Vazhappanal Shaji and Panikkarupparambil Viswanathan v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA FRIDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 22ND ASWINA, 1944** **CRL.REV.PET NO. 766 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTED 30.01.2013 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.259/2005 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF SESSIONS, THALASSERY AND AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 22.03.2005 IN S.C.NO.398/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY.** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:** 1 VAZHAPPANAL SHAJI, S/O RAMAN PILLA, DRIVER, RESIDING IN AYYAPPANKUNNU AMSOM, MUNDAYAMPARAMB DESOM. 2 PANIKKARUPARAMBIL VISWANATHAN S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, AGED 45, BUSINESS, RESIDING IN AYYAPPANKUNNU AMSOM, MUNDAYAMPARAMB DESOM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN SRI.JOSEPH GEORGEMULLAKKARIYIL SRI.T.K.SANDEEP ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, SRI.GRASHIOUSE KURIAKOSE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 07.10.2022, THE COURT ON 14.10.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **Crl. R.P No.766 of 2013** **2** ## **C.S.SUDHA, J.** ## **-------------------------------------** ## **Crl.R.P.No.766 of 2013** **------------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of October, 2022** ## **O R D E R** Both the accused in S.C.No.398/2000, who are accused no.5 and 6 in S.C.No.656/2001 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thalassery, are the revision petitioners herein. S.C.No.398/2000 arose from a case instituted on a police report and S.C.No.656/2001 on the basis of a private complaint. Crl.A.No.2080/2005 filed by the injured, namely PW1, has been not pressed and so the same has been dismissed. 2. The incident in this case is alleged to have taken place on 17/09/1998 at 6 p.m. Pursuant to the incident, PW1, the injured, was admitted in National Hospital, Kozhikode. He was unable to give a statement and hence PW8, the then ASI, Karikottakari Police Station recorded the statement of PW2, his wife, i.e., Ext.P1 FIS on 18/09/1998. On the basis of Ext.P1 FIS, Crime No.56/1998 was registered alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(ii) read with Section 149 IPC. In Ext.P1 FIS, there is reference to six persons, i.e., A1, A2, A3, A5 and A6 in S.C.No.656/2001 and one Madhavan. After **Crl. R.P No.766 of 2013** **3** completion of investigation, PW13, the then C.I., Iritty, submitted the final report against two persons only, namely, Shaji (A1) and Viswanathan (A2) alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 read with Section 34 IPC. 3. The final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mattannoor, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, which was numbered as S.C.No.398/2000. PW1, the injured unhappy with the investigation being conducted, filed a private complaint on 12/05/1999 before the Magistrate concerned, i.e., before the final report in S.C.No.398/2000 had been filed. The learned Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities, took the case on file against six persons including the accused in S.C.No.398/2000 for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 341, 326 read with Section 149 IPC. The case was taken on file as C.P.No.26/2001 and thereafter the case was committed to the Sessions Court, which in turn took the case on file as S.C.No.656/2001. Even before the committal proceedings were initiated, the third accused, namely, K.C.Raghavan, died and hence charge against him was treated as abated and the case against the remaining accused was committed to the Sessions Court, Thalassery, which registered the case as S.C.No.656/2001. **Crl. R.P No.766 of 2013** **4** 4. When the accused in S.C.No.398/2000, i.e., Shaji (A1) and Viswanathan (A2) appeared on receipt of summons, the Sessions court framed a charge under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 read with Section 149 IPC, which was read over and explained to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty. When the accused in S.C.No.656/2001, i.e., Kunhikannan Nair (A1), Suresh (A2), K.C.Raghavan (A3), Radhakrishnan @ Babu (A4), Shaji (A5) and Viswanathan (A6), appeared before the Sessions Court, a charge under Section 143, 148, 341, 307 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC was framed, which was read over and explained to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty. When the aforesaid cases came up for trial, the learned Public Prosecutor filed an application for joint trial, which was allowed by the trial court and thereafter the trial was conducted jointly. 5. On behalf of the prosecution PWs.1 to 12 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9 and MO1 was got marked. The accused on questioning under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution, denied those circumstances and maintained their innocence. 6. As the court below did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused **Crl. R.P No.766 of 2013** **5** under Section 232 Cr.P.C., the accused was asked to enter on their defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. On behalf of the accused, DW1 was examined. By the impugned judgment dated 19/03/2005, the trial court found the first and the second accused in S.C.No.398/2000, who are the fifth and the sixth accused in S.C.No.656/2001 guilty. The fifth accused has been convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to a fine of ₹10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The fifth accused was also convicted and sentenced under Section 323 IPC to simple imprisonment for three months. The sentences has been directed to run concurrently. The sixth accused was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC and to a fine of ₹5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to simple imprisonment for three months. The fine amount of ₹15,000/- has been directed to be treated as compensation under Section 357(1) (b) Cr.P.C payable to PW1 for the loss and injuries sustained by him. Accused Nos.5 and 6 were acquitted of all the other offences for which they were charged. Accused 1, 2 and 4 have been acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for all the offences charged against them. **Crl. R.P No.766 of 2013** **6** 7. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed, both the accused in S.C.No.398/2000 filed Crl.Appeal No.259/2005 before the Court of Session, Thalassery which has been dismissed as per impugned judgment dated 30/01/2013 confirming the order of conviction and sentence of the trial court. The accused who are the appellants have come up in revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. 8. Heard Sri.Sandeep T.K, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Grashiouse Kuriakose, the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution. 9. The revisional jurisdiction is essentially one of general superintendence and it is, therefore, supervisory. The object of this section is to prevent miscarriage of justice. The power under Section 397 Cr.PC is different from the power of revision or jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. The scope is wider in so far as the High Court or the Sessions Judge can consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of any inferior court. However, this jurisdiction is not exercised in every case of impropriety or illegality unless it causes failure of justice. As a broad proposition, this jurisdiction may be exercised where- (a) the decision is **Crl. R.P No.766 of 2013** **7** unjust and unfair; (b) the decision is grossly erroneous; (c) there is no compliance with the provision of law; (d) finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on evidence; (e) material evidence of the parties is not considered, and (f) judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. 9.1. The Revisional Court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the Appellate Court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 401 Cr.P.C. which is a provision enabling the High Court to exercise all the powers of Appellate Court, if necessary, in aid of the power of the superintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision conferred on the High Court or Sessions Court. Section 397 Cr.P.C confers power on the High Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court. It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the High Court or Sessions Court can exercise all appellate powers. Section 401 Cr.P.C conferring powers of Appellate Court on the Revisional Court is with the above limited purpose. The provisions contained in Section 395 to Section 401 Cr.P.C, read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power. ( **State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh** **Crl. R.P No.766 of 2013** **8** **Anand, AIR 2004 SC 4412** ). 9.2. Therefore this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot undertake a re-appreciation of evidence. Nevertheless, if the findings in the impugned judgment is one arrived at by taking into consideration irrelevant/ inadmissible materials or if the appreciation of evidence is faulty leading to miscarriage of justice, this Court would be justified in exercising its revisional power. 10. With the aforesaid principles in mind, I will consider this revision. According to PW2, the wife of PW1 who gave Ext.P1 FIS, the incident took place on 17/09/1998 at 06.00 p.m. On the said day, when PW1, her husband, reached in front of the shop of one Govindan Kutty (which shop is situated near their residence), Kunhikkannan (A1); Pattali Suresh (A2); K.C Raghavan (A3); Shaji(A5); Viswanathan (A6) and one Madhavan came running and Shaji (A5) brandishing a knife threatened to kill PW1. Then taking a stone from the road, Shaji (A5) hit PW1 on the left side of his eye. PW1 fell down on the road. Shaji (A5) kicked PW1 on his left shoulder. The other persons restrained PW1 from getting up. Hearing the commotion, Sivasankara Pillai, the brother of PW1 and Gopalakrishnan came running to the scene of occurrence, helped PW1 up, lifted him and laid him in the shop **Crl. R.P No.766 of 2013** **9** of Govindan Kutty. A jeep was summoned. Puthenpurakkal Balakrishnan and Ramachandran took PW1 in the jeep to the hospital at Iritty. PW2 also accompanied them. As per the advice of the doctor, PW1 was taken to the Government Hospital, Kannur. The doctor at Government hospital after examining PW1 directed him to be taken to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. However, as no scanning facility was available there, they took PW1 to the National Hospital, where he has been admitted and is under treatment. It is further stated in Ext.P1 FIS, that her son Santhosh, that is PW11 and one Anumod have also seen the incident. In Ext.P7 FIR registered on the basis of Ext.P1 FIS, the offences alleged are under Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) read with Section 149 IPC. Except for Radhakrishanan (A4), all the other accused and one Madhavan named in Ext.P1 FIS have been arrayed as accused persons. After completion of investigation, the final report filed by PW13 on 27/09/1999 says that offences under Section 341, 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC have been committed by Shaji (A1) and Viswanathan (A2) only. 11. As stated earlier, aggrieved by the investigation being conducted, PW2 had filed Ext.P2 private complaint on 12/05/1999 arraying six persons as the accused, that is, Kunhikkannan, Suresh, Raghavan, **Crl. R.P No.766 of 2013** ## **10** Radhakrishanan, Shaji and Viswanathan. The allegation in Ext.P2 is that, on 17/09/1998 at 06.00 p.m, when he reached in front of the shop of the Govindan Kutty situated near his house, Suresh (A2) approached him from the opposite side of the road and questioned him as to what was his objection to the latter's father taking the money offered by the devotees of the temple when he spreads pattu in his capacity as pattali. At that time Shaji(A5) rushed from the shop of Viswanathan (A6), wrongfully restrained PW1 from proceeding any further and told the latter that the former was waiting for him to arrive. Shaji (A5) then caught hold of his left hand and twisted it. Shaji also slapped him on his face, quickly picked up a big granite stone by saying that he would kill him, hit him on his head covering his head and left eye with the intention to kill him. Due to the strong blow, PW1 fell down on the road. When he tried to lift himself from the road, Kunh ikkannan Nair(A1); his son namely, Suresh (A2); K.C Raghavan (A3) and Babu (A4) surrounded and restrained him from moving any further. Then Viswanathan(A6) came running from his shop, abused and kicked him on his left shoulder, by which time he became unconscious. He was then taken to the District Hospital, Kannur by his relatives. As his condition was serious, he was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Calicut. On the way to the said hospital, he was **Crl. R.P No.766 of 2013** **11** admitted in the National Hospital, Calicut where the services of a Neuro Surgeon and other facilities are available. He was thereafter discharged after treatment on 08/10/1998 on the request of his relatives as they were not in a position to afford the heavy cost of treatment at the said hospital. On 08/10/1998, he was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Calicut for further treatment, from where he was discharged on 10/10/1998 advising rest and continuation of treatment prescribed by the National Hospital. PW2, his wife had given a statement to the police on the basis of which Ext.P7 FIR has been registered. However, due to the influence of the first accused, the police is not conducting a proper investigation, the investigation being conducted is a farcical one and the police has not included all the assailants in the case in spite of strong evidence being available and hence Ext.P2 private complaint. When PW1 was examined, his case is that narration of the incident in Ext.P2 complaint is the correct one. 12. PW2 when examined deposed that on the date of the incident Suresh (A2) had restrained PW1 and questioned the latter as to his objection to the former's father acting as Pattali of Mundayamparambil Tharakku Meethel Bhagavathi temple. The fifth accused (Shaji) rushed out of the shop of Viswanathan (A6) and saying that he was waiting for PW1 and that he **Crl. R.P No.766 of 2013** **12** would kill him, twisted the left hand of PW1 and slapped him on his face and then taking a stone from the ground hit PW1 on his head and left eye. PW1 fell down. When PW1 was attempting to get up, Kunhikkannan (A1), Suresh (A2), K.C Raghavan (A3) and Babu @ Radhakrishnan (A4) restrained PW1. Viswanathan (A6) came running to the scene and saying that he would kill PW1, kicked him on his left shoulder. By this time, PW1 lost consciousness. 13. The trial court in paragraph 19 of the judgment has clearly noticed the discrepancies in Ext.P1 FIS and the testimony of PW1 and PW2. According to the trial court, if Ext.P1 FIS is taken into account, the same is entirely at variance with the case deposed by PW2 and the other witnesses. The entire overt acts are attributed to the fifth accused. In addition to that one other person, namely, Madhavan has also been named in the FIS. However, this Madhavan has not been made an accused in Ext.P2 complaint. Neither PW1 nor PW2 in the box has a case that Ext.P1 FIS is wrong. Their only grievance is that all the assailants had not been included in Ext.P7 FIR and hence the reason for filing Ext.P2 complaint. PW2 is not a hostile witness, on the other hand, she is a loyal prosecution witness. The prosecution has not distanced itself from Ext.P1 FIS nor do they have a case **Crl. R.P No.766 of 2013** **13** that it is false. However according to PW1, it is the story as narrated in Ext.P2 complaint that is the true version. In effect the prosecution has two versions regarding the incident, that is, one as narrated in Ext.P1 FIS and the other as narrated in Ext.P2 complaint. The court below has given an explanation to reconcile the inconsistencies seen in Ext.P1 FIS and in Ext.P2 private complaint which neither PW1 nor PW2 has. The relevant portion of the judgment reads thus - _“ …........ considering the variations, it requires consideration that the house of PW2 was near the place of incident. It is probable that her attention was drawn to the incident after it started. So, by the time she reached the place, the incident was over and she saw 5[th] accused only. It is probable that after the incident, 5[th] accused might have brandished the knife in order to threaten the people gathered after the incident. An indication can be found as regards the probability of such a case from the statement given by PW 11 to the police. This is marked as Ext. D14 contradiction. D14 is to the effect that after the incident when PW11 went to the spot, 5[th] accused threatened with the knife. So in_ a _ll probability, PW2 might have reached the place of incident at this time. So she only saw 5[th] accused and she was under the impression that the entire incident was caused by 5[th] accused..... so, the discrepancy is properly explained and it can_ **Crl. R.P No.766 of 2013** **14** _be safely concluded that PW2 reached the place of incident only after the incident_ .” 14. The trial court has relied on Ext.D14 contradiction brought out in the testimony of PW2 and has concluded that the same is an indication which probabilises her version. Contradictions cannot be used for any purpose other than to show the witness whose statement has been contradicted cannot be believed on that particular point or aspect. It cannot be used as substantive evidence ( **Alikutty v. State of Kerala, 2006 (3) KLJ 467** ). Here the trial court relies on a contradiction to explain the discrepancy in the case put forward by PW1 and PW2. The trial court has substantially erred on this aspect. Going by the version of PW1 and 2 as well as the Investigating Officer, PW2 has seen the entire incident. However, in the opinion of the trial court, PW2 might not have seen the entire incident and might have arrived at the scene hearing the commotion by which time the major part of the incident was over. As noticed earlier, there is no such case for either PW1 or 2. This is one another defect in the prosecution case. 15. Further, a reference to the medical evidence let in this case is also necessary. As noticed earlier, the prosecution case is that the PW2 was initially taken to the District Hospital, Kannur. PW6 when examined **Crl. R.P No.766 of 2013** **15** deposed that while she was working as Civil Surgeon in District Hospital, Kannur, on 17/09/1998 at 08.35 p.m., she had examined Gopi Master(PW1) with a history of alleged assault. The wound certificate is stated to have been marked as Ext.P4. (Ext.P4is not seen in the records). According to PW6, she referred the patient to the Medical College Hospital as the patient was unconscious, his pupils were sluggish while reacting to light and also because head injury was detected. The injury seen, according to her, could have been caused by MO1 stone. In the cross examination, PW6 deposed that the injury seen was a contusion above the left eyebrow, which was a simple injury. 15.1. PW10 when examined deposed that, he was working as a Neurologist in the National Hospital, Calicut. The discharge summary marked as Ext.P8 when shown to PW10 was identified by him as having been issued by Dr. V.Shaji, who was a Neuro Surgeon in the said hospital. According to PW10 the discharge summary was issued on 08/10/1998 and signed by the said doctor whose signature he is familiar with him. Dr.Shaji according to PW10 is presently abroad. PW10 further deposed that he had also treated the patient and that he can identify the patient also. From the deposition it is seen that PW10 had identified PW2, the wife of PW1 as the **Crl. R.P No.766 of 2013** **16** patient. According to PW10, the case was quite a complicated one and that the patient was in coma for about a week. On examination the patient had bilateral plantar extensor which meant that the patient had significant brain injury. In addition to that he was found to have weakness on the left side of his entire body. C.T. scan was repeated twice. Thereafter also the patient was confined and disoriented. So, MRI had to be taken. The patient had a fracture on his clavicle also. PW10 further deposed that the injury seen on the patient could be caused by MO1 stone. In the cross examination, PW10 deposed that the cause of injury has not been recorded in the discharge summary, but, the medicines and treatment given to the patient have been recorded in the same. In the cross examination, he also deposed that scanning and MRI showed no brain injury. 15.2. PW7 when examined deposed that while he was working as lecturer in surgery, Medical College Hospital, Calicut, on 31/03/1999 he had issued the discharge certificate of Gopalakrishnan (PW1) who had been admitted in the hospital on 08/10/1998 as an inpatient and later discharged on 10/10/1998. The patient had been referred from the National Hospital, Calicut. By then the fracture had healed. There was no clinical evidence of head injury or external injury. The discharge certificate has been marked as **Crl. R.P No.766 of 2013** **17** Ext.P5. In the cross examination, PW7 deposed that at the time of admission, there was no clinical evidence of head injury. 15.3. Ext.P5, a discharge certificate issued by PW7 to the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation is nothing but a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, although signed. The prosecution has not produced the records or register concerned which from the details in Ext.P5 have been taken. The certified extract from the same has also not been produced. Ext.P5 can only be treated as a statement of PW7 to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C and therefore hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C and is not admissible in evidence and so is liable to be discarded **(Sasi v. State of Kerala, 2019 KHC 465).** Further Ext.P8 discharge summary reveals that PW1 was subjected to repeated scanning. But no head injury was detected and everything was found to be normal. In addition, MRI scan of the brain and cervical region was done. The same was also found to be normal. Hence no grievous injuries or life threatening injuries were noticed on PW1. 16. The fifth accused has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC also. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, for an act to fall under Section 307 IPC, it must be such that **Crl. R.P No.766 of 2013** **18** but for the intervention of some circumstance it would, if completed, have resulted in death **(Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 843)** . Under Section 307 IPC, what the court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of “attempt to murder”. Under Section 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to the accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that have to be taken into consideration to determine the intention ( **Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, 1988 (4) SCC 551** ). 17. In the case on hand, if PW1 is to be believed, MO1 is the stone used to inflict the injury. If the version of PW2 in Ext.P1 is to be believed, one of the accused had approached PW1 with a knife, but he never used the same, on the other hand he hit PW1 with a stone. None of the other witnesses have a case that any of the accused had brandished a knife or was armed with **Crl. R.P No.766 of 2013** **19** a knife. PW6, the doctor who first examined PW1 deposed that the external injury seen was a simple one. The testimony of PW10 and Ext.P8 shows no internal injuries were caused. There is no evidence to show that a fatal injury or an injury to a vital organ was prevented by any intervening circumstance. There does not seem to have been any intention to commit murder even if the entire case as narrated by PW1 and PW2 is believed. None of the clauses in Section 300 IPC has also been made out in this case. Therefore, the commission of the offence under Section 307 IPC, is not seen made out in this case. 18. As noticed earlier, in Ext. P1, FIS, one Madhavan has also been referred to. However, he has not been made an accused in the case. PW1 and PW2 have no complaint regarding the said aspect and no explanation is also forthcoming from the prosecution for excluding the said person from the array of the accused. Further, in Ext. P1 FIS there is reference to four persons who are stated to have seen the incident. However, none of them have been examined. On the other hand, prosecution has examined PW4 and PW5 and of course PW11, the son of PW2, whose presence is referred to in the FIS. It is true that merely because close relatives are examined, that alone is no reason to reject or disbelieve the prosecution story. But the presence of **Crl. R.P No.766 of 2013** **20** certain independent witness is referred to in the FIS. They have not been examined for which no reason are given. On the other hand PW4 and PW5, whose presence is conspicuously absent in FIS, have been examined. 19. On a whole, the evidence on record is not seen properly appreciated and a fundamental error has been committed by the trial court in relying on certain contradictions to probablize the case of PW2. In the light of the inconsistencies in the testimony of PW1 and PW2 and the inconsistencies seen in the Ext. P1 FIS and Ext. P2 private complaint, it is not safe to convict the accused, rather they ought to have been given the benefit of doubt. As the evidence has not been properly appreciated either by the trial court or the appellate court, leading to miscarriage of justice, this court is justified in invoking its revisional power and interfering with the findings arrived at by the courts below. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the courts below by the impugned judgment is set aside. The revision petitioners are found not guilty of the offences for which they have been convicted. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. They shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. **21** ## **Crl. R.P No.766 of 2013** Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. **Sd/C.S.SUDHA JUDGE** Jms/11.10