9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not, therefore, have been a key managerial personnel or an officer in default - Even as Senior Vice President (Finance), the petitioner could not have been the final deciding authority in relation to the financial affairs of ESL. Out of the Rs.240 crores alleged to have been siphoned-off from ESL, Rs.235 crores were siphoned-off before 31.03.2015, between FY 2012-13 and FY 2014-15; but the petitioner became CFO only w.e.f. 26.05.2014. The principal promoters and Whole-time Directors of ESL have never suffered any custody, since they were granted interim protective orders by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court. Other senior officers, such as the Procurement Head and others, have not even been named as accused. Only 02 out of the 55 accused persons were ever arrested one, the petitioner; and the other, the CTO/Dr. Bindu Rana. Dr. Bindu Rana has been admitted to regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court on 20.01.2023. The bail has been granted not under the special dispensation for women contained in the proviso to section 212 (6) of the 2013 Act but on the merits of her case. In the circumstances, for the limited purpose of the bail plea, this court is satisfied t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime director. In 2013 ESL faced a severe liquidity crunch for various reasons and had to therefore opt for Corporate Debt Restructuring ( CDR for short) vide Master Restructuring Agreement dated 25.03.2014 ( MRA for short) signed with the consortium of lenders (banks) led by the State Bank of Patiala (which bank has later merged with State Bank of India). 5. Vide order dated 17.08.2018 bearing No. 1/52/2017 the Ministry of Corporate Affairs assigned the investigation into the affairs of ESL to the SFIO. After commencement of investigation against ESL, approval was also obtained for investigation into the affairs of two other companies M/s. Educomp Infrastructure and School Management Ltd ( EISML for short) and M/s. Edu Smart Services Pvt. Ltd. ( ESSPL for short), both of which are subsidiaries of ESL. 6. After a detailed investigation in the matter, the SFIO has filed a prosecution complaint under section 439(2)/436/212 of the 2013 Act, which is the equivalent of a chargesheet, arraigning 70 persons as accused. Of the accused, 15 are corporate entities and 55 are various persons alleged to have been associated with ESL and other subsidiary companies in various ways. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p through his company namely Lotus Risk Management Pvt Ltd during period FY 2009-10 to FY 2012-13. Further, he had also given services to ESSPL through his company Lotus Risk Management Pvt Ltd during period FY 2013-14 to FY 2014-15. 121. Further, Ashish Mittal had received funds of Rs. 5.50 crores in his personal accounts from the Group-I Companies. He failed to prove the genuineness of the funds received. 122. Ashish Mittal had signed the financial statements of ESL for F.Y. 2014-15 to 2016-17, knowing the fact that the financials are not reflecting a true and fair view of the affairs the company. He had attended the Joint Lenders Meetings alongwith Shantanu Prakash on behalf of the company. 123. During his tenure he had attended the board meetings of ESL as VP (Finance) and CFO of the ESL and EISML in which financials of the company were approved. He was responsible for implementation of the CDR of ESL, EISML and ESSPL. 10.2. Commission of fraud by divesting the Asset of ESL (share in Educomp Child Care Private Ltd. now known as Little Millennium Education Private Limited) in favour of Millennium Education and Management Pvt Ltd.; and by using the funds of CU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 3 Crore arranged from ESSPL and the same were utilized by ELHPL for payment to ICICI bank. Ashish Mittal, Auditor of KBESPL and Ajit Singh, Account of KBESPL used to report him. Further, finalization of the books of accounts of KBESPL was done at the premises of ESL at Gurgaon under his supervision. 10.4. Commission of fraud in the sale of Mussoorie International School, punishable under section 447 of the 2013 Act. The relevant allegations read as under : Ashish Mittal, Ex-CFO of ESL 250. Ashish Mittal joined as Vice President (Finance) in ESL on 01.11.2013 and promoted to CFO of Educomp Group on 26.05.2014 and resigned on 24.02.2018. He was Director (Finance) during period 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017.- 251. Ashish Mittal had attended the Joint Lender Meetings of CDR of EISML. As per CDR proposal of EISML, MIS was identified one of the assets to be monetized. He was well aware of the fact that Shantanu Prakash was holding indirectly control of MIS through SDPL. 252. Ashish Mittal had also attended the board meetings of EISML being CFO of Educomp Group. He was well aware of the fact that the funds arranged to purchase MIS by SDPL were arranged by S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es into the. bank accounts of ESSPL. This whole process was opted just to clear the bogus debtors of ESL which were transferred to ESSPL. 10.6. Criminal conspiracy and cheating by siphoning-off funds from EISML through acquisition of land located at Hanumangarh, Rajasthan at an inflated price, punishable under section 420 read with section 120B IPC. The relevant allegations read as under : Ashish Mittal, Ex-CFO of Educomp Group and Virtual CFO of OSN Group 324. Ashish Mittal was the virtual CFO of OSN Group before joining the Educomp Group. He alongwith Shantanu Prakash was the controller of OSN Group and his entities namely Ashish Mittal Co and Lotus Risk Management Pvt Ltd had given services to OSN Group during the period FY 2010-11 to FY 2011-12. He had also given professional services to ESL before joining the Educomp Group through his company namely Lotus Risk Management Pvt Ltd during the period FY 2009-10 to FY 2012-13. Later on, he joined as Vice President (Finance) in ESL on 01.11.2013 and promoted to CFO of Educomp Group on 26.05.2014 and resigned on 24.02.2018. He was Director (Finance) during period 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017. He had also given profes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ducomp Group and OSN Group. 343. During statement on oath Sanjay Saini confirmed that OSNIPPL and OSNBPL were formed on the instructions of Ashish Mittal. He confirmed that OSN group was indirectly controlled by Shantanu Prakash through Sanjay Saini and that negotiated prices of land parcels were higher than the normal prevailing prices at that time. He further confirmed that it was instructed by Sangeet Gulati, the then CFO of ESL to purchase land at a price significantly higher than the actual price. 10.8. Criminal conspiracy and cheating by siphoning-off funds from Educomp Professional Education Limited (EPEL)/ ESL through acquisition of land located at Hyderabad at an inflated price, punishable under section 420 read with section 120B IPC. The relevant allegations read as under : Ashish Mittal, Ex-CFO of Educomp Group and Virtual CFO of OSN Group 362. Ashish Mittal was the virtual CFO of OSN Group before joining the Educomp Group. He alongwith Shantanu Prakash was the controller of OSN Group and his entities namely Ashish Mittal Co and Lotus Risk Management Pvt Ltd had given services to OSN Group during the period FY 2010-11 to FY 2011-12. He had also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide order dated 26.05.2022 in W.P. (Crl) 1242/2022. The interim protection is operative till date. No proceedings have been filed by the SFIO to challenge the interim protection so granted. 11.1.2. The above-named main promoters/key managerial personnel, who are the main beneficiaries of the alleged fraud as per SFIO s own case, along with 53 other individuals who have been assigned a greater role than the petitioner by the SFIO, were all chargesheeted without arrest. Several other persons who held key managerial positions in the Educomp Group and are prima-facie complicit in the alleged fraud, were not even made accused in the investigation. However, the SFIO chose to arrest only the petitioner and one co-accused Dr. Bindu Rana, who (latter) was subsequently admitted to bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 20.01.2023. 11.2. The petitioner joined ESL when the company was already undergoing CDR implementation as approved by the consortium of lenders : 11.2.1. The petitioner was appointed as Senior Vice-President Finance on 01.11.2013 in ESL and was re-designated as Chief Financial Officer of ESL on 26.05.2014. The petitioner resigned from the company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... solution of ESL or its subsidiaries (as required under section 203(2) of the 2013 Act), or any filing with RoC appointing him as Group CFO. The petitioner was not in control of the day-to-day functioning or any decision making of the subsidiaries of ESL. This has been stated on oath by the main Promoter/Managing Director, who employed the petitioner, in his statement tendered under section 217 of the 2013 Act. There were separate CFOs/Managing Directors/key managerial personnel for each subsidiary company. 11.3.2. The SFIO alleges in the para 21 of its status report that the petitioner held a strategic position in the Educomp Group as he was the Director of 08 of its subsidiary companies. This is incorrect, since the petitioner was merely a Non-Executive Director in the said subsidiaries and not a key managerial personnel and took no executive or day-to-day decisions. 11.3.3. The SFIO seeks to attach criminality upon the petitioner merely on the basis that he attended board meetings of the company. But it is evident from the minutes of the board meetings that the petitioner took no executive decisions and merely attended the said meetings as a special invitee , and was not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re ever signed by the petitioner, he could not have had any knowledge about the transactions related to such alleged bogus purchases/sales. As per the MCA report the network of operators for the alleged siphoning-off funds was already in place prior to the petitioner joining the company; and almost the entire alleged siphoning of Rs. 240.76 crore had already taken place before he joined ESL. None of the operators of the alleged paper companies have stated that the petitioner was involved in the alleged siphoning operations. 11.5.2. During the petitioner's tenure, no investment was made in any subsidiary company, no capital advances were made, nor were any related party transactions conducted, and no loans were raised by ESL. The allegations made in Charge 8 pertains to a period prior to the petitioner s tenure. Furthermore, since no fresh loans were ever raised by ESL during the petitioner s tenure, there was no occasion for the company to falsify or to make any misrepresentation in its balance sheets. The petitioner cannot be attached with the liability for any alleged falsification/misrepresentation in the balance sheets prior to his appointment as CFO. 11.5.3. The peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e received by the petitioner was only a loan advanced and arranged by the promoter through his business associates between November, 2014 and March, 2015. This money was not routed back to the promoter, or for any of his proxy investments like in the case of others accused persons. The transaction happened through legitimate banking channels and on proper documentation in the nature of loan agreements, regularized through purchase of stamp paper, which was done shortly after the transaction. The petitioner could not have known the actual source from which the money was arranged by the promoter Shantanu Prakash through his business associates/concerns for advancing the loan to the petitioner. No offence is made-out against the petitioner with respect to the said allegation, since the transaction would not constitute any offence under the 2013 Act or under any other penal statute. 11.7. The charge that the petitioner facilitated the attempt of the main promoter Shantanu Prakash to gain control of the assets, which were meant to be divested/sold as per the MRA viz. (i) Little Millennium Education Private Limited (LMEPL), (ii) Vidya Mandir Classes (VMC) and (iii) Mussoorie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s than 1%. She was requested for a Director loan of Rs.1.50 crore to MEF for working capital requirements, and she obliged by borrowing that sum from her husband, the petitioner. The petitioner had redeemed his investments in certain fixed deposits and mutual funds, from which that sum was advanced as loan to the Petitioner s wife between December 2015 and March 2016. This had no connection with the Rs. 5.5 crore loan received by the petitioner from the company almost a year back which was used to meet other liabilities. The transaction happened through legitimate banking channels and does not fall under section 447 of the 2013 Act. 11.8.2. The SFIO further alleges that the petitioner s wife received Rs 1 crore from Priya Prakash, daughter of the promoter Shantanu Prakash. This was a personal loan arranged by the promoter and was received between 13th October and 28th November 2014 and was fully repaid between 22nd March 2018 and 10th February 2022. Bank statements are available in evidence. 11.9. The charge of bogus capital advances having been made and siphoning-off funds through inflated land deals through OSN is baseless : 11.9.1. These charges are not tenable qua the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... undisclosed income; (iv) The only evidence which the SFIO claim to have against the petitioner in relation to this charge is the statement of the co-accused and the statement of the petitioner, which were recorded by use of coercion and were retracted on 28.11.2022 and 23.12.2022. In any case, the present charge pertains to section 420 of the IPC and not to any provision of the 2013 Act and therefore is not subject to the additional twin-conditions imposed for bail under the Companies Act and the SFIO do not have the power to arrest the petitioner on this charge. 11.9.2. The SFIO relies upon the statements of Sanjay Saini (main promoter/director of OSN group companies from 2010 till date), Pramod Thatoi (Whole-time Director and employee of ESL since 1996), Manoj Garg (Employee of ESL since 2010, ex-CFO of EISML and Present CFO of ESL), and Vinod Kumar Dandona (SVP Corporate Affairs of ESL since 2010, Whole-time director of ESL and EISML, President of ESL). On a bare perusal of the statements of above named co-accused, it is evident that they have made the statements only in order to shrug their own criminal liability and in an attempt to implicate the petitioner. No link ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... racted statements. 12.3. Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsingh Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294 at paras 36-38, 43-48 and Union of India vs. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007) 7 SCC 798 at paras 6-8, 10,11: on the proposition that the embargo in the twin-conditions does not require the accused to positively establish his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. 12.4. Jainam Rathod vs. State of Haryana Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1506 at paras 8, 9 and Sujay U Desai vs. SFIO 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1507 at para 7 : on the proposition that notwithstanding the twin-conditions, the accused's right to a speedy trial must be taken into consideration in deciding the application for grant of bail. 12.5. Sunil Bhatia vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1917 at paras 37, 38 and Vijay Kumar Jain vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2095 at para 9: on the proposition that the main stakeholders being enlarged on bail is a relevant consideration. 12.6. Anil Saxena vs. State Bail Appln No 1074/2020, judgment dated 17.06.2020 (Delhi High Court) at paras 20, 21, Maninder Singh vs. State Bail Appln No 3952/2020, judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctly as well as through A.P Eduvision, money as promoter's contribution in succeeding years starting FY 2013-14 to FY 2016-17, and during this period the petitioner was the CFO of ESL. Furthermore, the statement of Pramod Thatoi suggests that the petitioner was looking after the finances of ESSPL which was not a subsidiary of ESL. 13.2. As regards the charge of siphoning-off funds of ESL, EISML, and ESSPL into the accounts of the close associates of Shantanu Prakash, the SFIO submits that though the petitioner says that the amount of Rs 5.50 crore received by him was a loan, in fact this amount was siphoned-off from ESL and was received by the petitioner from Group-I Companies. Furthermore, it has been admitted by the Entry Operator, Ankur Mittal (Controller of Group-I Companies) that he had transferred funds from those companies to the accounts of people, including the petitioner, as he was instructed. The stamp papers used for executing the purported agreement extending unsecured loans are either backdated or dated two months after the date of the agreement, showing the inconsistencies in the version of the petitioner. 13.3. As for the charge of commission of fraud by d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remained indirectly with Shantanu Prakash. 13.7. In response to the reliance placed by the petitioner on the bail granted to co-accused Bindu Rana by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 20.01.2023, the SFIO submits that the role of every accused has to be considered on its own merits; and no parity can be drawn between two co-accused. Is the SFIO s allegation that the petitioner has been involved in the fraud since the beginning, when money had started being siphoned-off to clear fictitious debts of ESSPL through the OSN Group. On the other hand, Bindu Rana was associated with ESL in the capacity of a Research Head and has been implicated only in 3 charges; whereas the petitioner was the financial expert being CFO and was the directing mind along with Shantanu Prakash. The petitioner was also a direct beneficiary of Rs. 5.50 crore. Moreover, it is the SFIO s contention that Bindu Rana, being a woman, was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to section 212(6) of the 2013 Act, which she did get in the bail order passed in her favour. 13.8. Responding to the petitioner s contention that he was not the Group CFO, the SFIO draws attention to the Minutes of Meet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port mention that they had undertaken no physical verification, which shows that the forensic audit of the Financial Statements was not verified by the Forensic Auditors themselves. Attention is also drawn to the Disclaimer contained in the forensic auditor's report, which mentions that the analyses were made only on the information available for the period from 07.03.2016 to 01.09.2016. 13.13. The SFIO says that several banks are themselves affected by the fraud perpetrated in the affairs of ESL, and Fraud Monitoring Reports (FMRs) have been received by various banks pertaining to the loans taken by ESL and its subsidiary EISML, by way of siphoning-off funds. 13.14. As for the petitioner s submission, that siphoning-off fund could only have happened through the Procurement Head, who at the relevant time, was one Mansoor Raza, as also mentioned in the Grant Thornton Report, the SFIO says that the petitioner was heading the Finance Department, and so he was responsible for advances made towards any services, and that final approvals were given by Shantanu Prakash (MD) or Ashish Mittal (CFO), which shows that funds were ultimately managed by the petitioner. 14. The SFI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dering the grant or denial of bail. In addition to the usual and ordinary conditions under section 439 Cr.P.C., the court is also required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty, and that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 18. At the threshold therefore, it must be seen if there are any allegations against the accused under the relevant section viz. section 447 of the 2013 Act, since otherwise section 212(6) will not come into play at all. 19. Section 212(6) contemplates that before a court decides to grant bail to an accused, the public prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application. 20. Giving to the public prosecutor the opportunity to oppose bail however, does not mean rejection of bail on opposition simpliciter. The public prosecutor cannot simply say that bail must not be granted, without giving any reasons for the opposition. 21. The requirement of opportunity to oppose indicates and contemplates: 21.1. Firstly, based on an assessment of the need for custody, the public prosecutor may choose to not oppose the grant of bail, in which case the additional t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decisions of the Supreme Court on similar conditions that appear in similar statutes. Some of them are discussed below. 25. In the context of sections 35 and 54 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( NDPS Act for short), the Supreme Court has specifically held that the initial burden to show the existence of foundational facts remains on the prosecution and only when those facts are satisfactorily shown, does the legal burden shift to the accused; observing that a failure to prove the foundational facts would necessarily prevent the presumptions contained therein being applied. 8 It has also recently been held by the Supreme Court that that the twin-conditions contained in section 37 of the NDPS Act have to be read reasonably and not literally 9 . Considering the drastic powers in the statute which can deprive a citizen of liberty, the necessity of scrupulous compliance with the statutory provisions has also been noticed in the context of the NDPS Act. 10 26. In interpreting section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 which also contains the additional twin-conditions, while relying on precedent, the Supreme Court has further ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court but it is well settled that suspicion, however high it may be, can under no circumstances, be held to be a substitute for legal evidence. 16 Unlike cases of preventive detention, this is not a jurisdiction of suspicion. Indeed, the more severe the punishment, the greater must be the care taken to see that all safeguards in a statute are scrupulously followed. 17 30. Therefore, to assess whether the State has been able to prima-facie make-out a case against an accused and for the additional twin-conditions to apply, there must be (i) a specific allegation against the accused; (ii) which allegation must find place in the complaint/FIR; (iii) there must be material in support of such allegation; and (iv) the combined reading of the material in support of the allegation must point towards the guilt of the accused as regards the relevant offence. It would be necessary to note that the bulky nature of material annexed to the complaint is not a sufficient criteria, there must be something, as regards each specific allegation against the accused in the complaint, which point towards the guilt of the accused of the offence which attracts the additional twin-conditions. 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th effect from 01.11.2013 and held that position for about 07 months before he became the CFO. 34.3. During the period before 26.05.2014, the petitioner was not in charge of or in control of the management of financial affairs of ESL. The petitioner did not sign the financial statements and accounts of ESL before he became CFO. 34.4. Even when he joined as CFO, the petitioner was not on the Board of Directors of ESL; he was not even a member of any of the committees; and was therefore not a key managerial personnel. 34.5. The petitioner was appointed CFO with the task of co-ordinating implementation of the CDR process of ESL. During the CDR process the financial affairs of the ESL were monitored by a Monitoring Institution headed by the State Bank of Patiala, which was the consortium leader. The State Bank of Patiala has issued a certificate dated 13.01.2014 stating that there was no fraud in the transactions. This is one of the documents relied upon by the SFIO. Another member of the Consortium of Banks viz. Axis Bank Limited has rendered a Fraud Monitoring Report dated 08.09.2022, in which also, they did not find any inculpatory material against the petitioner. 34.6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by a different individual viz. Mansoor Raza. The latter is neither an accused nor a witness in the case. 34.13. The assessment orders issued by the Income Tax Department to M/s OSN Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2011-2012, as also to the petitioner for AY 2006-07 to 2012-13 accept the taxes filed by them for the said years without anything remiss. 34.14. The SFIO s case against the petitioner is based essentially on the statements of Sanjay Saini and of the petitioner Ashish Mittal recorded under section 217 of the 2013 Act, which are admissible in evidence since these statements are recorded under oath. In addition, the SFIO also relies upon the statements of Sitaram Saini, Poonam Mittal (the petitioner s wife), Manoj Garg and V.K. Dandona. However, the petitioner has retracted his statements on 28.11.2022 and 23.12.2022; and the within-named Sanjay Saini has also done so, which the law permits them to do. 34.15. Only 02 out of 55 accused persons in the complaint were arrested. The principal promoters and directors of ESL obtained interim protective orders from Co-ordinate Bench of this court; and have never suffered any custody. 34.16. Dr. Bindu Rana, Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ESL went into bankruptcy and the management and affairs of ESL came under the control of Resolution Professional appointed w.e.f. 30.05.2017. The investigation report dated 07.11.2016 rendered by M/s Grant Thornton, which conducted a forensic audit of the financial affairs of ESL for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2016, also did not find anything amiss, in particular, relating to siphoning-off funds and round-tripping them as promoter contribution . 37.4. The principal promoters and Whole-time Directors of ESL have never suffered any custody, since they were granted interim protective orders by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court. Other senior officers, such as the Procurement Head and others, have not even been named as accused. Only 02 out of the 55 accused persons were ever arrested one, the petitioner; and the other, the CTO/Dr. Bindu Rana. Dr. Bindu Rana has been admitted to regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court on 20.01.2023. The bail has been granted not under the special dispensation for women contained in the proviso to section 212 (6) of the 2013 Act but on the merits of her case. 37.5. In the circumstances, for the limited purpose of the bail plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter; and 38.7. In addition to the above condition, it is specifically directed that the petitioner shall also not, whether directly or indirectly, contact or visit or have any transaction with any of the officials/employees of the banks, financial institutions, companies, entities etc., who are concerned with the complaint in this case, whether in India or abroad. 38.8. The Investigating Officer is further directed to issue a request to the Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India or other appropriate authority to forthwith open a Look-out-Circular in the petitioner s name, to prevent the petitioner from leaving the country, without the permission of the learned Special Judge. 39. Nothing in this judgment shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the pending matter. 40. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent forthwith. 41. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. 42. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. ----------------------- Notes: 2. section 212(6) of the 2013 Act (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Crimi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
