are bound to complete the recruitment process under the supervision of the 4th respondent, and in terms of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 alone and not under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Rule 8 of the Kerala Government Law officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978;_ _(ii) issue a writ of mandamus of any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to give adequate representation to senior grade Assistant Public Prosecutors and Deputy Director of Prosecution in the list of Special Public Prosecutors in Fast Track Special Courts (Fast Track Special Courts) for expeditious trial of Rape cases and cases registered under POCSO Act proposed to established in the State;_ W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 5 _(iii) issue a writ of certiorari of any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P2 to the extent that it directs District Judges to forward a list of lawyers eligible to be appointed as Special Public Prosecutors in the newly set up Fast Track Special Courts in their district as per Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;_ _(iv) issue a writ of mandamus of any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10 representation forwarded to it, as expeditiously as possible and within an outer time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court; and_ _(v) issue a writ of certiorari of any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P11 notification issued by the 1[st] respondent”_ 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents 6 to 14. 3. The petitioner, which is a registered association of Assistant Public Prosecutors, seeks the declaratory and directory reliefs for a consideration of Assistant Public Prosecutors in the State of Kerala for recruitment as Special Public Prosecutors in the Fast Track Special Courts created for expeditious trial of cases under the W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the POCSO Act'). It is submitted that pursuant to directions of the Apex Court, Special Courts for expeditious trial of cases registered under the POCSO Act were set up in the State of Kerala as well. 28 Fast Track Special Courts were set up and the post of Special Public Prosecutor was proposed to be filled up on a contractual basis. By Ext.P1 order dated 06.02.2020, 28 such courts were set up with one Special Public Prosecutor in each such court being appointed on a contract basis. It was provided in Ext.P1 that the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors will be on contract basis and that the selection will be in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and also as per Section 32 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 4. By Ext.P2, the High Court had directed the functioning of 14 Fast Track Special Courts to be made functional by March, 2020. The District Judges were directed to forward the list of lawyers eligible for appointment as full time Special Prosecutors in the Fast Track 7 W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 Special Courts to the Law Department. Special Prosecutors were to be selected from lawyers practicing in the same district possessing appropriate attitude and temperament to deal with the victims of POCSO Act cases and should preferably be active in issues regarding child rights. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Assistant Public Prosecutor, who are competent and experienced should be appointed as Special Public Prosecutors in the POCSO in public interest, since they are best suited for such appointment. The said issue has been repeatedly agitated before the Government, but to no avail. It is stated that Ext.P3 complaint had been preferred by an NGO seeking appointment of Special Public Prosecutors in POCSO Courts from among Senior grade Assistant Public Prosecutors and Deputy Director of Prosecutions. It is stated that several requests had been addressed to the Government seeking that atleast a percentage of the Special Public Prosecutors in the newly set up Fast Track Special Courts' should be appointed from amongst Deputy 8 W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 Directors of Prosecution and Senior Grade Assistant Public Prosecutors. It is submitted that in spite of the earnest requests made by the petitioner association, no action had been taken to consider the representations submitted. Relying on a decision of the Apex Court in **State of Punjab and another vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal and another [(2016) 6 SCC 1]** , it is contended that appointments to public posts must be conducted in a fair and transparent manner and should be non discriminatory. It is contended that Public Prosecutors, who are not employed in any public service or civil post under the State, cannot be excluded from the purview of practicing advocates. A decision of this Court in **Aju Mathew and others v. State of Kerala and others [2018 (5) KHC 770]** and **Omanakuttan Nair v. State of Kerala [2003 KHC 29]** are also relied on. 6. It is submitted that going by Section 32 of the POCSO Act, any advocate, who is in practice for not less than 7 years, is eligible for appointment as Special Public Prosecutor. Relying on the decision of ## W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 9 the Apex Court in **Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik and others [(2013) 5 SCC 277]** , the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a Public Prosecutor or Government Counsel on the rolls of the Bar Council is also an advocate and is eligible to be considered against all posts to which an advocate can be considered. However, it is stated that neither Ext.P1 Government Order nor Ext.P2 memorandum of the High Court of Kerala acknowledges the right of Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed under Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be considered for appointment as Special Public Prosecutors under the POCSO Act. 7. It is further submitted that the power to frame rules is conferred by Section 45 of the POCSO Act and the 3[rd] respondent has framed the Protection of Children form Sexual Offences Rules, 2020. Rule 12(b) of the Rules stipulates that the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights or the State Commission shall, in addition to the functions assigned to it under the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 monitor the appointment of W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 10 Special Public Prosecutors by the State Governments. Section 44 of the POCSO Act vests the power of monitoring the implementation of provisions of the Act with the Child Rights Commission. 8. The selection was carried out during the pendency of the writ petition. The writ petition was amended and specific allegations with regard to the 9 Public Prosecutors appointed by Ext.P11 notification dated 05.08.2020 have been placed on record. It is stated that the supplemental 10[th] respondent who was a member of the ruling party of the State resigned as Councilor of Ward No.20 of Changanassery Municipality on 03.08.2020 before being appointed as Special Public Prosecutor on 05.08.2020. It is stated that the 13[th] respondent is the son of former CPM MLA, Sri.P.Vishwan. Supplemental 6[th] respondent was a member of the Communist Party of India, which is the part of the ruling front and is an Ex. Member of the Idukki District Panchayat while supplemental 7[th] respondent is one of the leaders of the All India Lawyers Union, Idukki. The 8[th] respondent is a Former District level leader of the Students W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 11 Federation of India, while the 9[th] respondent, whose father was a former district Government Pleader and is a leader of the All India Lawyers Union, Kottayam. The 11[th] respondent is a strong sympathizer and active worker of CPI(M), who is practicing law along with Mr.Pheelipose Thomas, a prominent political leader and now chairman of KSFE Ltd. The supplemental 12[th] respondent is a leader of the Loktantrik Janata Dal, an ally of the ruling party in the State. It is, therefore, contended that the entire exercise of appointment of Special Public Prosecutors is vitiated and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. 9. A statement has been placed on record by the 2[nd] respondent. It is contended that the petitioner association represents Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed under Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for conducting Prosecution in Magistrate Courts and that such persons who form part of the cadre of a civil service of the State cannot claim any right to be considered for _ad hoc_ appointment to the post of Special Public Prosecutor in the Fast W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 12 Track Special Courts constituted to try offences under the POCSO Act. It is contended that the Government of Kerala had accorded sanction for establishing 28 Fast Track Special Courts on a temporary basis for two years by Ext.R2(a) Government Order dated 24.04.2020. 17 such courts commenced with effect from 01.07.2020 and the District Judges were directed to forward a list of lawyers eligible to be appointed in each of the courts sanctioned in their district for appointment as full time Special Public Prosecutor in the Fast Track Special Court as provided under Section 24(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is stated that the list was duly forwarded to the Home Department and the Government as per Ext.R2(c) Government Order dated 05.08.2020 appointed the Special Public Prosecutors whose names had been send up by the District Judges in 9 Fast Track Special Courts. It is submitted that further appointments have also been made following the procedure provided under Section 24(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 13 10. A statement has also been placed on record by the 1[st] respondent. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that appointments have been made to the post of Special Public Prosecutors to the POCSO Courts only for a short term duration of two years. It is submitted that the Special Public Prosecutors are appointed for conducting cases in the Fast Track Special Courts trying POCSO cases exclusively. It is submitted that the procedure provided in Section 32 of the POCSO Act as well as Section 24(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are followed and there is absolutely no violation of any procedure. It is contended that there is absolutely no mention that there was even any application submitted by any one of the members of the petitioner association and that as such, the contentions of the petitioner are totally misconceived. It is further submitted that Assistant Public Prosecutors and Deputy Directors of Prosecution are employees of the Government, being a part of the cadre of post created for conduct of prosecutions in Magistrate Courts. It is submitted that applications were called for by the District W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 14 Magistrate as provided under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a list was called for from the District Judges. It is submitted that a due and proper consultation under Section 24(4) had been carried out and that the vague allegations raised by the writ petitioner cannot be relied on in the absence of any violation of the prescribed procedure in the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors. It is further contended that the petitioner association has absolutely no _locus standi_ to maintain a writ petition of this nature. A decision of the Apex Court in **Girjesh Shrivastava and others v. State of M.P. and others** [ JT 2010(11) SC598 ] is relied on. 11. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in **John v. State of Kerala (1981 KHC 26)** to contend that Section 24(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply only in case of States where there is a regular cadre consisting a hierarchy of prosecuting officers. Construing the provisions of Section 24(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 15 of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules 1978 (for short 'the 1978 Rules'), the Division Bench held that there is no cadre of prosecuting officers existing in the State of Kerala. It was held that the mere fact that Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade I and Grade II together with Legal Adviser to the Vigilance Division and Additional Legal Adviser to the Vigilance Division formed a separate class for the purpose of the Special Rules will not sustain the contention that a regular cadre of prosecuting officers exists in the State. It was found that Public Prosecutors, Assistant Public Prosecutors and District Government Pleaders were not covered by the Special Rules, but were governed by the 1978 Rules. It was thus found that the provisions of subsection 6 of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted in the appointment of Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors in the State of Kerala. 12. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been an amendment to the Rule, I notice that Section 25 specifically provides for the appointment of Assistant Public W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 16 Prosecutors for conducting prosecutions in the Courts of Magistrates. Even today, the appointment of District Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors in District courts are governed by the 1978 Rules. More so, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court was upheld by the Apex Court in **John v. State of Kerala (1990 KHC 447)** . This Court in **Aju Mathew and others v. State of Kerala and others [2018(5) KHC 770]** also considered the issue of appointment to the post of Special Public Prosecutors under the POCSO Act. It was found that framing of rules under Section 45 of the POCSO Act was not a condition prerequisite for appointment of Special Public Prosecutors under Section 32. It was further found that if the provisions of Section 24(3) and 24(4) Cr.P.C. are scrupulously followed, the objectives declared in the judgments of the Apex Court in the matter of appointment of persons as prosecutors to various courts would be met. It was held that the consultation between the District Judge and the District Magistrate should be a meaningful consultation. An earlier decision of this Court in **Vinod v. State of Kerala [2016 (3) KLT 920]** is also W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 17 relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 13. I have considered the contentions advanced. It is not in dispute before me that the appointment is sought to be made to the post of Special Public Prosecutors under the Fast Track Special Courts trying cases under the POCSO Act. It is to be noticed that such Fast Track Special Courts are all district courts. The appointments are being made for a period of two years at the first instance. It is a specific case of the Government as well as the High Court that a notification had been called for, applications had been received and the applications had been placed before the District Judge for consideration. It is stated that the District Judges concerned had forwarded lists of suitable candidates from which the appointments had been made by the Government. The learned Government Pleader also places reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in **State of Kerala vs. Saju George and others (2017 KHC 2898) c** onsidering an identical question of appointment 18 W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 of Special Public Prosecutors in POCSO courts. The Division Bench held that though the 2012 Rules under the POCSO Act contained provisions for monitoring the appointments of Public Prosecutors by the State Government and held that the Commissions do not have any say in the matter of appointment or removal of Special Public Prosecutors, it was held that the duty of the Commissions was to see that duly qualified prosecutors are appointed without any break to handle the matters in the Special Courts and that it is for the State Government to appoint duly qualified advocates to the posts. It was held that the appointments should be made as Special Public Prosecutors under the POCSO Act exclusively and that the meaningful consultation as provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure must be scrupulously followed. 14. In the instant case, the petitioner association seeks to represent the Assistant Public Prosecutors in the State who admittedly form a cadre in the service of the State. The contention is that Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed under Section 25 are W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 19 also eligible to be considered for appointment as Special Public Prosecutors. If it is the contention of the petitioner as is evident from the representations submitted before the Government and the various authorities that the service put in by Assistant Public Prosecutors is also liable to be considered by making appointments as Special Public Prosecutors under the POCSO Act, I am of the opinion that, that is a matter which requires consideration and a policy decision by the Government. The desirability of experienced prosecutors being considered for regular appointments as Special Public Prosecutors for trial of cases under the POCSO Act is indeed a matter which requires such consideration. However, in the factual situation as obtained in the State of Kerala where there is no regular cadre of prosecutors consisting of a hierarchy of such prosecutors and the appointment of prosecutors as a cadre is limited to those appointed under Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in view of the fact that a separate procedure is provided for appointment of Special Public Prosecutors under the POCSO Act, the contention that the service put in by Assistant Public Prosecutors W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 20 and their experience as such is also liable to be reckoned for appointment to the post of Special Public Prosecutors cannot be accepted. This is more so in view of the fact that it is categorically contended that the District Magistrates had called for applications from eligible candidates and such applications had been forwarded to the District Judges for consideration and it was from the list sent up by the District Judges that the appointments have been made. In view of the above facts, the contentions raised in the writ petition regarding the political leaning or connections of the applicants are irrelevant since it is not disputed that they are qualified and are appointed pursuant to a due process of selection. In the above factual situations and in view of the fact that there is no whisper in the writ petition that any application had been made by any Assistant Public Prosecutor in pursuance to the notifications issued, I am of the opinion that the issue whether an Assistant Public Prosecutor is a practicing advocate and is therefore eligible to claim the appointment as Special Public Prosecutor for conduct of cases under the POCSO Act does not require to be W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 21 considered herein. In the above view of the matter, the substantial prayers raised in the writ petition are disallowed. However, in case the petitioner make an appropriate representation before the State and Central Governments for proper steps to be taken for the formation of a cadre of prosecuting officers in the State, the said issue will be properly considered by the respondents in accordance with law. **==> picture [26 x 14] intentionally omitted <==** **Anu Sivaraman, Judge** sj/np W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 22 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE G.O DATED 06-02-2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P2** - **TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 24-02-2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31-102019 SUBMITTED BY YUVASWARAJ SOCIAL WELFARE FORUM BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13-122019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06-012020 SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07-122019 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 14012-2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 2009-2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM DATED 24-022020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER.** W.P.(C).No.14714/2020 23 **EXHIBIT P11** **TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 05.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS** **ANNEXURE R2(A) A COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.GO(MS) 93/2020/HOME DATED 24.4.2020** **ANNEXURE R2(B) A COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.GO(MS) 136/2020/HOME DATED 25.6.2020 ANNEXURE R2(C) A COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.GO(RT) 1728/2020/HOME DATED 5.8.2020** TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE