SMT. LEELAVATHI K vs STATE BY MARATHAHALLI P S

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57478
WP No. 18634 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010408072025





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

WRIT PETITION NO. 18634 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. LEELAVATHI K,
W/O JAGADESH R,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT, NO.03, NAGARJUNA BUILDING,
3RD CROSS, NEAR KULLAPPA CIRCLE,
SAINT THOMOS TOWN, NAGAWARA POST,
BANGALORE- 560084.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SADDAM R MULLA, ADVOCATE FOR








SRI. MOHAMMAD TAHIR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.
STATE BY MARATHAHALLI P S,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
OFFICE AT HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
OPP. TO VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001.

2. RAMESH CHOWDERY
SUR RAAM,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT, NO.2, NARAYANREDDY BUILDING,
NAVJYOTI JEWELLERS CT STREET,
BENGALURU-560037.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, AGA FOR R-1;


Digitally
signed by
CHETAN B
C
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka

V/O DATED 12.10.2026, NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57478
WP No. 18634 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010408072025



THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRPC
PRAYING TO 1. TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED
23/12/2024 PRESENT AT ANNEXURE-C, WHICH IS REGISTERED
AS CC NO.50787/2025 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO. 358/2023
U/S 411 AND 379 OF IPC FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
MARATHAHALLI POLICE AND THE SAME IS PENDING ON THE
FILES OF HON'BLE 29TH ACJM, BENGALURU, WHEREIN THE
PETITIONER IS ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.2, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri. Saddam R Mulla , learned counsel for the
petitioner, Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned Additional Government
Advocate for respondent No.1.
2. Petitioner has filed the petition under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the following prayers:
"1. to quash the Charge Sheet dated 23/12/2024 present

at Annexure C , which is registered as CC
No.50787/2025 arising out of Crime No. 358/2023 U/s
411 and 379 of IPC filed by the Respondent no.1
Marathahalli Police and the same is pending on the files
of HON'BLE 29th ACJM, Bengaluru, wherein the Petitioner

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57478
WP No. 18634 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010408072025



is arraigned as Accused No2, in the interest of justice
and equity.
2. To quash the cognizance order dated 17/01/2025
present at Annexure D , passed by HON'BLE 29th ACJM,,
Bengaluru, CC No.50787/2025 arising out of Crime No.
358/2023 U/s 411 and 379 of IPC filed by the
Respondent no.1 Marathahalli Police, wherein the
Petitioner is arrayed as Accused No 2 in the interest of
justice and equity. "


3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of
the present petition are as under:
(a) Petitioner herein is accused No.2 in
C.C.No.50787/2025 arising out of Crime No.358/2023
registered by Marathahalli Police.
(b) A complaint came to be lodged by respondent No.2
which was registered in Crime No.358/2023. Gist of the
complaint averments reveals that respondent No.2 was running
the business known as Navjyoti jewellery shop. On 18.01.2023
at about 01:00 p.m., two unknown persons visited the
jewellery shop of respondent No.2 in the guise of purchasing a
gold chain. Respondent No.2 was required to show 25 grams

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57478
WP No. 18634 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010408072025



and 32 grams of two gold chains and when the same was to be
shown by keeping it in the tray, those chains were taken away
from the shop.
(c) Case came to be registered against the unknown
person at the first instance. Police after thorough investigation,
filed charge sheet. Column No.17 of the charge sheet reads as
under:

17
" .
ೇನ ಸಂ ಪ ಾಾಂಶ
- 1
ಾ ರವರು ಾರತಹ ೕ ಾಾ ಸರಹ ನ ಾರತಹಯ

ೌ"ೇಶ#$ ರ ೆಯ% ನವ&ೊ(ೕ) ಜೂ(+ೆಲ - ಎಂಬ ಜೂ(+ೆಲ$ ಅಂಗ2
. 18-10-2024
ಇಟು5 ೊಂಡು +ಾ(7ಾರ ಾ2ೊಂ2ರು8ಾೆ 9ಾಂಕ ರಂದು
1.00 , - 1
ಮ=ಾ(ಹ> ಗಂ?ೆಯ ಸಮಯದ % ಅಪ$@ತ ವ(A BCಬ ಾ ರವರ
,
ಜೂ(+ೆಲ$ ಅಂಗ2Dೆ ಬಂದು @ನ>ದ ಸರಗಳನು> 8ೋ$ಸುವಂ8ೆ Fೇ ದು ಆಗ
- 1 25 32
ಾ ರವರು ಆ ವ(A Dೆ DಾHಂ ಮತು  DಾHಂಗಳ ಎರಡು @ನ>ದ
, - 1
ಸರಗಳನು> ?ೆHೕನ % ಇಡುವಷ5ರ % ಆ ಅ ಾJ ಾ ರವ$Dೆ ) ಯದಂ8ೆ
- 1
Kೕಸ ಂದ ಆ ಎರಡು @ನ>ದ ೈM ಗಳನು> ಎ) ೊಂಡು ಾ ರವರ
,
ಅಂಗ2Nಂದ ಪ ಾ$OಾPರು8ಾ9ೆ ಆದ $ಂದ ಆ ಆ ಾJಯ QರುದR ಾನೂನು
- 1 21-10-2023
$ೕ) ಕHಮ ಜರುPಸುವಂ8ೆ ಾ ರವರು 9ಾಂಕ ರಂದು
358/2023 379,420
, -
ದೂರು Sೕ2ದು  ಅದರಂ8ೆ ಾಾ Kಸಂ ಕಲಂ ಐU 

$ೕ) ಪHಕರಣ =ಾಖಲು ಾ2ೊಂ2ರುತ=ೆ.
22-12-2023 . . -
9ಾಂಕ ರಂದು &ೆ U ನಗರ ೕ ಾಾ K ಸಂ
379/2023 379 - 1
ಕಲಂ ಐU  ಪHಕರಣದ % ಎ ಆ ೋUOಾದ $ಚZ-
. ,
ೆ ಎ  ಎಂಬುವರನು> ದಸ P$ ಾ2ದು ಸದ$ ಆ ೋUಯ ಕ"ೆNಂದ
, . - 358/2023 379,420
ಾರತಹ ೕ ಾಾ K ಸಂ ಕಲಂ ಐU 

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57478
WP No. 18634 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010408072025



31.69
ೇDೆ ಸಂಬಂ ದಂ8ೆ DಾHಂ ತೂಕದ ಒಂದು @ನ>ದ ಗ\5ಯನು>
. . -
ಅ ಾನತುಪ2ೊಂಡು &ೆ U ನಗರ ೕ ಾಾ U ಎ] ಸಂ^ೆ(
185/2023 - 2 .
ಐಟಂ ನಂ ರ % ನಮೂದು ಾ2ರುತ=ೆ
- 1 , . - 358/2023
ಪHಕರಣದ ಎ ಆ ೋUತ ಾರತಹ ೕ ಾಾ K ಸಂ
379, 420
ಕಲಂ ಐU  ೇDೆ ಸಂಬಂ ದಂ8ೆ ಕಳವ_ ಾ2ದ ಮ8ೊ ಂದು
- 2
@ನ>ದ ಸರವನು> ಎ ಆ ೋU8ೆDೆ ಸಂಬಂ ದ ಅ\ ಾ Dೋ`a ಕಂ7ೆSDೆ
2
ಾಾಟ ಾಡಲು FೋPದು  ಎ ಆ ೋU8ೆDೆ ಕಳbQನ ಾಲನು> Sೕ2ದು 
1
. - -2
ಹಣವನು> ೊಡ=ೆ ತಡ ಾಡು)ದರು ಆದ $ಂದ ಎ ಆ ೋUತ ಎ
- 2
ಆ ೋUತ ಬ  ೈನ> ಅನು> +ಾಪಸುc ೇಳdಾP ಎ ಆ ೋU8ೆಯು ಕಳbQನ
, - 1
ಾಲು ಎಂದು ) ದು Sೕ2ರ ಲ% ಆಗ ಎ ಆ ೋUತ @ನ>ದ ಸರದ ಸeೕತ
- 2
ಓ2 Fೋಗಲು ಪHಯ)> =ಾಗ ತುಂ"ಾದ ಅದ- @ನ>ದ ೈM ಎ ಆ ೋU8ೆDೆ
2
, -
ಸಂಬಂ ದ ಅ\5 ಾ Dೋ`a ಕಂ7ೆSಯ  ಉ ದುೊಂ2ರುತ=ೆ ಎ

ಆ ೋU8ೆDೆ ಸಂಬಂ ದ ಅ\5 ಾ Dೋ`a ಕಂ7ೆSಯ % ಉ ದುೊಂ2ರುವ
- 2
ಕಳವ_ ಾdಾದ ತುಂ"ಾದ ಅದ- @ನ>ದ ಸರವನು> ಎ ಆ ೋU8ೆ ತS^ೆಯ
.
+ೇhೆ ೕಸರ ಮುಂ=ೆ Fಾಜರುಪ2 ರುವ_ಲ%
- 1 - 2
ಈ ಪHಕರಣದ ತS^ೆಯ % ಎ ಮತು  ಎ ಆ ೋUತರು ಅಪ ಾದ
- 1 379 ,
ಾ2ರುವ_ದು ದೃಡಪ\5ರುವ_ದ$ಂದ ಎ ಆ ೋUಯ QರುದR ಕಲಂ
- 2 411
ಐU  ಮತು  ಎ ಆ ೋU8ೆಯ QರುದR ಕಲಂ ಐU  ಅ2ಯ %
."
=ೋkಾ ೋಪಾ ಪ\5 ಸ %ರುತ=ೆ

4. Learned trial Magistrate has taken cognizance and
proceeded with the criminal case. The order of taking
cognizance and proceeding with criminal case is called in
question by the petitioner herein on the following grounds:


It is submitted that the Petitioner is falsely implicated by the
respondent police due to constant dislike and bigotry against
the Petitioner and her company, several false cases were filed

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57478
WP No. 18634 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010408072025



by the police against the Ex-director of the company without
doing proper investigation and most of the cases are quash by
this Hon'ble court due to arbitrary approach of the police.



It is submitted that even in this case there are allegation of
received stole gold articles from accused no.1, received by the
Attica Gold Company, and there is no allegation mentioned
against the Petitioner in charge sheet, only as Petitioner is
executive directors of Attica gold company the respondent
police falsely implicated as accused no. 2 is charge sheet,
without arraying company as accused in this case. Copy of the
DIR-12 form of Petitioner are produced herewith as
Annexure-E series.



It is submitted that the entire investigation is done by the
Respondent police is Sham, pervasive, Illegal and Blunted act
to defame the Petitioner company his directors without
following any procedure of law due its impartial approach
against the petitioner and Attica gold company.


It is submitted that there is no ingredient of section 411
and 413 of IPC in the charge sheet as Hon'ble Apex court
has set parameters in Shiv Kumar v. State of M.P.,
(2022) 9 SCC 676 held that,
22. In Trimbak v. State of M.P. [Trimbak v.
State of M.P., (1953) 1 SCC 397: AIR 1954 SC
39], this Court discussed the essential
ingredients for conviction under Section 411
IPC. Mehr Chand Mahajan, J., in his erudite
opinion rightly observed that in order to bring

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57478
WP No. 18634 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010408072025



home the guilt under Section 411 IPC, the
prosecution must prove: (SCC p. 399, para 5)
"5.... (1) that the stolen property was in the
possession of the accused, (2) that some
person other than the accused had possession
of the property before the accused got
possession of it, and (3) that the accused had
knowledge that the property was stolen
property."
23. When we apply the legal proposition as
propounded to the present circumstances, the
inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution
has failed to establish that the appellant had
the knowledge that articles seized from his
possession are stolen goods. This essential
element was not established against the
appellant to bring home the charge under
Section 411 IPC against him.
Copy of Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment Shiv Kumar
v. State of M.P., (2022) 9 SCC 676 as
ANNEXURE-F.



It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court (" Supreme
Court ") in the recent judgment of Ravindranatha Bajpe v.
Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine
SC 806 has held that the criminal proceedings cannot be kick
started against the directors and other management personnel
of a company in absence of specific allegations and their role in
the crime. Following its earlier judgments, the Supreme Court

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57478
WP No. 18634 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010408072025



has added yet another piece in the long-standing jurisprudence
on the vicarious liability of directors and senior management in
criminal cases. The main principle is that if a company
commits a crime involving a guilty intent, it would normally be
the intent and action of the individual who acted on behalf of
the company and held
"From the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing
the process against the respondents herein - accused nos.
I to 8, there does not appear that the learned Magistrate
has recorded his satisfaction about a prima facie case
against respondent nos. 2 to 5 and 7 & 8. Merely because
respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 & 8 are the
Chairman/Managing Director/Executive Director/Deputy
General Manager/Planner & Executor, automatically they
cannot be held vicariously liable, unless, as observed
hereinabove, there are specific allegations and averments
against them with respect to their individual role. Under
the circumstances, the High Court has rightly dismissed
the revision applications and has rightly confirmed the
order passed by the learned Sessions Court quashing and
setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate
issuing process against respondent nos. 1 to 8 herein -
original accused nos. 1 to 8 for the offences punishable
under Sections 427, 447, 506 and 120B read with Section
34 IPC."
Copy of the Judgment is produced here with as
Annexure-G.




It is submitted that in aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex
court in the case of ANEETA HADA VS. M/S.GODFATHER

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57478
WP No. 18634 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010408072025



TRAVELS & TOURS PVT. LTD. (2008) 13 SCC 703; if Company
has not been arraigned as accused and this runs counter to the
law declared by the Supreme Court in this Judgment,
57. The ratio laid down in Anil Hada's case was
applicable to the factual matrix thereof which is
identical here. The question has been directly
decided that the prosecution of the company is
not a sine qua non for the prosecution of the
other persons who fall within the second and
third categories, namely, those who were
incharge and responsible for the business of the
company.



It is submitted that staff of the company has received the
alleged stolen gold in the routine business transaction, if any
case is made out in alleged transaction either under 411 of IPC
or any other provision it will be against the company not
against the individual in that event appropriate provision is
section is 305 of CrPC
Section 305 of CrPC read as:
305. Procedure when corporation or registered society is
an accused. Right of person against whom proceedings
are instituted to be defended.
(1) In this section," corporation" means an Incorporated
company or other body corporate, and includes a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21
of 1860).

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57478
WP No. 18634 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010408072025



(2) Where a corporation is the accused person or one of
the accused persons in an inquiry or trial, it may appoint
a representative for the purpose of the inquiry or trial
and such appointment need not be under the seal of the
corporation.
(3) Where a representative of a corporation appears, any
requirement of this Code that anything shall be done in
the presence of the accused or shall be read or stated or
explained to the accused, shall be construed as a
requirement that that thing shall be done in the presence
of the representative or read or stated or explained to
the representative, and any requirement that the
accused shall be examined shall be construed as a
requirement that the representative shall be examined.
(4) Where a representative of a corporation does not
appear, any such requirement as is referred to in sub-
section (3) shall not apply.
(5) Where a statement in writing purporting to be signed
by the managing director of the corporation or by any
person (by whatever name called) having, or being one
of the persons having the management of the affairs of
the corporation to the effect that the person named in
the statement has been appointed as the representative
of the corporation for the purposes of this section, is
filed, the Court shall, unless the contrary is proved,
presume that such person has been so appointed.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57478
WP No. 18634 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010408072025



(6) If a question arises as to whether any person,
appearing as the representative of a corporation in an
inquiry or trial before a Court is or is not such
representative, the question shall be determined by the
Court.
Inspite of being prescribed procedure respondent police
made Petitioner are accused no. 5 and 6 to coerce the
company affect illegal recovery to close the
investigation."


5. Sri. Saddam R Mulla , learned counsel for the
petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would
contend that petitioner is falsely implicated by the respondent-
police on account of constant dislikened bigotry against the
petitioner and her company.

6. It is further contended that the allegation that
petitioner received stolen gold articles, is incorrect.
Investigation conducted by the police is perfunctory in nature,
besides sham and perverse, with an intention to defame the
company wherein the petitioner is working.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57478
WP No. 18634 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010408072025



7. Sri. Saddam R Mulla would contend that for
attracting the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal
Code, the prosecution has to establish that the stolen property
was in possession of the accused and some person other than
the accused had possession of the property before the accused
got possession of it and the accused had the knowledge that
the property in possession was stolen property, as is held in
TRIMBAK vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH , reported in
(1953) 1 SCC 397 and the principles of law in TRIMBAK is
followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHIV KUMAR vs.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, reported in (2022) 9 SCC
676 and thus, the material available on record would be hardly
sufficient to proceed with the criminal case, as ingredient to
attract the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code,
is not available on record.

8. Sri. Saddam R Mulla would also contend that in a
similar matter, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
IRFAN vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER, in
Criminal Petition No.17236/2025 by order dated 15.07.2026
while approving the principles of law enunciated in PRAKASH

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57478
WP No. 18634 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010408072025



vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine
KAR 1796 , has held that based on the confession statement of
the co-accused, no criminal case can be filed against the
accused and thus, the pending proceedings needs to be
quashed qua the petitioner.

9. Per contra, Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned Additional
Government Advocate would support the filing of the charge
sheet and proceeding with the criminal case.

10. She would invite the attention of the Court to the
material available on record collected by the investigation
agency and submits that, the petitioner has specifically stated
that portion of the gold chain that is recovered is still in the
Attica Gold Company which is subject matter of Crime
No.379/2023 and therefore, the criminal case needs to be
continued.

11. In reply, Sri. Saddam R Mulla would contend that
no fresh investigation has taken place in the case on hand and

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57478
WP No. 18634 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010408072025



witnesses cited by the police are the witnesses in Crime
No.379/2023 and thus, sought for allowing the petition.

12. In the light of arguments put forward on behalf of
both, this Court bestowed its best attention to the material on
record meticulously.

13. As could be seen from the facts mentioned in
column No.17 referred to supra , the contentions urged on
behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced at this stage by
holding a mini trial.

14. Delayed complaint or confession statement of the
co-accused non-prejudiced the rights of petitioner, are all
matters which needs the adjudication on merits when the
prosecution examines the witnesses.

15. Fact remains that the investigation agency is in a
position to find out that while investigating the offence under
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of Crime

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57478
WP No. 18634 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010408072025



No.358/2023, took into consideration the material found in
Crime No.379/2023.

16. Pertinently, the stolen chain from the shop of
respondent No.2 is the subject matter and the same is
recovered in Crime No.379/2023 from Khushi Gold Company.
The material available on record would also indicate that one
chain was sought to be sold in Attica Gold Company and there
was delay in settling the amount.

17. It is at that juncture, accused No.1 while trying to
snatch away the chain from the custody of accused No.2,
portion of the chain measuring 7.5 grams got cut and remained
with the Attica Gold Company.

18. Expressing any further opinion at this stage by the
Court is totally uncalled for, as whether the offence under
Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code would get attracted or
non-reporting the incident to the police by the Attica Gold
Company, would attract the offence under Section 403 of the
Indian Penal Code.

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57478
WP No. 18634 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010408072025



19. It is for the prosecuting agency and the learned trial
Judge to frame appropriate charges having regard to the
attendant facts and circumstances of the case.

20. Likewise, whether at all, the petitioner had the
knowledge that the gold chain that was sought to be sold in
favour of Attica Gold Company was a stolen article or not,
cannot be decided by this Court by holding a mini trial.


21. Thus, though there cannot be any dispute as to the
principles of law enunciated in TRIMBAK followed in SHIV
KUMAR supra , this Court is of the considered opinion that the
scope of Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, would not entitle this Court to hold a mini
trial to find out whether the petitioner had the intention and
knowledge to receive the stolen property from the accused
No.1.

22. As this Court observed supra , if the portion of the
gold chain has remained with the present petitioner who is the

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57478
WP No. 18634 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010408072025



accused No.2, the only course that was open to the petitioner
was to intimate to the concerned jurisdictional police and hand
it over the same to the police.

23. Instead, what is available on record is that, that
was retained as unaccounted gold.

24. Be it what it may, it is for the trial court during the
trial to ascertain those factual aspects based on the material
evidence that is placed on record.

25. Lastly, the contentions urged on behalf of the
petitioner that no fresh investigation has been conducted and
same witnesses in the case of Crime No.379/2023 is arraigned
as witnesses in the present case, also would not hold water as
majority of the witnesses are one and the same witnesses as
incident is practically one and the same and the incident
involved in the present case is, after the gold chains were
snatched from the shop of respondent No.2.

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57478
WP No. 18634 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010408072025



26. Insofar as the confession of the co-accused
resulting in filing a charge sheet against the petitioner, cannot
also hold water, in view of the material collected by the
investigation agency would be sufficient enough to arraign the
present petitioner as accused No.2 and innocence thereof would
only be decided after the full-fledged trial.

27. Accordingly, the following:
O R D E R
[I] Petition is dismissed .
[II] However, observations made by this Court in this
order is only for the disposal of the present petition
and shall not affect the merits of the petitioner in
the pending trial.




Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE


CBC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25