Leo Rozario v. The Senior Intelligence Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Reserved on : 25/04/2022 Pronounced on : 18/05/2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.MURALI SHANKAR Leo Rozario, ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The Senior Intelligence OffiCer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, NO.22/14, Celin Garden, Roche Colony, South Beach Road, Tuticorin-628 001.

F.No.DRI/CZU/MDU/VIII.48/ENQ-01/INT-04/2021 ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, Spl. Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

PRAYER :- To enlarge the Petitioner on bail,in F.No.DRI/CZU/MDU/VIII.48 / ENQ-01/INT-04/2021 pending investigation on the file of the Respondent.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.11.2021, for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) of NDPS Act in F.No.DRI/CZU/MDU/VIII.48/ENQ-01/INT04/2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on receipt of specific information that Cocaine weighing around 300 kgs was arriving at Tuticorin Port in the vessel Cotopaxi in container No.CAXU9986891, the above container which arrived at Tuticorin Port on 20.04.2021 was taken up for examination at M/s.DBGT Terminal, that the Bill of Lading No.MEDUPA022615 issued by M/s.Mediterranean Shipping Company 1/13

S.A., covered six 40' containers, including the above container, declared to contain 'teak round logs', that as per the bill of lading consignee was M/s.Sri Jeyasakthi Timper Traders, No.1/1020, Courtallam Road, Shencottai and the liner/container No.CAXU9986891 was EU19387527 and it tallied with seal number on the above container, that they have found in the container round logs stacked in four rows and after the front row there was a gap of few feet and in the gap nine big travel bags, locked with plastic zip tie, were found lying, that the Surveyor N.

Renganathan, surveyed the above container and gave opinion that the container had not been tampered with, that all the nine bags were recovered and all the bags were found to contain rectangular shaped packets wrapped with brown color cellophane tape and the packets wrapped with multilayer transparent polythene film, that the officers, on opening the final layer of packing found rectangular shaped bar made of compressed white color powder like substance, that when a small quantity of said powder was tested with the help of Narcotic Drugs Detection Kit, the same tested positive for Cocaine; that all the packets were opened and found to contain bars made of compressed white color powder, that during examination of the contents of the bag A4 an unused yellow color one Time Liner Seal No.

EU19387527, which was the same as the one One-Time Liner seal originally found on the above container No.CAXU9986891, was found and recovered, that 302 rectangular shaped bars in 9 bags, totally weighing 303.403 kgs of Cocaine were seized and recovered under the provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 r/w Customs Act, 1962 under mahazar proceedings dated 21.04.2021 and that they have also recovered teak round logs used as cover cargo for smuggling of Cocaine measuring 15.8380 CBM.

3.It is the further case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation, they found that the arrival of the above container bearing No.CAXU9986891 at Tuticorin was monitored on 19th and 20th April 2021 ie., before and during arrival of the said vessel Cotapaxi from a static IP address "182.19.47.241", which was ascertained to be allotted by M/s.Vodafone Idea Limited to M/s.Expo Freight Private Limited, Chennai and that they have also found that a MAC ID "18:B1:69:91:EE:02" was being used for communication through the said IP address.

4.It is their further case that they have ascertained from M/s.Bharti Airtel Lmited that the above said container had also been tracked from the IP address 27.62.113.152. mobile No.95000 53502 (Airtel), which pertained to G.Sathish Kumar, an Executive of M/s.Expo Freight Private Limited, Chennai, that the said Sathish Kumar was orally summoned and interrogated and at that time, he gave a statement dated 17.11.2021 under Section 67 of NDPS Act stating that he received a call on 19.04.2021 from the petitioner, who is the Branch Manager of M/s.Expo Freight Private Limited and asked him to track the container bearing No.CAXU9986891, that he tracked the said container in the office computer and intimated the status to the petitioner over phone, that on 20.04.2021 the petitioner called 2/13

him around 11.00 am and asked him to track the said container and he tracked the container and updated the status, that again the petitioner had contacted him and asked him to track the same container and he tracked again and intimated the same to the petitioner, that again the petitioner had directed him to track the same container and he tracked the same from his mobile phone and took screen shot of the same and shared it through whatsapp to the petitioner and that since he was a subordinate to the petitioner, he had followed the orders of his superiors and he was not aware of any other particulars regarding the consignment.

5.It is the further case of the prosecution that thereafter, they have summoned the petitioner and interrogated him, that the petitioner in his statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act, had admitted that he alone had directed the subordinate Sathish Kumar to track the said consignment, that he had deleted the messages and media files for the dates 19.04.2021 and 20.04.2021, that in the second week of April 2021 he met one Shri.Rashid, who was acquainted to him after a long time, that the said Rashid had directed him to track the consignment, which contains Cocain and assured him to give good monetary benefits, that he did not know whereabouts of the said Rashid and he has also not known the said phone number of the said Rashid and that thereafter, considering the seriousness and gravity of the offence and based on the grounds of conspiracy established against the petitioner in tracking the container with huge consignment of Narcotic Drugs, the petitioner was arrested on 19th November 2021 for contravention of Section 29 of NDPS Act and he was remanded to judicial custody.

6.The petitioner's case is that he is innocent, that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution, that the petitioner is neither consignor nor the consignee of the container No.CAXU9986891, that the contents of the container does not belong to him, that since the petitioner being in the business of Logistics, he was used by the culprits to ascertain the movements of the container, that the petitioner had innocently without even getting any money or other benefits, has done the job of tracking, that the respondent has not produced any prima facie material to show the conspiracy, that the petitioner is a B.A., graduate and he is working in M/s.

Expo Freight Private Limited, Chennai, that his wife is working as a teacher in Good Shepherd Convent, Chennai and he is having two children, that the petitioner has been in the Logistics field for the past 25 years with unblemished record and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the above case. 7.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did the tracking of consignment as that of Sathish Kumar, that the Officers after recording the statement of Sathish Kumar, had released him, but the same yardstick was not followed in the case of the petitioner and the respondent has not offered or any reason or explanation as to why the same yardstick was not applied in the case of the petitioner.

3/13

8.The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the role of the said Sathish Kumar, who is working under the petitioner is entirely different from that of the petitioner, that the said Sathish Kumar had only followed the instructions of his superior officer/petitioner herein, but the petitioner was fully aware of the contents of the container and he had agreed to track the container and passed on the results to the persons directly involved in smuggling for monetary consideration and that therefore, the petitioner cannot be equated with his employee Sathish Kumar.

9.As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, even according to the petitioner he alone had directed his employee Sathish Kumar to track the consignments, but though the petitioner had alleged that one Rashid had directed him to track the consignment, he has not even furnished the particulars of the said Rashid nor his whereabouts nor his phone numbers. 10.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that if the petitioner had any culpable mental state, he could have done it on his own without the knowledge of the others. 11.As rightly contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, though there were totally six containers in the particular bill of lading, the petitioner had tracked the particular container and that the petitioner has not offered any reason or explanation for the same.

12.According to the prosecution, they have collected and gathered necessary materials to show that the petitioner alone had contacted his staff Sathish Kumar and asked him to track the particular container multiple times.

13.No doubt, he petitioner has taken a stand that while recording his statement that the whatsapp messages and other information related to tracking of the container were deleted by him, but in fact those details were available with the petitioner during the interrogation period and the respondent Officers alone had deleted those details in order to arrest the petitioner and to show some progress in the above case.

14.The learned Special Public Prosecutor would contend that the petitioner in his statement recorded dated 17.11.2021 has specifically denied that he had directed the staff member to track the movements of the said container No.CAXU9986891 on 19.04.2021 and 20.04.2021, but subsequently, when the petitioner was confronted with the statement of the said Sathiskumar, the petitioner in his statement dated 18.11.2021 had admitted that the tracking details of the said container was sent to him through whatsapp by the said 4/13

Sathish Kumar, that he had all the media files for the dates 19.04.2021 and 20.04.2021 including the said message and at that time, the petitioner has refrained from saying for what reason he has deleted the media files of the dates 19.04.2021 and 20.04.2021, i.e., the exact dates when the movement of the specific container containing Cocaine was tracked and that the same would clearly expose the role of the petitioner in the conspiracy. 15.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court in case of the Intelligence Officer, Air Intelligence Unit, Customs House, Chennai Vs. B.Balatheepan, in Crl.A.No.129 of 2013, dated 25.01.2019, while dismissing the criminal appeal and thereby confirming the judgment of acquittal, has held that mens ria is important to convict a person that he was found in possession of any commercial quantity.

16.In the said case, an argument was advanced by the prosecution, that when possession is established, the presumption arises that the possessor had the culpable mental state and the burden is on the possessor to disprove this fact not by preponderance of probability but by proof beyond reasonable doubt. A learned Judge of this Court by observing that there is no quarrel with the above legal preposition submitted by the prosecution, has observed as follows :

"13.This Court has no quarrel with the aforesaid legal proposition submitted by Mr.Venkateswaran because Section 35 of the NDPS Act mandates so. In possessory offences, beyond proving possession or custody, the prosecution may not be able to prove what was there in the inner recess of the mind of the possessor and that is why the Legislature has thought it fit to shift the burden and place it at the doorstep of the possessor. However, to fasten criminal liability, mens rea is sine qua non, otherwise the maxim Actus Reus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea would be rendered otiose. To discharge, the burden under Section 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, it is not necessary in every case for the accused to lead positive evidence. It would suffice if the accused is able to discharge the burden beyond reasonable doubt via the evidence adduced by the prosecution themselves."

17.As rightly contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the trial Court has acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution has failed to conduct any investigation about Sudha, who had handed over two photo albums and one key board; or seize the two photo albums, which Sudha had given to the accused and the trial Court has also come to the decision that the accused was not in conscious possession of the contraband and that when the said 5/13

judgment of acquittal was challenged, the learned Judge by observing that mens ria is sine qua non to fasten liability and it is not necessary that the accused to lead positive evidence and it would be suffice if the accused is able to discharge the burden through the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

18.As rightly contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, we are at bail stage and more importantly, investigation is pending.

19.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs. The State Of Tamil Nadu, [2021 4 SCC 1], wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has answered the reference as follows:

(i) The officers, who are invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act or Police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. As a result of which, any confessional statement made to them would be default under the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot be taken into account in order to convict the accused under the NDPS Act.

(ii) The statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. As already pointed out, the prosecution has relied much on the confession statement of the co-accused and according to them, the same is very much sufficient enough to implicate the other person allegedly involved in the occurrence and whether the confession statement can be admitted in the evidence or not cannot be gone into at this stage."

20.When a similar plea was raised before this Court in batch of cases in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5093 of 2021 etc., in Muruganandham and another vs. the State represented by the Inspector of Police, Authoor Police Station, Thoothukudi District and others, dated 23.12.2021, this Court has observed as follows:- "8.A learned Single Judge of this Court in Kumar @ Ranjithkumar Vs.State reported in 2019 (2) MWN (Cr.) 242, after referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus:

"12.A careful reading of the above judgments makes it very clear that a confession can be made admissible in evidence under Section 67 of the Act as a substantive evidence as against the maker of the statement. But, in respect of the co-accused, the said statement can never be treated as a substantive evidence. At the most, it can be considered as a relevant evidence under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. On the touch stone of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the confession of the co6/13

accused can, at the best, be used or utilized in order to lend assurance to the Court. In the absence of a substantive evidence, the Court cannot proceed to convict the accused, purely on the statement of coaccused. In the instant case, the investigation has been completed and a final report has also been filed and the only material that is available against the petitioners is the statement of the co-accused and there is no other material. Under such circumstances, this Court is able to satisfy itself that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners are not guilty of the offence. That apart, there is no material to show that the petitioners will commit any offence, while on bail. 13.Therefore, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners have fulfilled the twin requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and are therefore, entitled to be granted bail. ..."

9.Another learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.OP(MD)No.13819 of 2021, dated 24.09.2021, [P.Sakthivel Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Authoor Police Station, Thoothukudi District], has held as follows:

"In support of this allegation, except the confession of the petitioner himself and the coaccused, there is absolutely no other material. It is too well settled that on the strength of such statement of confession, it is not possible to render a finding on the guilt of the accused. Since there is no other material to link the petitioner to the crime in question, I have to necessarily give a finding that the petitioner is not likely to commit the offence in question."

10.In another decision in Crl.OP(MD)No.15707 of 2019, dated 12.12.2019, [Ayyampillai Vs. The state rep.by The Inspector of Police, NIB-CID, Madurai] the learned Single Judge, while granting bail, has observed "Applying the principle laid down above, I can unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the possibility of the petitioner being convicted is not just bleak but zero. In other words, there is absolutely no possibility of the petitioner being convicted."

11.Thereafter, another learned Single Judge of this Court, in batch of petitions for bail as well as anticipatory bail in Mokkaraj @ Mokkaian and others Vs. The Inspector of Police, Avaniapuram Police Station, Madurai City and others, [Crl.OP(MD)Nos.1607 of 2021 and batch], after referring to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the High Courts, 7/13

has held as follows :

"27.6.If the prosecuting agency has not collected any other material to substantiate the confession of the co-accused, it may not be proper to carry on with such confession statement alone, which can be retracted at any point of time, to deny the bail applications. Therefore, this Court is inclined to entertain the applications, if the investigating agency has not collected any materials other than the confession statement of the co-accused."

12.No doubt, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on the decision of another learned Single Judge of this Court in Udhayavan Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, NIB CID, Madurai District, in Crl.OP(MD)No.15211 of 2020, dated 30.04.2021, while dismissing the bail application, has held as follows:

"34. The aforesaid pronouncement of the High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it clear that, 1.the issue relating to compliance of mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act can be gone into only in the trial and not at the stage of considering the bail.

2.If the confessional statement of the coaccused is relevant under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act for the discovery of fact, which led to the implication of the co-accused.

3.Section 35 permits the court to presume the existence of culpable mental state and it is for the accused to prove that he had no such mental state.

4.Section 54 makes it imperative for the accused to account for the possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance ..... otherwise it can be presumed that the accused has committed an offence relating to the things aforesaid."

13.As already pointed out, the main contention of the prosecution is that the confession statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act is admissible in evidence, or not ; is a matter to be gone into and decided at the trial, that since the statement of the co-accused discloses the involvement of the other accused, the confession statement cannot be rejected or discarded while deciding the bail petition and that the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved at this point of time.

8/13

14.As already pointed out, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that the Officers, who are invested with powers under Section 53 of NDPS Act are to be considered as Police Officers, as referred in Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

15.Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act contemplates that no confession made to a Police Officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. The very object of Section 25 is to ensure that the person accused of offence would not be induced by threat, coercion or force to make a confessional statement and the Police Officer is to make every effort to collect or gather the evidence with regard to the commission of offence, but not the confession while the accused is under custody.

16.It is settled law that statements made by an accused before Police Officer, which amount to confessional statement is clearly barred under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and the only exception is under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides that any portion of the information in the confession statement, which leads to discovery of any new fact or thing can be proved."

21.At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the decisions relied on by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. (i)Collector of Customs, New Delhi Vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira reported in (2004) 3 SCC 549 :

"7.The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. Apart from the grant of opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, the other twin conditions which really have relevance so far as the present accusedrespondent is concerned, are: the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be based on reasonable grounds. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.

The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case at hand the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37.

under Section 67 of the Act.

8.In the aforesaid background, this does not appear to be a case where it could be reasonably believed that the accused was not guilty of the alleged offence. Therefore, the grant of bail to the accused was not called for. The impugned order granting bail is set aside and the bail granted is cancelled." (ii) Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow Vs. Md.Nawaz Khan reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 782 : "17.With regard to the grant of bail for offences under the NDPS Act, in Union of India V.Shiv Shanker Kesari, this Court observed that bail may be cancelled if it has been granted without adhering to the parameters under Section 37 of of the NDPS Act. Further, in Union of India v.Prateek Shukla, one of us (Justice DY Chandrachud), speaking for a two-judge Bench, noted that non-application of mind to the rival submissions and the seriousness of the allegations involving an offence under the NDPS Act by the High Court are grounds for cancellation of bail.

....

20. The standard prescribed for the grant of bail is 'reasonable ground to believe' that the person is not guilty of the offence. Interpreting the standard of 'reasonable grounds to believe', a two-judge Bench of this Court in Shiv Shanker Kesari (supra), held that:

"7. The expression used in Section 37(1)(b) (ii) is "reasonable grounds". The expression means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged and this reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged.

8. The word "reasonable" has in law the prima facie meaning of reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which the actor, called on to act reasonably, knows or ought to know. It is difficult to give an exact definition of the word "reasonable".

"7. ... In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 4th Edn., p. 2258 states that it would be 10/13

unreasonable to expect an exact definition of the word 'reasonable'. Reason varies in its conclusions according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual, and the times and circumstances in which he thinks. The reasoning which built up the old scholastic logic sounds now like the jingling of a child's toy."

26.As regards the finding of the High Court regarding absence of recovery of the contraband from the possession of the respondent, we note that in Union of India v. Rattan Mallik19, a two-judge Bench of this Court cancelled the bail of an accused and reversed the finding of the High Court, which had held that as the contraband (heroin) was recovered from a specially made cavity above the cabin of a truck, no contraband was found in the 'possession' of the accused. The Court observed that merely making a finding on the possession of the contraband did not fulfil the parameters of Section 37(1)(b) and there was non-application of mind by the High Court. 27.In line with the decision of this Court in Rattan Mallik (supra), we are of the view that a finding of the absence of possession of the contraband on the person of the respondent by the High Court in the impugned order does not absolve it of the level of scrutiny required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.

28.With regard to the statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the High Court has placed abundant reliance on the inclusion of Mohd. Arif Khan's name in place of the respondent's name in the endorsement of translation on the statement of the respondent. In Tofan Singh (supra), a three judge Bench of this Court held that a statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible. The ASG submitted that independent of the statement, there are valid reasons to deny bail on the basis of the material which has emerged at this stage.

....

33.The impugned order of the High Court, apart from observing that no contraband was found from the personal search of the respondent has ignored the above circumstances. The High Court has merely observed that "[...] In view of the above, the twin conditions contained under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act stand satisfied. This Court is of the view that if there is reasonable ground, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail."

11/13

34.The High Court has clearly overlooked crucial requirements and glossed over the circumstances which were material to the issue as to whether a case for the grant of bail was established. In failing to do so, the order of the High Court becomes unsustainable. Moreover, it has emerged, during the course of the hearing that after the respondent was enlarged on bail he has consistently remained away from the criminal trial resulting in the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against him. The High Court ought to have given due weight to the seriousness and gravity of the crime which it has failed to do.

22.Section 37 of the NDPS Act creates bar for grant of bail whenever the recovery is of commercial in nature and also when the offence is under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act. Perusal of the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act would show that although there is a bar created for grant of bail but a departure can be made in case where the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, then the Court can always consider the grant of bail in that regard. 23.It is settled law that the twin conditions contemplated under Section 37 of NDPS Act are to be considered as conjunctive and not alternative. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is having any previous case under the NDPS Act.

Hence, the Court can very well record a finding that the petitioner is not likely to commit any such offence, after coming out on bail.

But at the same time, considering the nexus between the petitioner and said Rashid and the directions issued by the petitioner to his staff Sathish Kumar to track the particular container, though there were six containers in the particular bill of lading in imports and also taking note of the deletion of media files by the petitioner sent through whatsapp by his staff Sathish Kumar and also taking note of the huge quantity of the contraband seized and also the fact that the petitioner has not chosen to furnish the particular or the whereabouts of the said Rashid, who alone had directed the petitioner to track the particular consignment for monetary benefits and that the investigation even now is in initial stage as stated by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, this Court can not record a finding that the petitioner is not guilty of such offence, at this point of time.

24.Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has miserably failed to satisfy the first condition contemplated under Section 37 of NDPS Act. Consequently, this Court has no other go, but to dismiss the bail plea of the petitioner. 12/13

25.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 18/05/2022 / TRUE COPY / / /2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

DAS Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

TO 1 THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, NO.22/14, CELIN GARDEN, ROCHE COLONY, SOUTH BEACH ROAD, TUTICORIN-628 001.

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI.

THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+2 CC to M/s.R.C.PAUL KANAGARAJ, Advocate (SR-4871 & 4939[I] +1 CC to M/s.C.ARUL VADIVEL@SEKAR, Advocate (SR-4820(I))

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.7032 of 2022 Date :18/05/2022 PKP/PN/SAR-4/31.05.2022/13P/7C 13/13