ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWALversusNEERAJ KUMAR & ANR.

                   [2013] 12 S.C.R. 457

              ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL                               A
                             v.
                NEERAJ KUMAR & ANR.
           (Criminal Appeal No.· 1:a39 of 2013)
                  NOVEMBER 22, 2013
                                                                 B
      [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]

    Contempt of Court:

    Contempt proceedings - Held: Proceedings of contempt         c
are quasi criminal in nature and the burden and standard of
proof required is the same as in criminal cases -· Charges
have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and alleged
contemnor becomes entitled to the benefit of doubt as it would
be very .hazardous to impose sentence in contempt                0
proceedings on some probabilities.

     Contempt petition - Filed under Art. 215 of the
Constitution - On the a/legation of suppression of facts by
respondents before Special Judge dealing with bail
application of contempt-petitioner - Held: Power under Art. E
215 of the Constitution can be exercised only in accordance
with the procedure prescribed by Jaw - High Court was
required to examine as to whether proper procedure was
adopted in bringing the petition under Art. 215 of the
 Constitution and as to whether the limitation as prescribed u/ F
s 20 of the 1971 Act was attracted in the case - High Court
did not advert to any of such issue of paramount importance
- More so, no reasoning has been given to reach a
 conclusion that no deliberate attempt was made by
 respondents to cause any prejudice to appellant - As both G
 the parties had raised issues on facts as well as on Jaw, High
 Court ought to have dealt with the case adverting to all
 relevant issues, particularly, when appellant had made an
 a/legation that his liberty had been jeopardised by
                              457                                    H.
     458     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 12 S.C.R.


 A respondents by interfering with the course of justice by
   misleading the court - Judgment and order impugned is set
   aside and the case remitted to the High Court to decide it
   afresh answering all the factual and legal issues raised by the
   parties - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s.20 - Constitution
 B of India, 1950 - Art.215.

         In a case registered against unknown officers of the
     Enforcement Directorate, alleging false implication of
     suspects under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,
 C 1973, a look out notice through the Interpol was issued
     against the appellant, who was a Deputy Director,
     Enforcement, and was absconding. The appellant was
    arrested on 23.12.1999 in India from a hotel where he was
    staying under a fictitious name. During the course of
    proceedings, the Special Judge was shown a document
D purported to have been emanated from the Interpol
    Singapore on 29.12.1999 on the basis whereof the
    respondents-officers argued that the appellant had been
    in Singapore from 10.2.1999 to 14.2.1999 though his
    passport which had been impounded did not contain any
E such stamp and, therefore, he was possessing and using
   a forged passport with the same number. The Special
   Judge accepted the submissions and, by order dated
   6.1.2000, rejected the application of the appellant for bail.
   Subsequently, a letter dated 7.1.2000 was received from
F Interpol Singapore that earlier communication dated
   29.12.1999 was incorrect and the appellant did not enter
   Singapore from 10.2.1999 to 14.2.1999. This fact was
   admitted by the investigating officer on 27.1.2000. On
   29.1.2000, the appellant was granted bail. On 1.6.2001 the
G appellant filed an application uls 340 read with s.195, CrPC
   before the Special Judge for taking action against the
   respondents for suppressing the material facts. The said
   application was dismissed by the Special Judge by order
   dated 5.2.2007. The appellant filed a criminal contempt
H petition which was disposed of by the High Court
 ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL v. NEERAJ KUMAR                  459


observing that the suppression or misrepresentation was        A
not deliberate.

     In the instant appeal, it was contended that the High
Court could not have proceeded with the case under
Article 215 of the Constitution ignoring the limitation
                                                               8
prescribed under the Act 1971. More so, in a criminal case
where two views are possible the court must decide in
favour of the person proceeded against.

    Disposing of the appeal, the Court
                                                               c
     HELD: 1.1. The judgment and order dated 5.2.2007
of the Special Judge makes it crystal clear that he had
given an elaborate judgment deciding two issues, namely,
one relating to limitation u/s 20 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 and, secondly, as to whether the suppression         0
of material fact was intentional or motivated on the part
of respondents and after hearing the matter, the Special
Judge negated both the issues against the appellant
holding that the application was barred by limitation as
provided u/s 20 of the Act 1971, as cognizance could not       E
be taken within one year of the date on which the
contempt had been committed. On the second issue, a
finding has been recorded that there was no suppression
of material fact by the respondents intentionally and
delij:>erately as there was no motive to obstruct the
administration of justice or to interfere with due course      F
of proceedings. [para 7] [467-E-H; 468-A]

     1.2. The High Court, while dealing with the contempt
petition under Art. 215 of the Constitution, has taken note
of the facts of the case as well as of the respective          G
submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties,
inter-alia, the submissions advanced by the respondents
in respect of maintainability of the petition and limitation
etc. However, without adverting to any of the issues so
                                                               H
    460     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A raised, the High Court abruptly came to the conclusion
  that the respondents did not intentionally suppress the
  material facts. [para 9] [468-E-F]
       1.3. Proceedings of contempt are quasi criminal in
  nature and the burden and standard of proof required Is
8
  the same as in criminal cases. Charges have to be proved
  beyond reasonable doubt and alleged contemnor
  becomes entitled to the benefit of doubt as it would be
  very hazardous to impose sentence in contempt
C proceedings on some probabilities. [para 11] [469-F-G]

         Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
                             =
    Ors., 2010 (2) SCR 1086 (2010) 3 sec 705 - relied on.

       2.1. Power under Art. 215 of the Constitution can be
0 exercised only in accordance with the procedure
  prescribed by law. Therefore, the High Courtwas required
  to examine as to whether the proper procedure has been
  adopted in bringing the petition under Art. 215 of the
  Constitution and as to whether the limitation as
E prescribed u/s 20 of the Act 1971 was attracted in the
  case. The High Court did not advert to any of such issue
  of paramount importance. More so, no reasoning has
  been given to reach a conclusion that no deliberate
  attempt was made by the respond1mts to cause any
  prejudice to the appellant. [para 12-1:3] [469-H; 470-A-C]
F
       Dr. L.P. Misra v. State of U.P., AIR 1998 SC 3337; Three
  Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. C.E.S.C. Ltd., 2008
  (14) SCR 789 =AIR 2009 SC 735; and R.S. Sujatha v. State
  of Karnataka & Ors. 2010 (14) SCR 227 = (2011) 5 SCC 689
G - relied on.
      2.2. As both the parties had raised issues on facts as
  well as on law, the High Court ought to have dealt with
  the case adverting to all relevant issues, particularly,
H when the appellant had made an allegation that his liberty
 ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL v. NEERAJ KUMAR                   461


had been jeopardised by the respondents by interfering         A
with the course of justice by misleading the court. The
judgment and order impugned is set aside and the case
remitted to the High Court to decide afresh answering all
the factual and legal issues raised by the parties. [para
13-14] [470-C-E]                                               B

     Pal/av Sheth v. Custodian & Ors., 2001 (1) Suppl.
         =
SCR 387 (2001) 7 SCC 549; Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati
& Anr., (2001) 7 SCC 530; J.R. Parashar, Advocate & Ors.
v. Prasant Bhushan, Advocate & Ors. 2001 (2)
 Suppl. SCR 239 = (2001) 6 SCC 735; and Biman Bose v. C.
State of W.B. & Ors., (2004) 13 sec 95 - cited.
                    Case Law Reference:
    2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 387       cited           Para 10
                                                               D
    c2001) 1 sec 530              cited           Para 10
    2001 (2) Syppl. SCR 239       cited           Para 10
    (2004) 13 sec 95              cited           Para 10
                                                               E
    2010 (2) SCR 1086 227         relied on       para 11
    AIR 1998 SC 3337 227          relied on       para 12
    2008 (14) SCR 789 227         relied on       para 12
    2010 (14) SCR 227             relied on       para 12      F

    CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISD1ci:10N : Criminal Appeal
No. 1839 of 2013.
    From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2007 of the        G
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Contempt Case (Criminal)
No. 8 of 2007

    M.P. Jha for the Appellant.

    Nikhil Nayyar for the Respondents.                         H
    462      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A         The Judgment of the Court was deiivered by

       DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred
  against the impugned judgment and final order dated
  30.07.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in
B Contempt Case (Criminal) No. 8 of 2007 rejecting the said
  application filed by the appellant.

         2. Facts and circumstances as stated by the parties, giving
    rise to this appeal are that

c         A. The appellant had been working as Deputy Director,
    Enforcement of Delhi Zone under the Directorate of
    Enforcement from 6.11.1996, and in that capacity, he
    conducted raids on various suspects urider the provisions of
    Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1973 including one
D   S.C. Barjatya, an alleged Hawala operator, as he had received
    an information that an amount of US$ 1.5 lakhs had been
    transferred from the account of Royalle Foundation in Swiss
    Bank Corporation, Zurich to the account of one S.K. Kapoor in
    HSBC Bank, Hong Kong. Subsequently, the said Shri S.C.
E   Barjatya filed a complaint that the above transaction is forged
    and he is being falsely implicated. In view thereof, case No. RC
    S18/E0001 /1999 was registered on 29.1.1999 against
    unknown officers of the Enforcement Directorate (hereinafter
    referred to as 'ED') and while enquiring irto this complaint, the
    statements of various other persons were recorded. Passport
F   of the appellant was seized on 4.3.1999. The statement of one
    Abhishek Verma was recorded under Section 161 of Code of
    Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'),
    who had been arrested in that case. He was later enlarged on
    bail by the court and his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
G   was recorded, wherein he had stated that the appellant had
    been threatening him and extorting money from him while
    seeking information in respect of dealings in foreign exchange.

       B. A look out notice was issued against the appellant
H through the Interpol as he was absconding. The appellant was
  ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL v. NEERAJ KUMAR                        463
           [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
arrested on 23.12.1999 from Saharanpur where he was staying           A
in a hotel under a fictitious name. The appellant was remanded
to police custody for 5 days in the first instance, which was later
extended to another 2 days till 31.12.1999. During the police
custody, the appellant alleged to have been physically abused
and humiliated.                                                       B

     C. The appellant moved a bail application on 24.12.1999
which came for hearing on 3.1.2000 and 4.1.2000. During the
course of proceedings, the learned Special Judge was shown
a document purported to have been emanated from the Interpol
Singapore on 29.12.1999 and sent to Interpol New Delhi in             C
response to a requisition sent by Central Bureau of Investigation
(hereinafter referred to as the 'CBI') through the Interpol Delhi
on 16.12.1999. On the basis of the said information received
from Interpol Singapore, the respondents- officers argued that
the appellant had been in Singapore from 10.2.1999 to                 D
14.2.1999 and though his passport which had been impounded
did not contain any such stamp, and therefore he was
possessing and using a forged passport with the same number.
The Special Judge accepted the submissions and rejected the
application of the appellant for bail vide order dated 6.1.2000.      E

     D. The respondents had been seeking more information
from the Interpol Singapore and in response to the same, a
reply dated 7.1.2000 was received that earlier communication
dated 29.12.1999 was incorrect and the appellant did not enter        F
into Singapore on the aforesaid dates i.e. 10.2.1999 to
14.2.1999. The said information dated 7.1.2000 was further
confirmed by Interpol Singapore vide letter dated 12.1.2000.

   In further correspondence, the Interpol Singapore
admitted its mistake vide communication dated 12.1.2000.              G

     E. Respondent No. 2 filed a remand application dated
13.1.2000 seeking further judicial custody of the appellant for
14 days. In that application also, it was not disclosed that
the respondents had received a communication from Interpol            H
    464      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A Singapore that earlier communication informing about the
  appellant being in Singapore was not correct. The
  respondents continued to withhold the said information
  and did not bring it to the notice of the court. Even in a bail
  application filed by the appellant on 25.1.2000, clai~s were
B made that the appellant had not gone! to Singapore on the
  aforesaid dates. Reply to the said application was filed by the
  CBI on 27.1.2000 denying the said facts without bringing the
  real facts to the knowledge of the court. It was only on 27.1.2000
  when the appellant's counsel insisted that the appellant had not
C gone to Singapore in February 1999 that the respondent no.
  2, the investigating officer, admitted that the appellant did not
  visit Singapore on the dates as alleged earlier and the
  investigating agency had subsequently received information
  from Interpol Singapore that the information furnished earlier
  was not factually correct. After taking into consideration the
0
  above fact, the appellant was granted bail wherein all the
  aforesaid facts had been incorpo.rated in the bail order dated
  29.1.2000.

         F. As per the appellant, on 26.7.2000, in another case
E before the Central Administrative Tribunal, he came to know
    about the subsequent communication sent by Interpol
    Singapore in this respect and thus, the appellant filed a
    Criminal Writ Petition No. 600 of 2001 before the High Court
    of Delhi to take action against the respondents which was
F disposed of vide order dated 28.5.2001 observing that the
    appellant may seek relief before the court of Special Judge
    where, according to the appellant, the CBI had misrepresented
    or concealed the correct information. Thus, in view of the
    observations made by the High Court, the appellant filed an
G . application under Section 340 read with Section 195 Cr.P.C.
    on 1.6.2001 before the Special Judge for taking action against
    the respondents for suppressing the material facts. However,
    the said application was dismissed by the Special Judge vide
    order dated 14.2.2002.
H         G. Aggrieved, the appellant took the matter to the High
  ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL v. NEERAJ KUMAR                       465
           [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
Court by filing an Appeal No. 199 of 2002. The High Court            A
disposed of the said appeal vide judgment and order dated
16.12.2005 remanding the matter to the Special Judge to hear
the parties on the application dated 1.6.2001 only on the issue
of initiation of contempt proceedings and to answer the same
in accordance with law. In view thereof, the Special Judge heard     B
the said application and dismissed the same vide order dated
5.2.2007.

      H. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Contempt
Petition No. 8 of 2007 on 16.5.2007 before the High Court of
Delhi under Article 215 of the Constitution read with the            C
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Act 1971 '). On receiving notice in the said
case, the respondents filed reply.

     I. The High Court disposed of the said petition after hearing   D
the parties vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.7.2007
observing that the suppression or misrepresentation was not
deliberate.

     Hence, this appeal.
                                                                     E
     3. Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the respondents
had been fully aware, after receiving the communication from
Interpol Singapore, that information furnished to them earlier by
the said Singapore authorities was not factually correct. In spite   F
of the fact that the matter had been listed time and again before
learned Special Judge, such information was withheld and
being under the same impression that the appellant had
travelled to Singapore, his judicial custody was extended. Even
in the application filed by the respondents for remand for a         G
further period,·such a material fact had not been disclosed. It
was only at a much later stage when the appellant had already
suffered unwarranted judicial custody and the counsel for the
appellant had been insisting that appellant did not visit
Singapore between 10.2.1999 and 14.2.1999, the Investigating         H
    466.    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 12 S.C.R


A Officer/Respondent no.2 revealed that they have received
  information from the Interpol Singapore on 7.1.2000 that the
  version of the appellant was correct. Therefore, the appellant
  had been subjected to humiliation, insult and remained in judicial
  custody for a long time. Even the remand application dated
B 13.1.2000 was filed without disclosing such a fact. The appellant
  could be bailed out only on 29.1.2000 after remaining in jail for
  36 days. It was the solemn duty of the investigating officer not
  to suppress the material fact from the court and the appellant
  would not have to face 36 days judicial custody in jail. The
c appellant had been approaching the authorities and courts time
  and again, however, could not get any relief from any authority
  or court. The application of contempt filed earlier was rejected
  by the Special Court. When the appellant approached the High
  Court by filing a criminal writ petition, the case was remanded
D to the Special Court on a particular ssue. After remand, the
  case was considered and the same was also dismissed by the
  Special Judge. The High Court while dealing with the case
  under Article 215 of the Constitution, without giving any reason
  whatsoever, recorded a findings of fact that there was no
  deliberate attempt to cause any prejudice to the appellant.
E Hence, a finding not based on any reasoning or substantiated
  by any evidence, is not a judgment-in-fact. Therefore, the appeal
  deserves to be allowed.

       4. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on
F behalf of both the respondents, has vehemently opposed the
  appeal raising a large number of issues, inter-alia, issue of
  limitation, jurisdiction of the court to entertain the contempt
  application; and referred to a large riumber of judgments to
  submit that the findings of fact recorded by the High Court that
G there was no deliberate attempt to cause any prejudice to the
  appellant was correct. Respondents had been working with all
  sincerity and their work has always been appreciated and a
  large number of certificates to that extent had been issued to
  them. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
H
  ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL v. NEERAJ KUMAR                       467
           [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
     5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the         A
learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

     6. There is no dispute on the factual matrix of the case.
The appellant had been arrested on the suspicion that he was
having two passports and on the strength of one of them, he
                                                                     8
had visited Singapore between 10.2.1999 and 14.2.1999 and
such a fact had been affirmed by the Interpol Singapore on
queries from the Indian authorities. However, on 7.1.2000, the
Interpol Singapore by a Memo dated 7 .1.2000 informed the
Indian investigating agency that the information furnished by        C
them earlier was factually incorrect and the appellant had not
visited Singapore between 10.2.1999 and 14.2.1999.
Subsequent thereto, the appellant filed a Criminal Writ Petition
No. 600 of 2001 before the Delhi High Court; a case before
the Special Judge, an appeal before the High Court and again
the matter had been agitated before the Special Judge. After         D
loosing the battle, the appellant approached the High Court
under Article 215 of the Constitution. The appellant was
arrested on 23.12.1999 and was released on bail on
24.1.2000, thus, he remained in jail for 36 days.
                                                                     E
      7. It is also on record that the Singapore authorities had
apologized for furnishing wrong information by them. The
judgment and order dated 5.2.. 2007 of the learned Special
Judge makes it crystal clear that the learned Special Judge had
given an elaborate judgment deciding two issues, namely, one         F
relating to limitation under Section 20 of the Act 1971 and,
secondly, as to whether the suppression of material fact was
intentional or motivated on the part of respondents and after
hearing the matter, the learned Special Judge negated both the
issues against the appellant holding that the application was        G
barred by limitation as provided under Section 20 of the Act
 1971 as cognizance could not be taken after one year of the
date on which the contempt had been committed. On the
 second issue, a finding has been recorded that there was no
 suppression of material fact by the respondents intentionally and   H
 deliberately as there was no motive to obstruct the
    468       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013] 12 S.C.R.


A administration of justice or to interfere with due course of
  proceedings.

       8. Earlier before the appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.
   199 of 2002, the same issues had been agitated and the
8 matter was remanded to the learned Special Court to decide
  the specific issue so far as it relates to ~he initiation of contempt
   proceedings vide its judgment and order dated 16.12.2005.
   Even the order dated 29.1.2000 makes it evident that the first
  bail application of the appellant was rejected on 6.1.2000
C considering the issues raised by the investigating agency,
  particularly the Interpol message suggesting that the appellant
  had visited Singapore on his passport no. S-243227 and
  remained there from 10.2.1999 to 14.2.1999, whereas the
  passport impounded by the CBI during the investigation did not
  show any entry relating to his aforesaid travel to Singapore.
D However, on 27.1.2000, the investigating officer admitted
  before the said court that a message was received from Interpol
  Singapore to the effect that the appellant did not visit Singapore
  from 10.2.1999 to 14.2.1999.

E       9. The High Court while dealing with the contempt petition
  under Article 215 of the Constitution has taken note of the facts
  referred to hereinabove as well as of the respective
  submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties,
  inter-alia, the submissions advanced by the respondents in
F respect of maintainability of the petition and limitation etc.
  However, without adverting to any of the issues so raised, the
  court abruptly came to the conclusion that the respondents did
  not intentionally suppress the material facts. The relevant part
  of the judgment reads as under:

G       "We find that although information was available with the
        CBI that the petitioner had not visited Singapore prior to
        13. 1. 2000 yet there appears to be no deliberate
        attempt to cause any prejudice to the petitioner. The
        application for bail which came up before the Court was
H       supported by an affidavit setting out the facts that the
  ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL v. NEERAJ KUMAR                      469
           [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
     petitioner had not visited Singapore during the period         A
     when his passport was with the CBI which fact was duly
     confirmed by the public prosecutor. In that view of the
     matter, we are of the opinion that there was no deliberate
     concealment of material to the prejudice of the petitioner.
     The petition is, therefore, dismissed." (Emphasis added)       B

       10. The respondents before this Court had also adverted
to the issue of the procedure adopted by the appellant moving
the Trial Court as well as the High Court in contempt matter and
the procedure adopted by those Courts and also to the issue
of limitation. It is submitted that the High Court could not have C
proceeded with the case under Article 215 of the Constitution
ignoring the limitation prescribed under the Act 1971. More so,
 in a criminal case where two views are possible the court must
 decide in favour of the person proceeded against. In order to
 fortify his submissions, Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior D
 counsel placed reliance on the judgments in Pal/av Sheth v.
 Custodian & Ors., (2001) 7 SCC 549; Chhotu Ram v. UNashi
 Gulati & Anr., (2001) 7 SCC 530; J.R. Parashar, Advocate &
 Ors. v. Prasant Bhushan, Advocate & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 735;
 and Biman Bose v. State of W.B. & Ors., (2004) 13 SCC 95. E

       11. This Court in Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of
  Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 705, after placing reliance
  on a large number of earlier judgments of this Court, held that
· proteedit)gs of contempt are quasi criminal in nature and the     F
  burden and standard of proof required is the same as in
  criminal cases. Charges have to be proved beyond reasonable
  doubt and alleged contemnor becomes entitled to the benefit
  of doubt as it would be very hazardous to impose se.ntence in
  contempt proceedings on some probabilities.                       G

      12. In Dr. L.P. Misra v. State of U.P., AIR 1998 SC 3337;
 Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. C.E.S.C. Ltd.,
 AIR 2009 SC 735; and R.S. Sujatha v. State of Kamataka &
 Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 689, this Court held that the power under
                                                                    H
    470      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 12 S.C.R.

A Article 215 of the Constitution can be exercised only in
  accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.

        13. In view of the above, the High Court was required to
  examine as to whether the proper procedure has been adopted
  in bringing the petition under Article 215 of the Constitution and
8
  as to whether the limitation as prescribed under Section 20 of
  the Act 1971 was attracted in the case. The High Court did not r
  advert to any of such issue of paramount importance. More so,
  no reasoning has been given to reach a conclusion that no
C deliberate attempt was made by the respondents to cause any
  prejudice to the appellant.

        Thus, we are of the considered opinion that as both the
  parties had raised issues on facts as well as on law, the High
  Court ought to have dealt with the case adverting to all relevant
D issues, particularly when the appellant had made an allegation
  that his liberty had been jeopardised by the respondents by
  interfering with the course of justice by misleading the court.

      14. As a result, we set aside the judgment and order
E impugned and remiJ the case to the High Court to decide afresh
  answering all the factual and legal issues raised by the parties.

          The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

   R.P.                                      Appeal disposed of ..