OP(Crl.) No. 1856 of 2013 (Q) & Crl.R.P.No.1083 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: ## THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939 OP(Crl.).No. 1856 of 2013 (Q) -----------------------------CC NO.790/2011 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHAVAKKAD PETITIONERS: ------------- 1. M.SURENDRAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, PRESENTLY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUNGALLUR, RESIDING AT MANGATTU HOUSE, ERAVU VILLAGE, ERAVU DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. M.R.JAYAKUMAR, PRESENTLY SENIOR C.P.O (GRADE), ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT THIRUMANNUR HOUSE, MUNDATHIKODE P.O, VIA VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR. 3. M.GIRIJA VALLABHAN, PRESENTLY ASI (GRADE), GURUAYOOR POLICE STATION, RESIDING AT MARUTHUR HOUSE, CHOONISSERY, MUNDOOR, THRISSUR. 4. P.M.SHERLI, PRESENTLY WCPO CONTROL ROOM, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT THAIKKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, NJERUVASSERY, ARATTPUZHA, THRISSUR. BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SENIOR ADVOCATE) SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL RESPONDENTS: - -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. - 695 001. 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 4. SMT.GEETHAPRASAD, NAVASREE, THEVALLY P.O., KOLLAM - 691 009. OP(Crl.).No. 1856 of 2013 (Q) 2 5. DR.PREMSANKAR, S/O.K.K.PRASAD, NAVASREE, THEVALLY P.O., KOLLAM - 691 009. R4&R5 BY ADVS. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SENIOR ADVOCATE) SRI.K.SURESH SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.NARAYANAN THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.11.2017, ALONG WITH CRL.RP.NO. 1083/2014, THE COURT ON 08-12-2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(Crl.).No. 1856 of 2013 (Q) ------------------------------ ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ACCORDING SANCTION AS G.O.(RT) NO.3397/2012 HOME DATED 19/11/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.790 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF TEH COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, CHAVAKKAD. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// ## **A.HARIPRASAD, J.** ## **--------------------------------------** ## **O.P. (Crl.) No.1856 of 2013 & Crl.R.P.No.1083 of 2014 -------------------------------------Dated this the 8[th] day of December, 2017** ## **COMMON JUDGMENT** As these matters are interconnected, I heard them together. Crl.R.P.No.1083 of 2014 is filed by the defacto complainant in Crime No.813 of 2009 of Guruvayoor Police Station registered under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”). Revision petitioner alleged that on 13.12.2009 at about 8.30 a.m., the 1[st] respondent/accused violated traffic signal while driving a car bearing No.KL 01-AD-7057 at RV Curve Guruvayoor. The violation was detected by CW12, a police personnel, posted on traffic duty. As the police officer on duty questioned the 1[st] respondent for violating the rule, he went to Guruvayoor Police Station and picked up altercation with the revision petitioner, who was then the Sub Inspector of Police, Guruvayoor, on duty. It is the allegation that the 1[st] respondent/accused obstructed the official duty of the revision petitioner by holding his hand and attempting to manhandle him. Therefore, it is alleged that he is guilty of an offence punishable under Section 353 IPC. After OP(Crl.) No.1856 of 2013 & Crl.R.P.No.1083 of 2014. 2 investigation, a final report was laid and cognizance thereon was taken for the aforementioned offence. Case was numbered as C.C.No.145 of 2010 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad. 2. Revision petitioner would contend that in order to make out a defence in the case instituted against the 1[st] respondent, he preferred a complaint against the police personnel, including the revision petitioner, alleging ill-treatment and physical torture. That case is pending as C.C.No.790 of 2011 before the same court. Proceedings therein are challenged in O.P.(Crl.) No.1856 of 2013, which is heard along with this case. 3. Grievance of the revision petitioner is that the court below on improper consideration of the materials available on record ordered dropping the proceedings against the 1[st] respondent/accused under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Code”) in an unlawful manner. That order is under challenge in the revision petition. 4. O.P.(Crl.) No.1856 of 2013 is filed by the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.1083 of 2014 along with other police officers, who alleged to have detected the traffic rule violation by the 5[th] respondent (1[st] respondent in Crl.R.P.No.1083 of 2014) on 13.12.2009 at Guruvayoor. It is the allegation that the 5[th] respondent misbehaved with the 2[nd] petitioner herein and that matter was informed to the 1[st] petitioner, who was the Sub OP(Crl.) No.1856 of 2013 & Crl.R.P.No.1083 of 2014. 3 Inspector of Police, Guruvayoor, over wireless. 1[st] petitioner directed to take the 5[th] respondent's vehicle to the police station. 5[th] respondent went to Guruvayoor police station and there happened hot exchange of words between the 1[st] petitioner and 5[th] respondent and when the 1[st] petitioner asked to hand over the documents and key of the vehicle, 5[th] respondent caught hold of the 1[st] petitioner and prevented him from discharging official duty. 5[th] respondent was arrested at 8.45 hours and Crime No.813 of 2009 under Section 353 IPC was registered against him. He was taken to the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital for medical examination. He was later produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and remanded to Sub Jail, Chavakkad. When he was produced before the court on 14.09.2009, he preferred a complaint before the Magistrate alleging ill-treatment at the hands of petitioners. On the said complaint, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate against the petitioners and the matter is now pending in C.C.No.790 of 2011 before the said court. A petty case, under Section 122 read with Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the basis of the report submitted by the 2[nd] petitioner for violation of traffic signal, was also registered against the 5[th] respondent. 5[th] respondent pleaded guilty and remitted a fine of `100/- in S.T.No.401 of 2010. 5. 4[th] respondent herein preferred a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Thrissur on 15.12.2009 against the petitioners. OP(Crl.) No.1856 of 2013 & Crl.R.P.No.1083 of 2014. 4 An enquiry was conducted therein by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kunnamkulam on the allegation of ill-treatment of the 5[th] respondent, who is the son of 4[th] respondent. Government of Kerala granted sanction to prosecute the petitioners in C.C.No.790 of 2011 mentioned above. Ext.P1 is the order of sanction issued by the Government to prosecute the petitioners, which is under challenge in O.P.(Crl.) No.1856 of 2013. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the petitioners in the original petition and also the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent in the criminal revision and the contesting respondents in the original petition. Learned Public Prosecutor is also heard. 7. I shall deal with the contentions in the criminal revision initially. Case of the 1[st] respondent in the revision is that on 13.12.2009, he along with his parents went in a car to Sree Guruvayoorappan temple for darsan. When they reached at the RV Curve Junction, the police officer in charge of traffic duty abused him in filthy language alleging that he violated the traffic signal. An altercation ensued between the Civil Police Officer and the 1[st] respondent. The 1[st] respondent noted identity of the Civil Police Officer and went to Guruvayoor Police Station for lodging a complaint against him for abusing him in front of family members. In the meantime, the Civil Police Officer had informed the matter to the revision petitioner OP(Crl.) No.1856 of 2013 & Crl.R.P.No.1083 of 2014. 5 through a wireless set. When the 1[st] respondent reached the police station and narrated the incident to the revision petitioner, latter, instead of recording his complaint, shouted at and manhandled him in the presence of his parents. Other petitioners in the original petition, who were present in the police station had also brutally assaulted the 1[st] respondent. When the 1[st] respondent's mother started crying, a Women Police Constable assaulted her and pushed her out. Thereafter, the revision petitioner registered a case under Section 353 IPC against the 1[st] respondent and he was taken to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and then remanded him to sub jail. On the next day, the respondent was produced before the court and then he narrated the entire incident before the Magistrate. After recording his statement, the Magistrate directed the police to give medical aid to the 1[st] respondent and he was released on bail on the same day. 8. Version of the other side, viz., the police officers, is completely different. 1[st] respondent in the revision petition was picked up for violation of traffic rules at Guruvayoor. He was directed to go to the police station and submit the documents pertaining to the vehicle. From the police station, he picked up a quarrel with the revision petitioner and obstructed discharge of his official duty by attempting to manhandle him. Therefore the case was registered against the 1[st] respondent. Fact that the 1[st] respondent was booked for a traffic offence is beyond dispute as it is the OP(Crl.) No.1856 of 2013 & Crl.R.P.No.1083 of 2014. 6 definite case of the revision petitioner that he had pleaded guilty and remitted fine of `100/- in S.T.No.401 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad. It is the definite case of the 1[st] respondent that he was abused by a Civil Police Officer in public, that too in front of his parents, by using abhorrent epithets. On account of this, the 1[st] respondent felt humiliated and wanted to complain to the revision petitioner. Therefor he went to the police station. From the station, he was physically assaulted and mentally harassed, is his case. These allegations and counter allegations were not established in both the cases as trial has not happened. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the court below without any legal justification dropped the prosecution in Crime No.813 of 2009 of Guruvayoor Police Station involved in C.C.No.145 of 2010 by wrongly invoking the provisions in Section 258 of the Code. The offence under Section 353 IPC is admittedly a case to be tried as a summons case, as per Chapter XX of the Code. 10. It is seen that the 1[st] respondent/accused had approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.145 of 2010. This Court directed him to file a discharge petition before the Magistrate and the court below was directed to consider the application on merit. It should have been noticed that a discharge was not OP(Crl.) No.1856 of 2013 & Crl.R.P.No.1083 of 2014. 7 possible in this case as no charge framing was involved in a summons case. Therefore, the learned Magistrate apparently resorted to Section 258 of the Code. Legality of the order is seriously challenged by the revision petitioner. 11. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent/accused would contend that the court below is perfectly justified in terminating the proceedings under Section 258 of the Code. 12. Let me examine legality of the order in the light of the provisions in Section 258 of the Code. Section reads as follows: _“_ _**Power to stop proceedings in certain cases.** - In any summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge.”_ This Section contemplates the powers of a Magistrate as to stopping cases and releasing the accused in any case instituted otherwise than upon a OP(Crl.) No.1856 of 2013 & Crl.R.P.No.1083 of 2014. 8 complaint. It is well settled that Section 258 of the Code can be restored to where the special or unusual circumstances exist, such as non-appearance of the accused before the Court for considerable time or of the important witness of the prosecution, which make it difficult or impossible for the Magistrate to proceed with the case in a normal way. The language of Section 258 of the Code is very wide and can cover any set of circumstances in which a Magistrate thinks that the proceedings in a summons case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, ought not to be continued. But, the trend of judicial decisions on the scope of Section 258 of the Code suggests that it is an enabling Section and it is one to be applied in very special circumstances. This Court in **Radhamany Amma v. Kunju Pillai (1980 KLT 393)** and **Balakrishna Panicker v. Thevan (1987 (1) KLT 628)** has held that Section 258 of the Code is intended to be applied only in very special and compelling circumstances which make it difficult or impossible for the Magistrate to proceed in the usual way by taking evidence as provided in Section 254 of the Code. Needless to say that the power under Section 258 of the Code shall be exercised reasonably and judiciously. It should not be forgotten that normal rule is that both parties do get an opportunity to adduce evidence and the court should give its verdict on the guilt or innocence of the accused based on the evidence in the case. The court may invoke Section 258 of the Code in OP(Crl.) No.1856 of 2013 & Crl.R.P.No.1083 of 2014. 9 a case where the allegations against the accused, even accepting them as true, do not constitute offence or on being satisfied that there exists serious defects in the prosecution case which go to the root of the matter and thereby rendering further proceedings rather impossible or futile. 13. Let us apply the test to the order under challenge. After narrating the case of the parties, learned Magistrate observed thus: _“11. Now the question is whether there is sufficient material to continue the proceedings against the accused U/s.353 of IPC?_ _**Honourable High Court of Kerala in Kamala Rajaram V. State of Kerala reported in 2005 (3) KLT 617 held that** “In a prosecution a summons case instituted otherwise than on a police report, Magistrate has the power to discontinue the proceedings at the stage of S.251 by invoking his powers under S.251 along with powers under S.258, if there are no sufficient materials to proceed the dictum laid down in Kamala Rajaram V. State of Kerala is applicable in this case also. Absolutely there is no material before this court that accused tried to assault the Sub Inspector and thereby obstruct to discharge his official duty. In the FIS there is no allegation that what is the duty obstructed by the accused. Further there is no material before this_ OP(Crl.) No.1856 of 2013 & Crl.R.P.No.1083 of 2014. 10 _court that whether the Sub Inspector was in execution of his duty. Further there is no material produced before this court that the Sub Inspector was on the duty on the alleged day. The allegations in the FI Statement is also unbelievable. Normally no prudent man will assault or tried to assault a Sub Inspector from the Police Station. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner herein is not a layman and he is a well educated person. So the allegation against the petitioner that he tried to assault the Sub Inspector from the Police station is quite unbelievable._ _12. The materials produced before the court shows that some altercation was happened between the civil Police Officer who was in charge of traffic duty at R.V.Tower and the petitioner on the alleged day and in order to lodge a complaint against the Police Officer, the petitioner went to Guruvayoor Police Station. The petitioner narrated the entire incident before the Sub Inspector, but instead of recording his complaint, the Sub Inspector shouted and brutally assaulted him from the Police Station. Against the Police harassment a criminal case is pending before this court and Government has already granted sanction U/s.197 of Cr.P.C. for prosecuting them. It is also brought out that the_ OP(Crl.) No.1856 of 2013 & Crl.R.P.No.1083 of 2014. 11 _Government has already initiated disciplinary proceedings against the Police Officials and actions were also taken against them. The prosecution records clearly reveals that the petitioner herein has sustained several injuries on the alleged day, i.e. even at the time of producing him before the Magistrate. So in order to overcome the criminal liability that may be initiated against the Police Officials with respect to the Police harassment a false case was registered against the petitioner U/s.353 of IPC. On going through the prosecution records, it is clear that the case registered against the petitioner is false and frivolous and there is no material in the FIR to attract the offence U/s 353 of IPC against the accused.”_ 14. The reasonings mentioned above do not justify dropping of the proceedings under Section 258 of the Code. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, observations in the impugned order that there is no allegation as to what duty of the revision petitioner was obstructed by the 1[st] respondent/accused, that there was no material before the court whether the revision petitioner was executing his duty as Sub Inspector of Police at the material time and that if the revision petitioner was on duty on the alleged day are completely unsustainable. Even according to the case of the 1[st] respondent, the revision petitioner OP(Crl.) No.1856 of 2013 & Crl.R.P.No.1083 of 2014. 12 was present in the police station and he himself assaulted the 1[st] respondent. Therefore his presence in the police station and the fact that he was working as Sub Inspector of Police at the relevant time cannot be doubted. It is evident that the jurisdiction vested in a Magistrate under Section 258 of the Code was preposterously used by the Magistrate. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable in law. 15. Now I shall deal with the original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of Ext.P1 sanction order issued under Section 197 of the Code by the 2[nd] respondent for prosecuting the petitioners in C.C.No.790 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad. Ext.P2 is the complaint filed by the 5[th] respondent against the petitioners. As mentioned above, the alleged traffic violation and consequent altercation between the police officers and the complainant are narrated in Ext.P2. He would further contend that when he went to the police station for complaining against the conduct of the 2[nd] accused, the 1[st] accused, who functioned as the Sub Inspector of Police, Guruvayoor Police Station, abused and beat him. 2[nd] respondent issued the sanction to prosecute the petitioners. The file in respect of the case was produced by the prosecution. I have carefully perused the file. From the file, it can be seen that at the instance of the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, OP(Crl.) No.1856 of 2013 & Crl.R.P.No.1083 of 2014. 13 Kunnamkulam had conducted an enquiry into the alleged incident and after collecting material evidence, a report was filed insinuating the 1[st] petitioner/revision petitioner. The enquiry was initiated at the instance of the complaint preferred by respondents 4 and 5 before the City Police Commissioner, Thrissur. On a careful perusal of the file, it can be seen that the materials gathered in the departmental enquiry were sent to the State Police Chief and to the Secretary of the Home Department, Government of Kerala. Even though the State Police Chief recommended that no sanction need be accorded to prosecute the petitioners, the Government after applying its mind accorded Ext.P1 sanction. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on a mere look at Ext.P1 order it will be clear that the mandate of Section 197 of the Code has not been complied by the Secretary to the Government. The order of sanction as revealed from Ext.P1 reads thus: _“WHEREAS, it has been disclosed from the enquiry report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kunnamkulam that Sri.M.Surendran, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Guruvayoor Police Station, Sri.M.R.Jayakumar, CPO-4777, Kunnamkulam Police Station, Sri.M.Girija Vallabhan, SCPO-3819, Guruvayoor Police Station and Smt.P.M.Sherli, WCPO-6315, Guruvayoor Police Station, had ill treated the petitioner Smt.Geetha Prasad's son,_ OP(Crl.) No.1856 of 2013 & Crl.R.P.No.1083 of 2014. 14 _Dr.Prem Sanker on charge of violation of traffic rules. The incident occurred on 13-12-2009 at Guruvayoor. Dr.Prem Sanker was neither a criminal nor an accused in any case. But he was arrested and remanded and ill treated under police custody. The investigation revealed that the above police personnel had committed grave offences intentionally and hence they should be prosecuted._ _AND WHEREAS, the Government of Kerala, after careful examination of the relevant records in detail, are fully convinced that Sri.M.Surendran, Sub Inspector of Police, Sri.M.R.Jayakumar, CPO-4777, Sri.M.Girija Vallabhan, SCPO-3819 and Smt.P.M.Sherli, WCPO-6315, had committed offences punishable under IPC, 1860._ _NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of powers conferred, the Government of Kerala, do hereby accord sanction under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code to prosecute Sri.M.Surendran, Sub Inspector of Police, Sri.M.R.Jayakumar, CPO-4777, Sri.M.Girija Vallabhan, SCPO-3819 and Smt.P.M.Sherli, WCPO-6315, for the offences punishable under IPC, 1860 and for other offences punishable under other provisions of law in respect of the acts aforesaid and for taking cognizance of the said offences by a Court of competent jurisdiction.”_ OP(Crl.) No.1856 of 2013 & Crl.R.P.No.1083 of 2014. 15 17. Section 197 of the Code does not provide complete immunity from prosecution. It is only intended to protect the public servants from unjustifiable harassments and persecutions by elements disgruntled on account of their actions. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions in **State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma (AIR 1991 SC 1260), Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat ((1997) 7 SCC 622), Pepsi Foods Ltd. And another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others ((1998) 5 SCC 749), State of Karnataka v. Ameerjan ((2007) 11 SCC 273), State of Punjab and another v. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti ((2009) 17 SCC 92)** and **T.K.Ramesh Kumar v. State through Police Inspector, Bangalore ((2015) 15 SCC 629)** . Some of the decisions are rendered under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which is almost similar to Section 197 of the Code. The cardinal principle is that sanction under Section 197 of the Code is not an empty formality. It is essential that the provisions therein are to be observed with complete strictness. To comply with Section 197 of the Code, it must be proved that the sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offences charged. It is desirable that the facts should be referred to on the face of the order of sanction. Section 197 of the Code does not require the sanction to be in any particular form. It should be clear from the order of sanction that the sanctioning authority considered the relevant materials OP(Crl.) No.1856 of 2013 & Crl.R.P.No.1083 of 2014. 16 placed before it and after consideration of all the circumstances, it sanctioned prosecution. This fundamental principle enunciated in **P.P.Sharma** 's case (supra) has been followed in almost all the later decisions. 18. Learned Prosecutor for justifying the sanction relied on the decisions in **C.S.Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka ((2005) 4 SCC 81), Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, Airport Authority of India ((2012) 1 SCC 532)** and **State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh G.Jain ((2013) 8 SCC 119)** . From the extraction of the order granting sanction under Section 197 of the Code above, it is evident that the Secretary to Government had applied his mind to the facts of the case and granted sanction to prosecute the petitioners. As mentioned in **P.P.Sharma** 's case (supra), merit of order of sanction can be challenged at the time of trial and the prosecution can justify the grant of sanction by producing materials to show that the entire facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and on consideration of the materials, the sanction to prosecute was granted. Therefore, I am of the view that at this stage it may not be legally proper to find fault with Ext.P1 order, The order of sanction prima facie is sustainable. Validity of Ext.P1 order can be put to challenge at the time of taking evidence in the case. I find no reason to quash Ext.P1 order as prayed for in the original petition. In the result, the criminal revision petition is allowed. The OP(Crl.) No.1856 of 2013 & Crl.R.P.No.1083 of 2014. 17 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad on M.P.No.9892 of 2013 in C.C.No.145 of 2010 is hereby set aside. The Magistrate shall take the matter back to file and dispose it in accordance with law. The challenge against Ext.P1 order issued by the State Government under Section 197 of the Code is not sustainable. Hence O.P.(Crl.) No.1856 of 2013 is hereby dismissed. ## **A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.** **cks**