Skip to content


Praveen Dalpatrai Desai Vs. Gangavishindas Rijharam Bajaj - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revision Application No. 201 of 1977
Judge
Reported in(1978)80BOMLR100; 1978MhLJ646
AppellantPraveen Dalpatrai Desai
RespondentGangavishindas Rijharam Bajaj
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (ii of 1974), sections, 244(1), (2) and 245(1) - criminal procedure code (v of 1898), section 252(2)--whether magistrate obliged to summon any witness of his own.;after the enactment of new code of 1973, the magistrate is no longer under an obligation to summon any witness of his own. it is the responsibility of the prosecution under section 244(2) of the code of criminal procedure, 1973, to move the magistrate by an application to issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing them to attend or to produce any document or other things.;ramjiwan v. maddye khan [1952] a.i.r. raj. 99 referred to. - - 2, 5. it appears that the accused having failed to complete the building 'divyaprabha' in terms of the latter part of paragraph 5 of the above consent terms, the.....naik, j.1. this revision application is filed challenging the order of the additional sessions judge, greater bombay, dated march 15, 1977 setting aside the order of the learned metropolitan magistrate, 23rd court, esplanade, bombay, dated august 27, 1975, by which the learned magistrate had passed an order of discharge in favour of the accused-revision petitioner under section 245(1) of the code of criminal procedure, 1973.2. the facts giving rise to this revision application are briefly these: the accused-revision petitioner praveen desai is a managing director of what is known as 'advent corporation pvt. ltd.' in that capacity he had constructed a building called 'advent' at 12-a, foreshore road, bombay. in 1962, the accused wanted to construct another building known as 'divyaprabha'.....
Judgment:

Naik, J.

1. This revision application is filed challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, dated March 15, 1977 setting aside the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, dated August 27, 1975, by which the learned Magistrate had passed an order of discharge in favour of the accused-revision petitioner under Section 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The facts giving rise to this revision application are briefly these: The accused-revision petitioner Praveen Desai is a Managing Director of what is known as 'Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd.' In that capacity he had constructed a building called 'Advent' at 12-A, Foreshore Road, Bombay. In 1962, the accused wanted to construct another building known as 'Divyaprabha' on a vacant portion of the plot on which the Advent building was standing. The complainant Bajaj intended to purchase one of the flats in the proposed building. An agreement to that effect was entered into between the complainant and the accused in March 1963 and it was agreed that flat No. 41 on the 4th floor admeasuring 1250 sq. ft. would be sold by the accused to the complainant. The complainant paid Rs. 2,500 to the accused on that occasion. In 1964, Bajaj filed suit No. 5108 of 1964 against Desai, the accused, for an injunction and certain other reliefs.

3. Another suit being suit No. 6127 of 1967 was also filed by the complainant against the accused. It is enough to state that the matter went to the Supreme Court and it was disposed of on certain consent terms. Among other consent terms, the accused was to give flat No. 62 of a larger area to the complainant instead of the original flat No. 41 with a smaller area. There were some other undertakings which were given. As these undertakings were not fulfilled by the accused, the complainant filed contempt proceedings in the High Court. As appears from exh. B, the order dated July 21, 1970, the accused who was respondent No. 2 in that proceeding and the Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd., who was respondent No. 1 were both held guilty of contempt of Court and while respondent No. 1 was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000, respondent No. 2 viz. the present accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one day and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.

4. Thereafter it appears that after having fulfilled the undertaking given by him to the City Civil Court and the Supreme Court, the accused applied to the Court for being purged of that contempt'. The order which was passed in those proceedings as appears from exh. C, dated October 21, 1972 shows that a consent order was passed. That order reads as under:

Misc. Civil Application No. 96/69.

Coram: Tulzapurkar and Malvankar JJ.

The parties to the dispute, viz., the petitioner (original plaintiff) and respondents (original defendants)--having entered into a compromise reduced to writing, duly signed by both the parties and advocate for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents and the terms of the Order agreed to having been taken on record of the case are set out below:

1. The 1st respondents have already delivered possession of the Flat No. 62 on the 6th floor, North side of the building known as 'Divyaprabha' to the petitioner on 12th clay of February 1971.

2. The 1st respondents have agreed to pay to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 22,500 (Rupees twenty two thousand and five hundred only) for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to make the said flat No. 62 habitable and put it in proper and fit condition and for having the internal walls plastered for laying of and polishing of mosaic tiles etc. and for carrying out internal electrical wiring and other fittings such as sanitary fittings plumbing etc. and for providing and fitting windows and internal doors and for carrying out other necessary works remaining to be done inside the said flat No. 62.

4. The petitioner shall not have any claim against the respondents for the purpose of making the said flat No. 62 habitable and in proper and fit condition and for providing internal walls plastered for laying and polishing of mosaic tiles etc. and for carrying out electrical wiring and other fittings sanitary fittings, plumbing etc. inside the said flat and for providing and fitting windows and internal doors and for carrying out other necessary works remaining to be done inside the said flat No. 62 and the respondents are discharged from their obligations and duties in that behalf.

5. As the respondents abovenamed have already tendered an unconditional apology lo this Hon'ble Court and as the 1st respondents have already paid to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 15,000 pursuant to the order dated 30th July 1970, and as the respondents have handed over possession of the said flat No. 62 to the petitioners on 12th February 1971; and as the 1st respondents have paid a sum of Rs. 22,500 to-day to the petitioner for the aforesaid purposes, the sentence passed by this Hon'ble Court on 21st day of July 1970 is hereby remitted and the respondents are hereby discharged.

6. The respondents are hereby discharged from the undertakings given to the Court in Suit No. 5108 of 1964 and suit No. 6127 of 1967 filed in the City Civil Court at Bombay. However the respondents agree to remain liable to complete the building1, 'Divyaprabha' including the exterior work, providing lift, stair-case, water connections, electric connections, plastering of outside walls, and plumbing connections etc. from outside the flat and in the building and obtaining completion certificate of the said flat No. 62 from outside in all respects.

7. The petitioner agrees that the petitioner has no right, title or interest or claim of whatsoever nature against the respondents in connection with flat No. 41 in the said building 'Divyaprabha', but the same is claimed by the petitioner's wife Mrs. Indira G. Bajaj which claim is disputed by the respondents and is the subject matter of suit No. 744 of 1969 pending in this Hon'ble High Court.

The Court passes order in terms of the compromise mentioned above, and cancels warrant against respondent No. 2,

5. It appears that the accused having failed to complete the building 'Divyaprabha' in terms of the latter part of paragraph 5 of the above consent terms, the complainant filed a complaint against the accused on June 13, 1974 for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2), 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') It may be mentioned that for non-payment of the Municipal taxes the Bombay Municipal Corporation attached the building called 'Divyaprabha' and it also threatened to forfeit the lease.

6. The learned Magistrate issued process on that very day. But the matter was adjourned till July 1975 without any hearing inasmuch as it was adjourned either at the instance of the parties as they wanted to settle the matter or for want of Court's time and the like. It was in July 1975 that the complainant examined himself before charge and he was also cross-examined. On August 20, 1975 as appears from the endorsement of the Magistrate below the deposition of the complainant, the Court passed an order as under:

Prosecution closes for the charge.

For arguments for charge mot before 3 p.m.

7. The Court accordingly heard the arguments of the advocates of both the sides. The only documents which were produced by the complainant are exhs. B and C viz. the order in the contempt proceedings holding the accused guilty and the subsequent consent order by which the sentence which was awarded in the contempt proceedings was set side and he was discharged. The learned Magistrate by an elaborate and well considered order came to the conclusion that prima facie no case of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was made out. So also relying on the evidence of the complainant himself that the other purchasers of the fiats had not paid the taxes and the fact that the Corporation had attached the building for arrears of taxes and had threatened to forfeit the lease and in particular after having taken into consideration the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, which provides inter alia 'not to comply with the provisions of the Act without reasonable excuse, the learned Magistrate held that no prima facie case of even for offence under the Act was made out. Consistently with that view he passed an order of discharge dated August 27, 1975.

8. The said order was challenged by the complainant by filing criminal revision application No. 334 of 1975 in the Court of the Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay. As appears from the paragraph 6 of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge although it was submitted by Mr. Khambatta, the learned Counsel for the complainant that the evidence was prima facie sufficient for a charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also various sections mentioned in the Act, that submission was not at all developed or pressed. On the other hand what was argued by Mr. Khambatta, to quote the learned Sessions Judge's observations in paragraph 6 of the judgment, is to this effect:

.It was also argued by him under Section 244(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 1973, it was the duty of the learned Magistrate to issue summons to the witnesses mentioned in the complaint and call upon the complainant to produce necessary documents on record which according to the learned Magistrate were necessary for deciding the case and as the learned Magistrate has failed to discharge that duty, the matter should be sent back to the lower Court, for allowing the complainant to produce documentary evidence which was necessary for showing that there was a prima facie case against the accused.

9. As against that it was contended for the accused that no exception could be taken to the view of the learned Magistrate that no prima facie case was made out and it was particularly submitted that the complainant himself had closed his case after examining only himself as his witness and that he had never for once asked the Court for any permission to produce any documents. That being the position it was submitted, that the learned Magistrate was not bound to summon any witness or to call for any document suo motu and that, therefore, the request of Mr. Khambatta for remanding the case could not be granted.

10. It appears from the judgment of the learned Magistrate that it was not at all contended seriously that the material on record was enough to frame a charge. What is more no attempt was made to argue that there was any material for framing a charge, The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge says that that position being accepted, the only point which was pressed was that since it was the duty of the Magistrate to call for the witnesses mentioned in the complaint and to call for necessary documents and since the Magistrate has not discharged that duty the case should be remanded to the Magistrate with a direction to call the witnesses mentioned in the complaint and to call for the documents which are necessary and then to decide the question as to whether the charge could be framed. It is this submission which prevailed with the learned Sessions Judge. In support of the view he was taking the learned Sessions Judge relied upon a case reported in Ramjiwan v. Maddye Khan , and he, therefore, concluded his judgment by observing as under:.1 propose to send the case back to the lower Court for allowing the complainant to adduce oral and documentary evidence which he may desire to bring on record. It may be noted that it would be open to the learned Magistrate to proceed under Section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code if the Magistrate find that after all the material has come before him, to lead to the conclusion that the charge against the accused was groundless.

11. It is in that view of the matter that he allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and directed that further enquiry should be made by him according to law.

12. It is the correctness of the said order which is challenged by the accused in this Court.

13. Mr. Paranjpe, learned Counsel for the accused having fully supported the judgment of the learned Magistrate, has vehemently attacked the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge. His submission is that the observations of the learned Sessions Judge in his judgment are factually incorrect and that even legally the learned Judge has erred in relying on the provisions of Section 252(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 instead of relying on the provisions of Section 244(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

14. The advocate for the complainant has not appeared. Although the clerk of M/s. Vachha and Co., attorneys, was sent for, he could take any steps to keep any advocate present to conduct the case which came on board since November 28, 1977. Mr. Deshmukh, public prosecutor appearing for the State does not support the order of the learned Sessions Judge and he further submits that this being a case on a private complaint the State is not interested in it. Since the complainant's advocate was absent, I requested Mr. Paranjpe to take me through the entire record of the case. In my opinion, the submission of Mr. Paranjpe is well founded and, therefore, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained either on facts of the case or in law.

15. The learned Sessions Judge has observed in para. 9 of his judgment that the learned Magistrate has not even considered the documents which were produced by the complainant properly. As I have pointed out except exhs. B and C no other document was produced by the complainant and the learned Magistrate has certainly referred to these documents and that being the position this criticism of the learned Sessions Judge is not justified.

16. The learned Sessions Judge has further observed that the judgment in the proceedings for the contempt of Court, which was not at all produced before the Magistrate would have shown that there was a prima facie case against the accused. One fails to see how the judgment in the contempt proceedings which was not on record could have been at all considered and even if it were produced how could it have been relevant or admissible for deciding the instant case inasmuch as after the accused was found guilty in the contempt proceeding and was sentenced, by subsequent compromise between the parties by a consent order that sentence was set aside and he was discharged albeit, that even thereafter he took responsibility for completing the building as appears from the latter part of paragraph 5 of the consent terms in the contempt proceedings dated October 21, 1972 which have been set out in the earlier paragraph of this judgment. This part of the reasoning also of the learned Sessions Judge is not correct factually or in law.

17. In para. 10 of the judgment, the learned Sessions Judge says that it was submitted on behalf of the complainant that if the matter is sent back to the lower Court, the complainant would like to produce the certified copy of the reasoning of the High Court and the complainant would then establish that prima facie case is made out in respect of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. When a submission was made for the accused that the judgment in the contempt proceedings cannot be considered as evidence in a criminal case, the learned Judge has observed in para. 11 of his judgment as under;.In my opinion the learned Magistrate will have to consider whether the observation made by the High Court in that Misc. Application are binding or not and whether besides those observations, it is necessary for the complainant to prove by independent evidence that the accused had committed that offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. However one fact remains that when the complainant wanted to produce certain documents on record from other pending proceedings, the learned Magistrate should have given opportunity to bring those documents on record by issuing necessary summons to the concerned witnesses as stated in the complaint.

18. Mr. Paranjpe rightly questioned as to where from the learned Sessions Judge got the impression that the complainant wanted to produce certain documents on record and that the learned Magistrate had declined to give him an opportunity to do so.

19. Mr. Paranjpe appears to be right when he contends that this observation is factually incorrect. I have already pointed out that after the complaint was filed on June 13, 1974, the hearing did not at all commence till the evidence of the complainant came to be recorded in between June 6, 1975 and August 20, 1975. I have further pointed out that as appears from the endorsement of the Magistrate below the deposition of the complainant of August 20, 1975, the prosecution had closed its case before charge, and it was posted for arguments to be heard not before 3 p.m. The endorsements indicating the roznama of the case which arc made, nowhere show that the complainant had ever requested the Court to summon any witness either for production of any document or for giving oral evidence. There is absolutely no application on record to show that any such request either oral or in writing was ever made on behalf of the complainant. I have also been taken through the entire grounds in the memo of revision application to the Sessions Court where as many as twenty grounds are mentioned and there is absolutely no allegation in any of these grounds that any request was ever made by the complainant whether orally or in writing requesting the Court to summon any witness either for giving evidence or for producing any document. In fact the substance of the submissions of Mr. Khambatta before the learned Sessions Judge which are set out in para. 6 of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge shows that although Mr. Khambatta glibly submitted without perusing or developing the point that the material on record was sufficient to frame a charge, he mainly argued and submitted that it was the duty of the Magistrate to issue summonses to the witnesses mentioned in the complaint and call for the necessary documents and that since the Magistrate had failed to discharge that duty the matter should be sent back to the lower Court for allowing the complainant to produce documentary evidence which was necessary for showing that there was a prima facie case against the accused. It would thus appear that the observations of the learned Sessions Judge at the end of para. 11 of his judgment to the effect that the complainant wanted to produce certain documents on record and the learned Magistrate should have given the said opportunity to the complainant are clearly incorrect and inconsistent with the entire record which has been just referred to by me. It would, therefore, appear that factually the learned Sessions Judge is not right when he took the view that the complainant wanted to produce any documents or summon any witness to produce any document and that that opportunity was denied to him.

20. Regarding the legal approach of the learned Sessions Judge in para. 12 of his judgment, the learned Sessions Judge appears to have been influenced in his view by the judgment in Ramjiwan v. Maddye Khan. That is a case where the Court was concerned with the interpretation of Section 252(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. In that case the learned Magistrate passed the order of discharge on the principal ground that the complainant failed to produce Chhajju and Ganga Bux the material witnesses who were mentioned by the complainant as witnesses in his complaint. The High Court after referring to the mandatory provisions of Section 252(2), pointed out that it was the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain from the complainant or otherwise the names of persons likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case and able to give evidence for the prosecution and to summon such of them as thought necessary. It was further observed by the High Court that the learned Magistrate had discharged the accused principally on the ground that Chhajju and Ganga Bux were important witnesses but they were not examined by the prosecution. It was further observed that if the learned Magistrate thought so it was his duty to examine those witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. By relying on the above observations of the Rajasthan High Court, the learned Judge concluded at the end of para. 12 of his judgment as under:.the observation made by the High Court (Rajasthan) in the above case are applicable to the facts of the present case. When the learned Magistrate found that certain documents were necessary in order to decide the case, it was his duty to ascertain from the complainant as to in which proceedings those documents were filed, and summon the witnesses calling those documents from the concerned Court. As that was not done by the learned Magistrate in the present case, the learned Magistrate has erred in discharging the accused with insufficient material which was on record.

(Italics ours).

21. No doubt if the case were governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, since Section 252(2) of the said Code would be attracted the learned Sessions Judge would have been right inasmuch as Sub-section (2) of Section 252 provides:

The Magistrate shall ascertain, from the complainant or otherwise, the names or any persons likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case and to be able to give evidence for the prosecution, and shall summon to give evidence before himself such or them as he thinks necessary.

But then since the instant complaint was filed on June 13, 1974 i.e. long after the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came into force on April 1, 1974, which by Section 484 repealed the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the case was no more governed by the provisions of Section 252(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. In fact the case is governed by the provisions of Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is necessary here to point out the difference between Section 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the provisions of Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

22. Section 252(1) of the old Code is to this effect:

252. (1) In any case instituted otherwise than on a police report, when the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, such Magistrate shall proceed to hear the complainant (if any) and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution:

Provided that the Magistrate shall not be bound to hear any person as complainant in any case in which the complaint has been made by a Court.

23. Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is to this effect:

244. (1) When, in any warrant-case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.

(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.

24. It would appear that there is no change in the provision of Section 252(1) of the old Code and Section 244(1) of the new code except to the limited extent that whereas in the old Code it is provided that the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the complainant, if any, in Section 244(1) of the new Code, the provision is that the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution. When we read Sub-section (2) of Section 252 of the old Code in juxtaposition with Sub-section (2) of Section 244 of the new Code, we find that the Legislature has made a deliberate departure from the old Code while enacting the new Code. Whereas the old Code by Sub-section (2) of Section 252 had cast the duty on the Magistrate to ascertain from the complainant or otherwise the names of any persons likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case and to be able to give evidence for the prosecution and a further duty on the Magistrate to summon such witnesses to give evidence before himself, such of the witnesses as he thinks necessary; under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 244 of the new Code the Magistrate is completely relieved of that obligation or duty, which was cast by the old Code. On the other hand under the new provision, the Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing. It would thus appear that after the enactment of the new Code and the repeal of the old Code, the Magistrate is no longer under an obligation to summon any witness of his own.

25. Here it is now the responsibility of the prosecution to move the Magistrate by an application to issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing them to attend or to produce any document or other things. Since the instant case is clearly governed by the provisions of Section 244(2) of the new Code, the entire reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge in para. 12 of his judgment based on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Ramjiwan's case, is erroneous inasmuch as the case is not at all governed by the provisions of Section 252 of the old Code.

26. It would thus appear that even the legal approach of the learned Sessions Judge based on the provisions of Section 252(2) of the old Code which are no longer applicable to the facts of the case, is clearly incorrect.

27. What we are then left with is that here is a case which is governed by the provisions of Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. There was no obligation on the Magistrate to summon any witness on his own to produce any document. Factually the complainant never made any oral or written request for summoning any witness. He was content to examine himself before charge and to request the Court to frame the charge after hearing the addresses. The learned Magistrate after very careful and well considered judgment came to the conclusion that no case against the accused had been made out which if unrebutted would warrant the conviction of the accused on the charges levelled against him.

28. As I have pointed out from the observations of the learned Sessions Judge the factual aspect that the material on record was insufficient to frame a charge, was by necessary implication conceded by the advocate for the complainant inasmuch as, the only point which the learned advocate for the complainant sought to argue was that it was the duty of the Magistrate to issue summonses to the witnesses mentioned in the complaint to produce the necessary documents and that since the Magistrate had failed to do so the Sessions Court should send the case back to the lower Court for 'allowing the complainant to produce documentary evidence which was necessary for showing that there was a prima facie case against the accused,' This submission of the learned advocate which has been incorporated in para. 6 of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge would show that factually it was not disputed that the material on record was not sufficient to frame a charge and all that was asked for was an opportunity to enable the complainant to produce the said material. Even the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge would show that he proceeded on the assumption that the material on record is insufficient to frame a charge as is indicated by his numerous observations in his judgment. For instance in para. 11, the learned Sessions Judge observed,.In my opinion the learned Magistrate will have to consider whether the observation made by the High Court in that Misc. application (contempt of Court proceeding) are binding or not and whether besides those observations, it is necessary for the complainant to prove by independent evidence that the accused had committed that offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,

At the end of para. 12 the learned Sessions Judge has observed:.As that was not done by the learned Magistrate in the present case, the learned Magistrate has erred in discharging the accused with insufficient material which was on record.

Again, at the end of his judgment, the learned Sessions Judge observes as under:.I therefore decide points 1 and 2 as above and I propose to send the case back to the lower Court for allowing the complainant to adduce oral and documentary evidence which he may desire to bring on record. It may be noted that it would be open to the learned Magistrate to proceed under Section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code if the Magistrate find that after all the material has come before him, to lead to the conclusion that the charge against the accused was groundless.

These observations by necessary implication show that not only the learned Sessions Judge and the learned advocate for the complainant were agreed that the material on record is insufficient to frame a charge and that even after further opportunity being given to the complainant to produce further evidence a situation might still exist requiring the Magistrate to discharge the accused. I might also observe that 1 have also gone through the judgment of the learned Magistrate and no exception as I have pointed out was taken to it before the Sessions Judge. It is a well considered judgment. The reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge for disturbing that judgment and the order of discharge is based on incorrect assumptions sometimes contrary to the record and on application of the provisions of law which are no more in force and in disregard of the specific intendment of the legislature as appears from the provisions of Section 244(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

29. In the result the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated March 15, 1977 cannot be sustained. That order is therefore set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate dated August 27, 1975 discharging the accused is restored. Rule made absolute.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //