STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRAversusSANVLO NAIK & ANR.

                        [2017] 8 S.C.R. 913


STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,                       A
 SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

                            v.
                    SANVLO NAIK & ANR.
             (CriminalAppealNos.1610-1611 of2007)                    B
                      SEPTEMBER 07, 2017
         [RANJAN GOGOi AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.J
        Appeal - State '.s appeal against acquittal - Accused-
 respondents were serving as Inspector Jn-charge and Police C
 constable - Case of custodial death - Charge sheet of all accused
 under s.302 - Trial court acquitted all of offence under s.302,
 however convicted accused-respondents under s.304 Part 11 rlw
 s.34 - Acquittal of accused-respondents by High Court accepting
 their plea of alibi - Appeal by State against acquittal - Held: There
 were serious inconsistencies in the entries made in the General Diary D
 Register of the concerned Police Station - There was overwriting in
.the entries with regard to the departure of the accused-respondents
from the Police Station for home around the time when the death of
 the victim took place and several pages of the register in continuity
 were missing which rendered the said register wholly unacceptable E
 document - Thus, the plea of alibi was not substantiated - It cannot
 be said that these facts were trivial, as found by the High Court -
 Having regard to the circumstances and the absence of any cogent
 explanation on the part of the accused-respondents and taking into
  account the fact that the deceased was in police custody and death F
  had occurred in such custody, it was the accused-respondents
  (accused Nos.2 and 5) who, to the exclusion of any other persons,
  were responsible for the injuries that caused the death of the
  deceased - Acquittal of accused-respondents under s.304 Part 11
  r/w s.34 !PC is not legally sustainable - As regards the sentence,
  the maximum punishment that is awardable in case of offence under G
  s.304 Part 11 JPC is ten years -'The accused respondents are Police
  Personnel whose duty was to act in accordance with law - They,
 ·however; had fudged the General Diary Register of the Police Station
  to put up their defence and had put up a false plea of alibi - In
   view of the evidence of P.W.5 that the memo sending the deceased
                                                                      H
                                913
914           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017) 8 S.C.R.


A to the hospital was recorded by him after the deceased was already
  declared to be dead indicate that accused no. 2 had prepared a
  false memo sending the deceased to the hospital when he was
  already dead - The accused respondents having been found guilty
  of commission of the offence under s.304 Part II rlw s.34 /PC,
B awarded maximum sentence awardable under the said Section -
  Penal Code, 1860 - s.304 Part 1/ rlw s.34.
            Allowing the appeals, the Court
             HELD: 1. The General Diary register of the concerned
      Police Station contained the entry with regard to the departure of
c     the accused Nos.2 and 5 from the Police Station for home at about
      1.25 a.m. A plain scrutiny of the register showed that the same
      was a wholly unacceptable document. Specifically, several pages
      were missing in continuity in which the Register ought to have
      been maintained. That apart, several over-writings in the serial
      numbers of the relevant entries in the said register, particularly,
D     with reference to the entry relating to the departure of the accused
      No.2 from the Police Station at 1.25 a.m. Also there was an entry
      No.7 in the General Diary of the Police Station recorded at 2.00
      a.m. which recorded the memo claimed to have been prepared
      by accused No.2 sending the deceased to the hospital. The
 E    apparent inconsistency between the two entries in the General
      Diary Register i.e. entry No.6 (interpolated) and entry No. 7 has
      been sought to be answered by accused No.2 by contending that
      the said memo sending the deceased to the hospital was prepared
      by the accused No.2 earlier i.e. before leaving the police station
      at 1.25 A.M. which fact is stated in his statement recorded under
 F    Section 313 Cr.P.C. Not only Entry No. 6 of the General Diary
      Register contains an overwriting, Exhibit 68 does not mention
      the time when it was written. Neither there is any reference to
      the said memo in the General Diary which would have been but a
       natural part of the conduct of the accused No.2 who had
 G    specifically mentioned against Entry No.6 that he had left the
       Police Station at 1.25 a.m. The plea of alibi for the reasons
       mentioned is wholly unacceptable. It cannot be said that these
       facts were trivial, as found by the High Court. The oral evidence
      of P.W.11 and P.W. 16 who had deposed that they had seen both

.H
      STATE THR. C.B.I. SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH,                          915
    MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA v. SANVLO NAIK & ANR.

 the accused respondents in a scooter going towards their              A
 respective homes has to be, naturally, understood in the context
 of the fact that both P.W. 11 and P.W.16 were serving Police
 personnel. Their versions are apparently belied by the contents
 of the documents. If the plea of alibi put forward by accused No.2
 is not accepted, the similar plea put forward by the accused No.5
                                                                       8
.inasmuch as in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused
 No.5 has himself stated that he had gone from the Police Station
 in a scooter along with accused No.2 and had dropped accused
 No.2 in his house at the first instance is also not acceptable. The
 plea of alibi put up by the accused No.5, therefore, necessarily
 has to fail. If accused No.2 and accused No.5 were present in the     C
 Police Station at the relevant point of time, incriminating
 circumstances stated below have to be reasonably explained by
 the said accused respondents. The deceased was hale and. hearty
 at the time he was brought to the Police Station except for some
 minor bruises which he may have sustained in the course of the        D
 arrest; The deceased was found in the chamber/cabin of the
 accused No.2 in which cabin accused No.5 was also present; The
 deceased was apprehended by accused No.2 and accused No.5
 and at all times was in custody in the Police Station of which the
 accused No.2 was the Officer-in-Charge. The only explanation
 offered was the plea of alibi which is already rejected. (Para 11)    E
  (92l•F-H; 922-A-H; 923-A-B)
      2. In the present case there is no eye-witness. The test,
therefore, would be whether the circumstances culled out above
would be sufficient to enable the Court to come to the conclusion
that it is the accused respondents and nobody else who are F
responsible for the injuries on the deceased. Having regard to
the circumstances and the absence of any cogent explanation on
the part of the accused respondents and taking into account the
fact that the deceased was in Police custody and death had
occurred in such custody, it is the accused respondents (accused
Nos.2 and 5) who, to the exclusion of any other persons, were G
responsible for the injuries that caused the death of the deceased.
The acquittal of the accused respondents of the offence under
Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC cannot be legally
sustained. (Para 12) [923-C-E)
                                                                    H
916           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A       3. As regard the adequacy of the sentence imposed on the
  accused respondents, the maximum· punishment that is awardable
  in case of offence under Section 304 Part II IPC is ten years. The
  accused respondents are Police Personnel whose duty was to act
  in accordance with law. Death had occurred when the deceased
B was in police custody. The accused had fudged the General Diary
  Register of the Police Station to put up their defence and had put
  up a false plea of alibi. In view of the evidence of P.W.5 that the
  memo sending the deceased to the hospital was recorded by him
  after the deceased was already declared to be dead would indicate
  that Accused No.2 had prepared a false memo sending the
C deceased to the hospital when he was already dead. The accused
  respondents are convicted of the offence under Section 304 Part
  II read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous
  imprisonment for a period of ten years. [Para 131 (923-F-H; 924-
  A-BI
 D          Arunachalam v. P. S. R. Sadhanantham and Am: (1979)
            2 SCC 297: [19791 3 SCR 482; P.S.R. Sadhanantham
            v. Arunachalam and Am: (1980) 3 SCC 141 - referred
            to.
                             Case Law Reference
 E          (1979) 3 SCR 482         referred to             Para3
            (1980) 3 sec 141         referred to             Para3


         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
 F Nos. 1610-1611 of2007.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2003 of the High Court
      of Bombay at Panaji in Cr!. A. No. 3 of2002 and Cr!. A. No. 4 of2002.
        Ranjit Kumar, S.G., Ms. Pinky Anand, A.S.G., P. K. Dey, Ms.
   Arunima Dwivedi, Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Ms. Kriti Dua, Mukesh Kumar
 G Maroria, Advs. for the Appellant.
            V. V.S. Rao, Sr. Adv., Aniruddha P. Mayee, Charudatta
      Mahindrakar, Avnish Oza, Chirag Jain, K. Subba Rao and Sanjay Kumar
      Visen, Advs. for the Respondents.

 H
      STATE THR. C.B.l. SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH,                           917
    MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA v. SANVLO NAIK & ANR.

       The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:               A
         1. Seven accused were charged for the offence under Section
 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for
 short). All of them have been acquitted of the said charge. Ac.cused
 No. 2 (S.V. Caeiro) and Accused No.5 (Sanvlo Naik), who are
 respondents in the present appeals, were, however, convicted for the B
 offence punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC
 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of three years and two
 years respectively along with fine. Aggrieved, the convicted accused
·respondents filed separate appeals before the High Court of Bombay.
 The High Court by the impugned judgment has allowed the said appeals;
 set aside the conviction and sentence imposed and acquitted the accused C
 respondents (Accused No.2 and Accused No.S). Aggrieved, the State
 through Central Bureau of Investigation ("CBI" for short) is in appeal
 before this Court.
       2. At the very outset, we would like to deal with the issues
enumerated in our previous order dated s•h September, 2017 passed in D
the present matters. The said order reads as follows:
       " Heard in part.
            At the end of the hearing today we are of the tentative view
       that ifthe respondent Accused No.2 is to be held responsible for
       the injuries found on the person of the deceased which, according E
       to the report of the postmortem, was responsible for his death
       what should be the extent of liability of the said accused.
            The further question to be dealt with is whether the offence
     · committed would amount to orie punishable under Section 302
       IPC and, if so, whether this Court would be empowered in law to F
       pass such an order in the present appeals. Alternatively, if the
       conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC is to be maintained
       whether the sentence should be enhanced to a period of ten ( 10)
       years.
            Learned counsel for the respondent -Accused No.2 prays G
       for time until Thursday next (i.e. 7th September, 2017). Time as
       prayed is granted.
            List the matter on Thursday i.e. 7•h September, 2017 as part-
       heard."

                                                                        H
918           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A           3. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General of lndia, who
    appeared at the request of the Court, on the strength of several decided
    cases of this Court has submitted. that the power of this Court under
    Article 136 of the Constitution oflndia under which the present appeals
    have been entertained is plenary and of wide amplitude and discretionary
 B in nature. Learned Solicitor General, in particular, has referred to the
    two decisions of this Court in the cases of Arunachalam vs P S. R.
    Sadhanantham and another' and P.S.R. Sadhanantham vs.
    Arunachalam and another1 to suggest that in an appropriate case and
    to meet the ends ofjustice, this Court is empowered and would be justified
    to go into the merits of an order of acquittal though the same may not be
 C under challenge so long the same raises an issue in the appeal before the
    Court. 1n this regard, the learned Solicitor General has pointed out that
    this Court's appellate power under Article 136 of the Constitution of
     India is far wider than an appellate Coi.irt's power under Section 386 of
    the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
 D           4. We have considered the matter. We have taken note of the
     fact that against the acquittal of the present accused respondents insofar
     as the offence under Section 302 IPC is concerned no appeal has been
     filed/preferred by the State before the High Court. The present are
     appeals against the acquittal of the accused respondents under Section
     304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC. The order of acquittal of the
 E accused respondent under Section 302 IPC is of the year 2002. We
     have also perused the record in-original produced before us by the learned
     Solicitor General to show the reasons that had led the present appellant
     - State (Through CBI) not to prefer any appeal against the acquittal of
     the accused respondents under Section 302 IPC. The said decision is
 F based on legal opinion tendered. Taking into account the totality of the
      facts stated above we are of the view that we should not address, in the
      present proceedings, the power of this Court to look into the correctness
      of the acquittal of the accused respondents insofar as the offence under
      Section 302 IPC is concerned.
              5. We will, therefore, stay confined to the question of the
  G correctness of the conviction of the accused respondents under Section
      304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC and adequacy of the sentence
      imposed, if the said conviction is to be upheld by the Court. These are
      the contours of the present appeals.
      '(1979) 2 sec 291
  H   '(1980)3 sec 141
      STATE THR. C.B.I. SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH,                                 919
    MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA v. SANVLO NAIK & ANR.

       6. The facts which are not in dispute may be noticed at the outset.    A
           It appears that on a telephonic information received in the
 midnight of 16th May, 1994, accused No.2 and accused No.5 (respondents
 herein) who were serving as Inspector In-charge and Police Constable
 of the Margao Town Police Station respectively had gone to apprehend
 the deceased who was an accused in another case, namely, Crime               B
 No.141/1994 registered by the Margao Town Police Station. P.W. 11
 (Keshav Komarpant, Police Constable) along with Michael Fernandes,
 Home Guard who were already on patrol duty in the vicinity of the place
 where the deceased was informed to be present, assisted accused No.2
 and Accused 5 in apprehending the deceased. There appears to have
 been a small scuffle in the course of the arrest of the deceased in which    C
·the deceased had suffered some superficial injuries. Thereafter, he was
 brought to the Police Station and an entry in the General Diary of the
 Police Station to the said effect i.e. of the factum of the arrest of the
 deceased was made/recorded at 00.20 hours on 17th May, 1994. The
 deceased was in a good physical condition when he was brought to the         D
 Police Station. This has been testified by P.W. 11 (Keshav Komarpant,
 Police Constable). P.W. 11 (Keshav Komarpant, Police Constable) arid
 P.W. 16 (Ulhas Saluke, Head Constable) in their depositions have
 categorically stated that after the arrest of the deceased he was brought
 to the cabin of Accused No.2 where Accused No.5 was also present.
 P.W.17 (Abdul H.K. Khan, Head Constable) has also deposed similarly.         E
  P. W. 16 has further deposed that at about 1.30 a.m. the deceased;
 brought by accused Nos.2 and 5, was put in the female lockup. The
 evidence of P. W. 20 (Balkrishna Mogha, Head Constable), who was on
 SHO duty on that day is to the same effect. In his deposition, P.W. 20
 has specifically stated that he saw the deceased in the cabin of the         F
.accused No.2 and at that time accused No.5 was also present. He has
 further deposed that both accused No.2 and accused No.5 had brought
  the deceased to the lockup. Thereafter it app~ars that there is a General
 Diary entry recorded at 02.00 a.m. to the effect that the deceased was
 required to be moved to the hospital. Apparently, the deceased, as per
 the doctor's certificate, was brought dead to the hospital. This was         G
  around 2.40 a.m. on 17th May, 1994.
       7. Both Accused No.2 and Accused No.5 (respondents herein)
 took up the plea of alibi. According to the accused No.2 he had left the
 Police Station for his home/residence at about 1.25 a.m. and this fact is
                                                                              H
920            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017) 8 S.C.R.


A recorded in the General Diary of the Police Station as Entry No.6. Insofar
  as accused No.5 is concerned, it is claimed that he had also left the
  Police Station at around the same time. Both accused No.2 and accused
  No.5 claimed that they left the Police Station in a scooter and accused
  No.5 after dropping accused No.2 at his home had gone to his own
B home.
          8. Though the prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses,
   the material witnesses in the case are P. W.11 (Keshav Komarpant, Head
   Constable), P. W.16 (Ulhas Saluke, Head Constable), P.W.17 (Abdul H.K.
   Khan, Head Constable), P.W.18 (Anil Kerkar, Police Constable), P.W.
   19 (Nynashwar Kalangutkar (Head Constable), and P. W.20 (Balkrishna
 C Mogha, Head Constable). The evidence of Dr. Silvano Dias Sapeco
   (P. W.10) who had performed the post-mortem of the deceased would
   also be worth mentioning, particularly, the fact that he had found as
   many as 14 injuries on the body of the deceased. It is the opinion of the
   doctor (P. W.10) that the said injuries cannot be self-inflicted and are
 D otherwise sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death.
             9. On the basis of the proved facts, the gist of which has been
      stated above, the following circumstances can be culled out and taken to
      have been proved and established by the prosecution against the accused:
         (i) At the time of the arrest, the deceased was hale and hearty
 E and he was brought to the Police Station in a fit condition (P.W.11);
         (ii) The deceased was brought to the Police Station by the
   respondents and others. He was interrogated in the room of respondent
   No.2 (accused No.2) and t.hereafter put in female lockup at about 1.30
   a.m. by Accused No. 2 and 5 (P.W.11, P.W.16). There is no General
 F Diary entry as to why he was put in female lockup.
            (iii) The condition of the deceased was serious, he was sinking
      and taken to the hospital;
         (iv) As per doctor (P.W. 5 - Dr. Anand Sawant), the deceased
 G was brought dead at 2.40 a.m. and the memo prepared by the Police
   was received by him after he had examined the deceased and found him
   brought dead;
             (v) The medical board conducted autopsy and found more than
      14 injuries on the person of the deceased which were ante-mortem and
      fresh in nature;
 H
      STATE THR. C.B.I. SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH,                                921
    MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA v. SANVLO NAIK& ANR.

      (vi) As per the opinion of Medical Board, injuries were fatal in A
the ordinary course of nature, could not be self-inflicted and could be
caused by baton/danda or a patta;
       (vii) The respondents took the plea of alibi and stated in their
statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C. that they were not at the Police
Station;                                                                      B
      (viii) The station diary, lockup register and arrest register were
fudged to cover up the death in the police custody. The learned trial
Court extensively dealt these records and concluded that they were
fudged;
      .(ix) It is a custodial death and the respondents failed to discharge C
the burden of how the deceased died in their custody.
        l 0. The first question that has to be addressed is whether the plea
 ofalibi set up by the accused respondents are tenable in law. The learned
·trial Court did not accept the same. The High Court, however, reversed
 the said finding and in this regard took the view that though the entries in D
 the General Diary showing that the accused No.2 had left the Police
 Station at about 1.25 a.m. has been overwritten and manipulated, the
 same are trivial in nature and has to be considered in the light of the oral
 evidence tendered by P. W.11 and P. W.16 who had testified that they
 had seen the accused No.2 and accused No.5 going home in a scooter. E
        11. We have considered the plea of alibi raised by the accused
 respondents (accused Nos.2 and 5). We have perused the General
 Diary register of the concerned Police Station containing the entry with
 regard to the departure of the accused Nos.2 and 5 from the Police
 Station for home at about 1.25 a.m. On a plain scrutiny of the aforesaid F
 register we find that the same is a wholly unacceptable document.
 Specifically, what has been found is the absence of several pages in
 continuity in which the Register ought to have been maintained. That
 apart, we find several over-writings in the serial numbers of the relevant
·entries in the said register, particularly, with reference to the entry relating
 to the departure of the accused No.2 from the Police Station at 1.25 G
 a.m. We have also noticed that there is an entry No.7 in the General
 Diary of the Police Station recorded at 2.00 a.m. which records the
 memo claimed to have been prepared by accused No.2 sending the
 deceased to the hospital. The apparent inconsistency between the two
                                                                              H
922           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A entries in the General Diary Register i.e. entry No.6 (interpolated) and
  entry No. 7 has been sought to be answered by the learned counsel for
  the accused No.2 by contending that the said memo sending the deceased
  to the hospital was prepared by the accused No.2 earlier i.e. before
  leaving the police station at 1.25 A.M. which fact is stated in his statement
B recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. To appreciate the said argument,
  we have specifically looked into the original of the entry No.6 of the
  General Diary as well as the memo prepared by the accused No.2 sending
  the deceased to the hospital which was marked as Exhibit 68. Not only
  Entry No. 6 of the General Diary Register contains an oveiwriting, Exhibit
  68 does not mention the time when it was written. Neither do we find
C any reference to the said memo in the General Diary which would have
  been but a natural part of the conduct of the accused No.2 who had
  specifically mentioned against Entry No.6 that he had left the Police
  Station at 1.25 a.m. The plea of alibi for the reasons mentioned is wholly
  unacceptable. It cannot be said that the aforementioned facts are trivial,
D as found by the High Court. The oral evidence of P. W.11 and P. W. 16
  who had deposed that they had seen both the accused respondents in a
  scooter going towards their respective homes has to be, naturally,
  understood in the context of the fact that both P. W. 11 and P. W.16 were
  serving Police personnel. Their versions are apparently belied by the
   contents of the documents referred to above. If we are unable to accept
E the plea ofalibi put forward by the accused No.2, we do not see how we
   can sustain the similar plea put forward by the accused No.5 inasmuch
   as in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused No.5 has himself
   stated that he had gone from the Police Station in a scooter along with
   accused No.2 and had dropped accused No.2 in his house at the first
   instance. The plea of alibi put up by the accused No.5, therefore,
F necessarily has to fail. If accused No.2 and accused No.5 were present
   in the Police Station at the relevant point of time, incriminating
   circumstances stated below have to be reasonably explained by the said
   accused respondents:
          (i) The deceased was hale and hearty at the time he was brought
 G to the Police Station except for some minor bruises which he may have
   sustained in the course of the arrest;
            (ii) The deceased was found in the chamber/cabin of the accused
      No.2 in which cabin accused No.5 was also present;

 H
      STATE THR. C.B.l. SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH,                               923
    MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA v. SANVLO NAIK & ANR.

      (iii) Accused No.2 and accused No.5 took the deceased to the A
female lockup. Why the deceased was taken to the female lockup when
there was only four persons in the male lockup?
      (iv) The deceased was apprehended by accused No.2 and accused
No.5 and at all times was in custody in the Police Station of which the
accused No.2 was the Officer-in-Charge.                                     B
      The only explanation offered was the plea of alibi which we have
already rejected.
         12. True it is that in the present case there is no eye-witness. The
test, therefore, would be whether the circumstances culled out above
would be sufficient to enable the Court to come to the conclusion that it c
 is the accused respondents and nobody else who are responsible for the
 injuries on the deceased. Having regard to the circumstances and the
 absence of any cogent explanation on the part of the accused respondents
 and taking into account the fact that the deceased was in Police custody
 and death had occurred in such custody, we are of the view that it is the D
 accused respondents (accused Nos.2 and 5) who, to the exclusion of
 any other persons, were responsible for the injuries that caused the death
 of the deceased Abdul Gaffar Khan. We, therefore, take the view that
 the acquittal of the accused respondents of the offence under Section
 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC cannot be legally sustained.
                                                                              E
         13. This will bring the Court to a consideration of the adequacy of
 the sentence imposed on the accused respondents. The maximum
 punishment that is awardable in case of offence under Section 304 Part           -
                                                                                  ..

 II IPC is ten years. The accused respondents are Police Personnel whose
 duty was to act in accordance with law. Death had occurred when the
 deceased was in police custody. The accused had fudged the General F
 Diary Register of the Police Station to put up their defence and had put
 up a false plea of alibi. In view of the evidence of P.W.5 that the memo
 sending the deceased to the hospital wa.s recorded by him after the
 deceased was.already declared to be dead would indicate that Accused
 No.2 had prepared a false memo sending the deceased to the hospital G
 when he was already dead. Taking into account all the above, it is our
 considered view that the accused respondents having been found guilty
 of commission of the offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section
·34 IPC should suffer the maximum sentence awardable under the said
  Section. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court; convict
                                                                            H
924             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A the accused respondents of the offence under Section 304 Part II read
  with Section 34 IPC and sentence them to suffer rigorous imprisonment
  for a period of ten years. The accused respondents shall forthwith
  surrender and serve out the sentence failing which they will be taken
  into custody for being dealt with in accordance with law.
 B           14. The appeals consequently are allowed in the above terms.


      Devika Gujral                                           Appeals allowed.