M.Sappani v. The Inspector Of Police,

Bail Slip The Appellant/Sole Accused M.Sappani, S/o. Mariappan was directed to be released on Bail order of this Court date 3/11/2016 and Made in Crl.Mp(MD).9554 of 2016 in Crl.A(MD).361 of 2016 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 07.10.2021 Pronounced on : 02.02.2022 C O R A M THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. PONGIAPPAN M.Sappani ... Appellant/ Sole Accused -vsThe State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tirunelveli Detachment, (Crime No.20 of 2005) ... Respondent/Complainant Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Tirunelveli, dated 26.09.2016 in S.C.No.21 of 2014. For Appellant : Mr.V.Karthic, for Mr.R.Anand For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment passed in Special S.C.No.21 of 2014 dated 26.09.2016, on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Tirunelveli.

1/12

2. The appellant is the accused in Special Sessions Case No.21 of 2014, on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Tirunelveli. He stood charged for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The trial Court by judgment dated 26.09.2016, came to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was convicted under Section 7 of the Act, and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for five months, further, he has been convicted under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Act, and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for five months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come out with the present Criminal Appeal.

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (i) PW2-Gunasekaran, is the resident of Thirumalapuram Village. He was the Village President. He purchased a land measuring an extent of 45 cents in S.No.103/2002 of Thirumalapuram Village in the name of his brother's son Rajesh and in the name of Valaijothi, who is the wife of his brother. After made purchase, in order to sub divide the said property, he submitted an application under Ex.B3, before the Thasildar, Radhapuram Taluk. Afterwards, under Ex.B2, he paid necessary charges.

(ii) After the receipt of the said application, the Thasildar, informed PW2, to approach the Firka Surveyor, after one week. Complying with the same, he approached the Firka Surveyor and made enquiry about his application. In this regard, the appellant who is the Firka Surveyor informed PW2 that no application has been received so far. However, on 08.11.2005, around 11.00AM, when PW2 met the Surveyor and asked about the stage of his application submitted before the Thasildar, the appellant demanded PW2 to give Rs.1500/- as bribe. Further, he instructed to give the said amount on 10.11.2005 around 10.00AM in the village Chavadi. The accused also told to PW2 that without giving money, steps could not be taken for measuring the field. After returning to home, since he is not interested to give the bribe, on 09.11.2005, around 1.30PM, he went to Palayamkottai and lodged a complaint against the accused under Ex.P4 before the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Wing, Tirunelveli.

(iii) PW17- Rajendran, the then Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Wing, after the receipt of complaint from PW2, registered a case against the accused in Cr.No.20 of 2005 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The printed FIR is marked as Ex.P27. After recording the statement from PW2, PW17, sent a 2/12

requisition to the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirunelveli as well as to the Manager, Tamilnadu Food Corporation, wherein he requested to provide two officers on 10.11.2005, in the morning hours for the purpose of investigation. (iv) After the receipt of the request letter given by PW17, the officers concerned directed the staffs to attend the Anti Corruption Office on 10.11.2005. On that date, when at the time, PW2 came to the office of PW17, PW3-Alexander, working in the Tamilnadu Electricity Board and one Solomon Navamani are present there. The trap laying officer-PW17, introduced PW3 and Solomon Navamani to PW2. During such time, PW17 prepared the Entrustment Mahazar under Ex.P6. Further, the same has been prepared in his office and after preparing the Entrustment Mahazar, the trap procedure was clearly explained by PW17, to the witnesses PW2, PW3 and to one Solomon Navamani. Afterwards, three 500 notes which was earlier produced by PW2 before the PW17, was handed over to PW2 after smearing with Phenolphthalein powder.

(v) Thereafter, after explaining the trap proceedings, the Sodium Carbonate solution which was used for explaining the trap procedure was destroyed. The said formalities have been completed between 8.00 and 8.30AM.

(vi) After completing the above formalities, on the same day, around 10.00AM, PW2 and PW3 went near to the office of the accused, whereas, PW17 and his police party along with Solomon Navamani were waiting in the secret place. At the same time PW2 and PW3, went to the office of the accused, wherein the accused was not there. Therefore, they waited for the arrival of the accused and around 10.25AM, the accused came there and went into the office. Afterwards, by following the accused, PW2 and PW3 went into the office of the accused. At the same time, one Ponnudurai [PW19], who is the resident of same village, came out from the office of the accused and after seeing him, both PW2 and PW3, went into the office of the accused, wherein the accused asked PW2 as to whether, he had brought the amount of Rs.1500/-, demanded by him, or not.

Immediately, PW2, handed over Rs.1500/- to the accused and the same was received by the accused by using his right hand and after receipt of the same, he kept the said amount in his left side pocket. After the receipt of the amount, the accused informed PW2 as the Village Administrative Officer of the concerned village, is not in his office and therefore, after the arrival of the said Village Administrative Officer, they need to go to the field for measuring the fields, which was purchased by PW2. After hearing the same, PW2, came outside and showed signal to PW17, that the accused demanded and accepted the illegal gratification. (vii) After identifying the accused, PW17 introduced himself, as he is the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Wing and he also introduced PW3 and other police officers.

introduction, he conducted Phenolphthalein Test on the hands of the accused, the same proved positive. PW17, questioned the money received from PW2, for which the appellant, with his right hand took the bribe amount from his pocket and placed it over the table, which was verified with the Entrustment Mahazar in the presence of PW3. Phenolphthalein Test was also conducted with the appellant's front side pocket, which was also proved positive.

(viii) PW17 seized the currency notes through the Mahazar. After made recovery on the same day, around 12.10PM, PW17 arrested the accused and afterwards along with the accused, he went to the house of the accused, wherein he conducted a search and after the completion of the search, he prepared a Search Jabitha under Ex.P8. Further, he drew the rough sketch in respect to the Village Chavadi, wherein, the office of the Village Administrative Officer and Surveyor was found available. The Rough sketch prepared by PW17 was marked as Ex.P28. After completing the above formalities PW17, forwarded the seized materials for chemical examination. After completing the above formalities PW17 handed over the case records to PW18, for further investigation.

(ix) PW18-Rajkumar, after the receipt of the case records, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. After recording the statements from the witnesses, he concluded the investigation and after obtaining the sanction, he filed the final report holding that the accused is liable to be convicted under Sections 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

5. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the appropriate charges as detailed in the 3rd paragraph of this judgment. When the appellant was questioned in respect of the charges, he pleaded innocence. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses [PW1 to PW19] and exhibited 33 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P33, besides 4 material objects [M.O.1 to M.O.4].

6. Out of the said witnesses, PW1-Venkatachalam, is the Assistant Director of Tamil Nadu Land Survey and Records, spoken about the receipt of case papers from PW18 and about the issuance of sanction for prosecuting the accused.

(i) PW2-Gunasekaran, is the de facto complainant, spoken about the demand made by the accused on 08.11.2005 and about the acceptance of illegal gratification. He has also given evidence, about the trap proceedings.

(ii) PW3-Alexander, working as Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, is a shadow witness and one of the two trap witnesses and had spoken about the receipt of bribe by the accused. 4/12

(iii) PW4-Singaram, the Junior Assistant working in Radhapuram Taluk office, spoke about the receipt of application given by PW2, as application dated 07.10.2005 was received in the office of the Thasildar and assigned with Serial No.3561 dated 10.10.2005. The Register pertains to the said registration was marked as Ex.P9. (iv) PW5-Kanagarajappan, is the Senior Draftsman, had spoken about the occurrence that after the receipt of the application from PW2, he obtained the signature from Deputy Thasildhar and afterwards with due acknowledgement, under Ex.P11, handed over the said application to the accused for further proceedings. The record maintained by the Firka Surveyor was marked as Ex.P12.

(v) PW6-Arumugam, is also a Senior Surveyor working in the Radhapuram Taluk office and had spoken about the attendance register maintained in his office for the period between 01.01.2005 and 25.11.2005. The said Register was marked as Ex.P13. According to him, in the month of October, the accused attended the office on 03.10.2005, 10.10.2005, 17.10.2005, 24.10.2005 and 03.11.2005. He has further gave evidence as it is not necessary for the Firka Surveyor to attend the office everyday.

(vi) PW7-Murugandi, is the Assistant Director, Land Survey Department, Virudunagar District, had spoken about the nature of work assigned to the accused. According to him, during the relevant point of time, the accused was working under him. He further spoke that it is his duty to verify the monthly report submitted by the Firka Surveyor. He further gave evidence that as per the entries in the monthly report submitted by the accused, he had undergone survey work during 1st ,13th, 14th, 18th, 19th and 22nd of October 2005.

(vii) PW8- Pushparaj, is a retired Surveyor and he has also spoken about the endorsement made by him in the monthly report submitted by the accused. According to him, on 08.11.2005, the accused conducted a survey in respect to the survey stone in Kannanallur Village. Normally, every Firka Surveyor has to check 100 stones and afterwards, on completing the audit work in respect to the Survey stone, they have to return to the office in the evening hours.

(viii) PW9-Subbaiyan, who is the then Thasildar, Radhapuram Taluk, had spoken about the nature of work assigned to the Firka Surveyor. According to him, the Firka Surveyors are having the duty to audit the survey stones. Further, he states some of the Surveyors after completing the said work, would return to the office at 11.00AM. Further, he had spoken about the endorsement made in the application given by PW2, as the application submitted by PW2 was received by him and after made endorsement the same was handed over to the accused.

5/12

(ix) PW10-Arumugam, is the Assistant working in the Sub Registrar Office, Radhapuram, spoken about the receipt of requisition given by the PW17 in which he requested to handover the copy of the document No.566/99. According to him, after the receipt of the said requisition, he handed over the copy of the said document to PW17 under Ex.P18.

(x) PW11-Sarojini, is the then Superintendent, working in the office of the Assistant Director of Land Survey, Tirunelveli, has spoken about the bill relates to the Travel allowance submitted by the accused.

(xi) PW12-Sugumar, Revenue Inspector, Palavur and PW13-Amudha, Special Thasildar, Naguneri, have spoken about the attendance register maintained for the period between 20.10.2005 and 16.11.2005 in the check post.

(xii) PW14-Valaijothi, is the relative of PW2. She has spoken about the occurrence as she purchased the land measuring an extent of 45 cents in Survey No.103/2. According to her, the copy of the sale deed stands in her name is Ex.P18.

(xiii) PW15-Sukkiran, is the then Junior Assistant, in the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. He gave evidence in respect to sending of material objects, which were recovered in this case for chemical examination. (xiv) PW16-Kasthuribai, the then Assistant Director, Forensic Science Department, had spoken about the examination of Phenolphthalein powder and about the report given under Ex.P26. (xv) PW17-Rajamohan and PW18-Rajakumar, are the police officers, who gave evidence in respect to the registration of the case, investigation and trap proceedings, examination of witnesses and about the filing of the final report.

(xvi) PW19-Ponnudurai, is the resident of same village, i.e. Thirumalapuram. He has spoken about the attitude having by the accused for measuring the lands owned by him and that when he submitted an application, the accused did not come to measure the property. He had also stated about the dodging activities of the accused.

7. In respect to the incriminating materials available from the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses, the trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused denied the same as false. He has stated the occurrence as on the date of occurrence around 11.00AM, when at the time, he was entering into his office, PW2-Gunasekaran followed him and attempted to insert the trap money in his pocket. When at the 6/12

time he avoided the said act, two police officers came there and caught hold of him.

8. According to the appellant/accused, the present case was foisted against the appellant due to the previous enmity having by PW2, with appellant. Towards proving the same, on his side, he examined one Mandirapandi as DW1. The said Mandirapandi gave evidence as on the date i.e., 08.11.2005 around 10.30 to 11.00AM, when at the time he was in his field, the accused came and measured the survey stones found in the area at Kannanallur Revenue Village.

9. Having considered the materials placed before him, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, convicted and sentenced him as stated in paragraph No.3 of the judgment. That is how, the appellant is now before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.

10. I have heard Mr.V.Karthic, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr.Muthumanikkam, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent and also perused the records carefully.

11. The first and foremost contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that by relying on the Rule No.47 of the Vigilance Manual, immediately after the trap, the investigation officer has not received any statement from the appellant and the same is sufficient to disbelieve the case of prosecution.

12. Now, on considering the said submission with the relevant records, in the case of K.Selvaraj and others Vs. The State, reported in 2004 Crl.L.J 3754, this Court has clearly held that guidelines given as per the DVAC Manual are only directory and administrative directions.

Any omission on the part of Investigation officers to comply with those administrative guidelines would not in any way vitiate the prosecution. Therefore, the said submission made by the appellant's counsel is not having any significance.

13. The next submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is the case of the prosecution that on 08.11.2005 at 11.00am, the appellant demanded PW2-de facto complainant, to pay a bribe for measuring the PW2's property, but, the evidence let in on the side of the prosecution shows on the alleged date and time, the appellant had gone for stone survey and returned to his office only in the evening hours. The trial Court without seeing the said evidence concluded the same as the necessary ingredients for the offence under Section 7 of the Act, i.e., demand has been proved, which is erroneous one.

7/12

14. In respect to the said submissions, in the written submission filed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), he has stated that generally demand made in secrecy and the same was within the knowledge of the accused officer and bribe giver. So, demand is presumed from subsequent reiteration before acceptance on the date of trap and also presumed as legal inference from material circumstances established by prosecution case. In majority of case, reiteration of demand was supported by official (trap) witnesses and hence, no reason whatsoever to decline to accept the independent of official witness evidence of reiteration of demand on any words and in any form. Therefore, the evidence given by PW7 and PW8, in respect to the stone survey is not at all necessary for proving the alleged demand made by the appellant.

15. Now, on considering the said submissions with relevant records, here it is a case, PW7, who is the Head Surveyor, Radhapuram Tahsildhar office, gave evidence as in usual, all the Surveyors, after attending office at 10.00am, would have to leave for filed work and in respect to the field work, they have to maintain and submit the monthly diary.

16. Further, PW8, a retired Surveyor, Radhapuram Tahsildar Office, gave evidence as in the diary submitted by the appellant, it was mentioned as on 08.11.2005, the appellant has conducted stone survey work in Kannanallur Village. He would further state that in usual before going to the filed work, the Surveyors, would visit the office of the Village Administrative Officer and have to take the registers maintained in the Village Administrative Office.

17. In support of the evidence given by PW8, the Tahsildar, Radhapuram Taluk [PW9], gave evidence as normally a Surveyor have the duty to survey 100 stones and he may have to even spend the whole day for completing the same. He would further state before the trial Court that in the monthly report, Ex.P16, maintained in the Survey Office, it was stated that on 08.11.2005, in Kannanallur Village, the appellant surveyed, 100 stones. In the said circumstances, in respect to the distance between the place where the demand has been made i.e., Valliyur and the place at which survey conducted, PW6 gave evidence as Kannanallur was situated 12kms away from Valliyur.

18. Therefore, if the evidence given by PW6 to PW9 is true, it is not possible for the appellant to make a demand for surveying the de facto complainant's land, as alleged in the case of prosecution. It is true, the de facto complainant while at the time of giving evidence as PW2, gave evidence as before receiving the tainted money, the appellant asked him as to whether the money has been brought by him or not. Though, the said evidence given by PW2, is in support of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), since the evidence given by PW9 is based on the written 8/12

document, this Court cannot throw away the said evidence easily.

19. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, for the alleged demand made by the appellant, the evidence given by PW2, is not sufficient. On the other hand, the evidence given by PW6 to PW9, would prove the fact that on the alleged date, the appellant was not in the place, where the alleged demand was made. In this connection, in the judgment reported in MANU/SC/0494/2016 [V.Sejappa Vs. State], our Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:

"10. In order to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 'proof of demand' is a sine quo non. This has been affirmed in several judgments including a recent judgment of this Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55, wherein this Court held as under:- "7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P.(2010) 15 SCC 1 and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI (2009) 3 SCC 779." The same view was reiterated in P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 152."

20. Accordingly, applying the principles set out in the above referred judgment to the case in hand, though the evidence given by PW2 and PW3, is in support of the receipt of bribe by the appellant, the evidence given by PW6 to PW9, would go to show that previous to receiving the tainted notes, the appellant has not made any demand before the de facto complainant. On that score, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, is an acceptable one.

21. Further, I should say as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, in a case of this nature, where punishment is so stringent, the proof should be very strict. Keeping in mind its fundamental principle, let us now look into the evidence stated above. The same would be sufficient to accept the case of the appellant/accused that the prosecution has not proved the demand made by the appellant.

9/12

22. More than that, PW2, admittedly is an encroacher of S.No.317/13 of R.Thiramalapuram Village and as a result towards securing the encroachment, he was put on notice and thereby directed to evict himself from the government property by the officials of the revenue department. Challenging the said action, he has filed the civil suit. Therefore, obviously, he was in inimical term with the official and as such wanted to wreck vengeance and hence the appellant being the official helped for earmarking the encroachment, was being targeted by him.

23. In this regard in his evidence, PW2 categorically admitted by saying as himself and one Rajagopal by putting a manure pit and by constructing rooms had encroached the government property for which, the Tahsildhar, Radhapuram sent a notice and later against the said notice, he filed a suit. Hence, due to the reason that the revenue authorities initiated action against him for the encroachment made, there may be a chance for developing inimical attitude against the appellant.

24. Here is a case, PW19-Ponnudurai, who is the person present in the occurrence place, gave evidence in support of the prosecution, as during the relevant point of time, when he was returning from the office of the appellant, both PW2 and one another person entered into the office of the appellant. The said evidence is in support of the evidence given by PW2 as during the relevant point of time, he was present at the office of the appellant. On the other hand, the cross examination of PW19, would make out a case as he and PW2 are close friends and on behalf of PW19, PW2 had prepared a challan and given the same to the revenue department. In this circumstances, it is the specific evidence given by PW19 that he does not know what had happened in the office of the appellant.

Apart from that, it is the case of prosecution that when at the time, PW2 and PW3 came to the office of appellant, he was not there and they had said that he came after some time. If such evidence is true, then it would not been possible for PW19 to return after meeting the appellant, while PW2 and PW3 were entering into the office of the appellant.

25. More than that, PW2 himself admitted that he is having two criminal cases wherein, he was arrested and released on bail. It shows that PW2 is having criminal background, and as a result of which, there is a possibility for him to be in touch with police officials and also aware of the process of lodging the complaint. In the said circumstances, it would be very much necessary to scrutinise the evidence of PW2 with utmost care and caution.

26. The another submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused is that the evidence in respect to the place where the trap is said to have been laid is having some contradiction. The said lapse also is one of the reason for disbelieving the case of the prosecution.

10/12

27. Now, on considering the said submission, before the trial Court, PW2-de facto complainant, PW3-Alexandar, who is the Assistant Engineer, TNEB and the investigation officers had categorically given evidence as the alleged occurrence had happened at Part-II, Village Chavadi. PW19 also has stated before the trial Court that he met the appellant at Part-II Village Chavadi, whereas in the charge that has been framed, it was referred that the occurrence place was at Part-I Village Chavadi. That apart, Ex.P28 observation Mahazar specifies Part-II office of the Village Administrative Officer, as a separate place. So, in respect to the place of occurrence also, the evidence let in by the prosecution witnesses, create a doubt whether the alleged trap was laid in Part-I Village Chavadi or Part-II Village Chavadi.

28. In this regard, PW2, had specifically stated both Part-I and Part-II Village Chavadi are situated in a separate place. Therefore, the de facto complainant himself is not clear whether the alleged occurrence had happened in Part-I or Part-II Village Chavadi and the same is also against the case of the prosecution.

29. One another aspect, which is necessary to decide in this appeal is that, the whole prosecution case rests that the alleged occurrence had happened in the VAO office. But, PW3, who is the witness to the trap has stated before the trial Court as during the relevant point of time, VAO Somsundaram is also present in the occurrence place. But here it is a case, the said VAO, Somasundaram has not been examined as a witness. In this regard, there was no explanation offered on the side of the prosecution as to why the VAO has not been examined as prosecution witness.

30. More than that, the evidence given by PW2 would reveal the fact that in respect to S.F.No.103/2, there was a civil litigation pending between him and one Saroja in O.S.No.324 of 2007, before the Munsif Court, Valliyoor. Therefore, in the absence of any specific order from the Court in which the said suit was pending, probably it would not be necessary to measure the property either at the request of the de facto complainant or at the request of the said Saroja.

31. But, here it is a case, only for measuring the said property the appellant demanded the de facto complainant to pay bribe. Though, the said contradiction is not sufficient to disbelieve the entire case of the prosecution, as already stated, being the reason that the alleged demand made by the appellant is not proved, this Court cannot hold that he is liable to be convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Anti-corruption Act. and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

32. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused, by the learned 11/12

Special Judge for trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Tirunelveli, in S.C.No.21 of 2014 dated 26.09.2016, is set aside. The accused is acquitted of all charges. Bail bond executed, if any, shall stand terminated. Fine amount paid, if any, is directed to be refunded to the accused.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) ars To

1. The Special Judge, Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tirunelveli.

2. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tirunelveli Detachment,

3. The Additional Public Prosecutore, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

COPY TO:

The Section officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai. (soft copy) Crl. Appeal (MD) No.361 of 2016 02.02.2022 RD(15.02.2022) 12P 5C 12/12