Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1810 (PNJ)

Mohinder Singh Lathor v. State of Haryana

2012-12-11

PARAMJEET SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT PARAMJEET SINGH, J. Present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 8.8.2006 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Kaithal, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act) to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. He was further convicted and sentenced under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month, in a case arising out of FIR No.356 dated 10.8.2002 registered at Police Station City Kaithal, under Sections 7/13(1)(d), 13(1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.8.2002, complainant met the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal and moved an application (Ex. PD) against the appellant. On this, Sh. Amir Singh, DSP (HQ), Kaithal was deputed to take action. On receipt of telephonic message from SP camp office, he reached at the said camp office and found that two persons, namely, Chandan Singh son of Sadhu Ram, resident of Pundri and Suresh Kumar son of Randhir Singh resident of Kaithal, were sitting there. Thereafter, the SP had also called Sanjeev Verma, the then CTM Kaithal, telephonically. Thereafter, DSP Amir Singh and CTM Sanjeev Kumar Verma were apprised of the facts of the complaint of Chandan Singh by the SP. The SP directed them to proceed for taking action against the appellant, who at that point of time, was posted as District Food & Supplies Controller (DFSC), Kaithal. It was mentioned in the complaint that the complainant had taken a labour and carriage contract for Pundri and Ding Mandi from the DFSC, Kaithal and had deposited Rs.85000/- as security. The complainant had completed the entire contract in time as per the terms. Thereafter request to the DFSC was made for release of the security of Rs.85000/-. At this, appellant allegedly demanded Rs.30,000/- for release of the said amount of security and stated that in case of failure to pay the bribe, the security amount would be forfeited. The complainant had completed the entire contract in time as per the terms. Thereafter request to the DFSC was made for release of the security of Rs.85000/-. At this, appellant allegedly demanded Rs.30,000/- for release of the said amount of security and stated that in case of failure to pay the bribe, the security amount would be forfeited. The complainant showed his reluctance to pay the bribe. Thereafter allegedly the appellant started harassing him. Many times requests were made for release of the security amount but it was not released. Then the complainant allegedly arranged Rs.15,000/ and approached Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal, who directed him to meet the SP. It is alleged that complainant met the appellant on 9.8.2002, who asked him to come at his office and bring the money at 6.00 p.m. DSP Amir Singh proceeded to initiate proceeding in the case. He also apprised the facts of the complaint to Ram Chander, Inspector/SHO, Police Station City Kaithal and other police officials. Allegedly, complainant handed over 30 notes of Rs.500/- each bearing No. JBK 303601 to JBK 303630. The said notes were initialed by DSP Amir Singh and Sanjeev Verma, CTM, Kaithal, and entrusted the same to the complainant with a direction to hand over to DFSC. Suresh Kumar shadow witness was explained to give signal when the amount was handed over to the DFSC. The entrustment memo was prepared. Parmod Kumar, Sub Inspector, was also appointed as another shadow witness and raiding party was prepared, which reached the office of DFSC. The complainant allegedly dropped shadow witnesses Suresh Kumar and Parmod Kumar near the said office and after parking his car in front of the gate of DFSC office, complainant came out of his car. In the meantime, appellant came out of the office and boarded the official vehicle and thereafter complainant Chandan Singh allegedly handed over the said currency notes of Rs.15,000/- to appellant–Mohinder Singh, who put the said bribe money in the left pocket of his shirt. After handing over money to the appellant, complainant flashed the appointed signal to shadow witness Suresh Kumar who further flashed the signal to shadow witness Parmod Kumar Sub Inspector. After handing over money to the appellant, complainant flashed the appointed signal to shadow witness Suresh Kumar who further flashed the signal to shadow witness Parmod Kumar Sub Inspector. Thereafter, raiding party parked their vehicle in front of the vehicle of the DFSC and personal search of the appellant was conducted by DSP Amir Singh and allegedly 30 currency notes worth Rs.15,000/- bearing No. JBK 303601 to JBK 303630 of denomination of Rs.500/- each having initials of DSP and CTM Kaithal were recovered. The jeep as well as the currency notes were taken into possession. On the basis of said recovery, case under Sections 7/13 of the Act was registered and investigation was launched. On 10.8.2002, the raiding party reached the house of the accused at Model Town, Jind Road, Kaithal, in the presence of Shiv Dayal, DFSO, Kaithal, and recovered two pass books bearing No.28863 showing Rs.27057-25 paise and bearing No.976 showing amount of Rs.3,66,645/-. The police party also recovered receipt book of Shiksha Parishad Kanya Gurukul Mahavidyalya, Shadipur Julana, out of which 15 receipts had been issued in the sum of Rs.1,64,851/-. The said recovered articles were taken into police custody. When the police party was about to leave the house, then a Qualis vehicle came, which was checked on the basis of suspicion and recovery of Rs.82,000/- was effected from the said vehicle. The said vehicle belongs appellant and his elder son was in the said vehicle. Later on, the police party handed over the currency notes of Rs.82,000/- to the son of the accused appellant through Sh. Shiv Dayal Chauhan DFSO. The police party deposited the case property with the MHC and put the accused behind the bars. On 11.8.2002, the accused-appellant suffered a disclosure statement that he had concealed a sum of Rs.80,000/- in a briefcase in his house at Kaithal and another sum of Rs.80,000/- in his house at village Julana. The police sought the police remand of the appellant which was declined and appellant was sent to the judicial custody. Thereafter, on 12.8.2002 two pass books were recovered from the office of the appellant and on 14.8.2002, the police recovered Rs.80,000/- which were lying in a briefcase kept in almirah in the house of the appellant at Kaithal and the same were taken into custody. Thereafter, the site plan was prepared. Thereafter, on 12.8.2002 two pass books were recovered from the office of the appellant and on 14.8.2002, the police recovered Rs.80,000/- which were lying in a briefcase kept in almirah in the house of the appellant at Kaithal and the same were taken into custody. Thereafter, the site plan was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was forwarded to the Court. The Judge, Special Court framed charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, to which the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined Sh. Rai Singh as PW1, Sh. Baljit Singh Clerk as PW2, Sh. Madan Gopal Post Master as PW3, Om Parkash Nazir as PW4, Constable Salinder Singh as PW5, Suresh Kumar shadow witness as PW6, Shiv Dayal Chauhan as PW7, Sh. Sanjeev Verma, Executive Magistrate as PW8, Sub Inspector Parmod Kumar as PW9, Isham Singh Sub Inspector as PW10, Chandan Singh as PW11, Inspector Ram Chander as PW12, Ch. Amir Singh Dy.S.P. as PW13 and thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. Thereafter, statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. In his defence, the appellant examined Mohan Lal Inspector as DW1, Dilawar Singh DFSO as DW2, Rajinder Parshad Asstt. Food and Supplies Department, Haryana, Chandigarh, as DW3, Sh. Sohan Lal IPS as DW4, Rameshwar Dass Patwari as DW5, Parveen Kumar Patwari as DW6. The trial Court after conclusion of trial convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the State. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that alleged recovery of tainted money effected from the possession of the accused-appellant had not been proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, therefore, the presumption could not be raised under Section 20 (1) of the Act and even if such recovery has been effected, the presumption was rebuttable. Mere recovery of tainted money was not enough when the substantive piece of evidence was not reliable specifically in the present case when no phenolphthalein powder was applied to the tainted currency notes, which was a scientific method to prove the passing of the money to the hands of the accused. Mere recovery of tainted money was not enough when the substantive piece of evidence was not reliable specifically in the present case when no phenolphthalein powder was applied to the tainted currency notes, which was a scientific method to prove the passing of the money to the hands of the accused. Thus, in absence of phenolphthalein powder, serious doubt stood created over the prosecution story. Learned counsel for the appellant, to support this contention, has relied upon the judgments titled as Gango Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Bihar, 2005(3) RCR (Crl.) 707 (SC), Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2005(4) RCR (Crl.) 310 (P&H), Khilli Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, 1985(1) RCR (Crl.) 66 (SC), Ram Avtar vs. State, 1994(1) RCR (Crl.) 412 (Delhi), Ranjit Singh vs. The State of Punjab, 2003(4) RCR (Crl.) 496 (P&H) and Sewa Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1992(3) RCR (Crl.) 427 (P&H). Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that complainant Chandan Singh PW11 had not moved any application before the accused for release of security rather it had come in the evidence that complainant had filed the application for release of the security on 26.11.2002 (Ex.DG), which had been proved by DW2 Dilawar Singh, DFSO, without any challenge to the same in the cross-examination by learned State counsel. When no matter was pending before the appellant, there was no question of inferring demand of the alleged money by the appellant and that tainted money being paid to the accused on the alleged demand by the appellant. To substantiate this contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments titled as Mathura Dass Gupta vs. State of Haryana, 2006(1) RCR (Crl.) 566 (P&H), Babu Lal vs. State of U.P., 1994(3) RCR (Crl.) 300 (SC) and State of Haryana vs. Vinod Goel 2004(1) RCR (Crl.) 361 (P&H). Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that there was no evidence of conversation between the appellant and the complainant Chandan Singh regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe money. The same had not been supported by the complainant while appearing as PW11 as well as by Suresh Kumar PW6 shadow witness, who was the first person to give the signal. There was no corroborative evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the money. The same had not been supported by the complainant while appearing as PW11 as well as by Suresh Kumar PW6 shadow witness, who was the first person to give the signal. There was no corroborative evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the money. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the statement of the second shadow witness, who was at some distance, could not be accepted that he could hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused, as such in the absence of such evidence, with regard to demand and acceptance of the bribe money, no presumption could be raised. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments tilted as Satinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab, 2006(3) RCR (Crl.) 12 (P&H), Kailash Chandra Pandey vs. State of West Bengal, 2003 Crl.L.J. 4286 (Calcutta), State of Punjab vs. Kushal Singh Pathania, 2004(4) RCR (Crl.) 498 (P&H) and Banarasi Dass v. State of Haryana, 2010(2) RCR (Crl.) 553 (SC) to contend that when the complainant and the main prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case then the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe cannot be accepted and presumption cannot be raised under Section 20 of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the alleged occurrence had taken place at 6.00 p.m. and the FIR was sent before the Illaqa Magistrate at about 4.00 a.m. on 11.8.2002. The prosecution story was further doubtful for the reason that when there was a Vigilance Bureau in the State of Haryana as well as in the Kaithal District, there was no question that SP would act in such a manner specifically when the stand of the appellant was that the SP was annoyed with him and he was demanding monthly bribe from him. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that before effecting recovery, police officials were bound to give the personal search and if the same was not done, then the prosecution story could be shrouded with suspicion and he relied upon the judgments in the cases of Girish Rajpal and others vs. State of Haryana, 2004(1) RCR(Crl.) 817 (P&H) and State of Punjab vs. Kushal Singh Pathania (supra). It was further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was the admitted case of the parties that on 10.8.2002, it was Saturday and Government offices were closed on that day being a holiday and appellant had gone to Chandigarh, which was clearly proved by T.A Bill Ex.DD and sanction order Ex.DE and thus the prosecution story stood belied. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused had been falsely implicated. Son of the appellant had moved an application against D.S.P. Amir Singh that the DSP robbed Rs.2 lacs from him. In this regard, an enquiry was conducted by senior IPS officer of the police department, who submitted that D.S.P. Amir Singh had illegally retained the amount and part of which was returned even without the permission of the Court. In the enquiry, on the application of the son of the appellant, D.S.P. Amir Singh was found guilty and the DGP had directed to register a case against him. The above contentions had been vehemently opposed by the learned State counsel. It was contended by the learned State counsel that although complainant and the shadow witness Suresh Kumar had turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution case but the evidence of another shadow witness Parmod Kumar PW9 as well as the evidence of PW12 Inspector Ram Chander, D.S.P. Amir Singh PW13 and City Magistrate Sanjeev Verma PW8 clearly proved the recovery of tainted currency notes and the version set up by the prosecution in the FIR. Once the recovery of the amount initialled by the D.S.P. and the CTM was proved, then presumption could be raised and as the appellant failed to rebut the presumption, the conviction and sentence order should be maintained. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. In the light of judgment in the case of Banarsi Dass (supra) and the statements of two hostile witnesses i.e. complainant Chandan Singh PW11 and Suresh Kumar PW6 shadow witness, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification alleged to have been received by the appellant-accused, for favouring Chandan Singh PW11 for release of security amount, cannot be said to be proved by the prosecution in accordance with law. Both the witnesses have turned hostile. They have even denied their statements despite searching cross-examination by learned State Counsel. Both the witnesses have turned hostile. They have even denied their statements despite searching cross-examination by learned State Counsel. The complainant denied that the accused had demanded any money from him for refund of security and falsified the entire prosecution story. He further stated that his signatures were obtained by police on blank papers on which memo Ex.PF was subsequently prepared. Even the shadow witness PW 6 deposed that he was not even aware of facts of case and denied that complaint was made in his presence and that he was deputed as shadow witness. Like the complainant, he also maintained that his signatures were taken on blank papers by police. As regards presumption under Section 20 of the Act, is concerned it would be appropriate to discuss how it applies under criminal law. In criminal law, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that accused had committed the offence for which he had been charged. As a general principle, the burden of proving actus reus and mens rea lies on the prosecution. Section 20 of the Act refers to the rebuttable presumption. Rebuttable presumption in criminal law is somewhat controversial, in that it does effectively reverse the presumption of innocence. The effect of rebuttable presumption is to put the legal burden of disproof on the accused. In rebuttable presumption also the primary facts must be proved by the prosecution, thereafter the specific presumption could be drawn from them. In the present case, since both, the complainant and the shadow witness, have turned hostile so the primary facts had not been proved with regard to demand and acceptance, so mere recovery of signed tainted notes cannot lead to raising of presumption under Section 20 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banarasi Dass's case (supra), considered the judgment in C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, High Court of Kerala, 2009(2) RCR (Crl.) 1345, in para 14 and held as under:- “14. The case of C.M. Girish Babu (supra) was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7 of which is in pari materia with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Section 20 of the Act raises a rebuttable presumption where the public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration, which presumption is absent in the 1947 Act. Section 20 of the Act raises a rebuttable presumption where the public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration, which presumption is absent in the 1947 Act. Despite this, the Court followed the principle that mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid would not be sufficient to convict the accused despite presumption and, in fact, acquitted the accused in that case.” In view of the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish that accused appellant had demanded illegal gratification from PW11 and also received the same knowingly that it was being received by him as illegal gratification. These two aspects are required to be proved beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts by the prosecution for convicting the appellant which the prosecution has failed to prove in this case. Since the complainant and the shadow witness have turned hostile with regard to alleged demand, recovery and acceptance, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused-appellant. Therefore, without commenting on the recovery of tainted money and the veracity of the prosecution evidence, it is a fit case where the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges framed against him. In the labyrinth of criminal justice system, the burden of proof lies heavily on the prosecution. The entire merit of a case depends on prosecution witnesses. Bentham says “witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice”. The criminal case is built on the edifice of evidence, the evidence that is admissible in law. Since main witnesses in this case have not supported the prosecution case, prosecution had failed to build the edifice of evidence and resultantly failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. Now coming to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses after main witnesses i.e. complainant and shadow witness turned hostile, the nature of deposition of other star witnesses, especially of Sh. Sanjeev Verma, City Magistrate, PW 8, start with ignorance of facts about the crucial aspects of the case. The first line of cross-examination confronted with his previous statement. It would be appropriate to reproduce part of his evidence. “XXX by Sh. J.K.Gakhar, Advocate for the accused. Sanjeev Verma, City Magistrate, PW 8, start with ignorance of facts about the crucial aspects of the case. The first line of cross-examination confronted with his previous statement. It would be appropriate to reproduce part of his evidence. “XXX by Sh. J.K.Gakhar, Advocate for the accused. “I do not remember whether I disclosed in my statement that accused demanded Rs.30,000/- for release of the amount of Rs.85,000/- (confronted with statement Ex.D A wherein the said fact is not mentioned) I do not recollect whether I narrated in my statement before the police that S.P directed us to conduct a raid at the place of accused (confronted with Ex.DA where it is mentioned to act according to law, was the direction of S.P). I do not recollect whether I narrated to the police that we were standing at a distance of 50 yards away from the spot. (confronted with Ex.DA wherein it is not so recorded). I also do not remember whether I stated to the police that on receipt of signal from Parmod, we reached the spot (confronted with Ex.DA wherein it is not so recorded). I was city Magistrate during those days for the last 6-7 months. It is correct that in every district, there is anti-corruption cell headed by Deputy Commissioner. I got the permission of Deputy Commissioner on telephone before going for raid. It is correct that I have not sought any permission in writing before going for trap nor I submitted any report to the D.C in writing after coming from the spot. I received the message of S.P at 4.30 P.M. I do not remember whether it was holiday on that day or not. I remember the date. We remained in the office of S.P. for about 45 minutes. When I entered the S.P. Camp office, D.S.P. (HQ.) shadow witness and complainant were present there. S.P. Brief me the manner in which the raid is to be conducted. At that time, only I was present with the D.S.P and complainant and no other witness was present. I do not remember whether during those days Junior Badminton Tournament of Haryana State were to commence from 3.8.2002 to 11.8.2002. I do not remember whether I attended any meeting of the Deputy Commissioner in connection with the arrangement of those tournaments. At that time, only I was present with the D.S.P and complainant and no other witness was present. I do not remember whether during those days Junior Badminton Tournament of Haryana State were to commence from 3.8.2002 to 11.8.2002. I do not remember whether I attended any meeting of the Deputy Commissioner in connection with the arrangement of those tournaments. I do not know either the eating arrangements for the team were to be organized by DFSC, Kaithal. I do not recollect whether on 2.8.2002 any meeting was conducted by the D.C in connection with that tournament. I also do not remember whether I attended that meeting or not. I have seen Mark A. The said document is not signed by me. But it seems to have been issued by P.A Branch of Deputy Commissioner, Office.” In his entire cross-examination, either he states “I do not know” or “I do not remember”. In cross-examination, he said I do not recollect who took out the money from the pocket of the accused”. He also admitted that the police officials had not offered their search to the accused before searching him. He was also not aware who conducted the writing work at the spot. It appears that he was faking ignorance. A senior HCS Officer holding post of City Magistrate was not expected to be ignorant almost about all the crucial aspects of the case. He admitted that he received briefing from S.P. He being an independent officer exercising the power of the Executive Magistrate was not supposed to receive briefing from the S.P. The letter dated 2.8.2002 put to PW 8 Sanjeev Verma, in cross-examination was issued by D.C. Office to all the heads of various departments in the District for meeting regarding Junior State Level Badminton Champion. It had also been issued to PW 8 City Magistrate, but he had shown ignorance about that too. The PW 8 is not at all a reliable witness. His evidence cannot be accepted. The learned State counsel admitted the fact that the Vigilance Bureau Office is in existence in every district but failed to explain why S.P. took different course. It had also been issued to PW 8 City Magistrate, but he had shown ignorance about that too. The PW 8 is not at all a reliable witness. His evidence cannot be accepted. The learned State counsel admitted the fact that the Vigilance Bureau Office is in existence in every district but failed to explain why S.P. took different course. He could not cite any contrary authority that if the tainted money is not smeared with phenolphthalein powder, it will create a doubt in the case of prosecution specially when the stand of the appellant is that S.P was annoyed with him, wanted the appellant to pay monthly money. Then the false implication of the appellant cannot be doubted. Coming to the bypassing of the usual mode of trap cases through the personnel of the Vigilance Bureau, there is hardly any explanation from the side of prosecution in this regard and this part to some extent gives credence to the ill-motive attributed to the prosecution. There is yet another aspect which makes the case of prosecution doubtful and it is the blameworthy conduct of the investigating officer, who has been indicted by none other than a senior I.P.S officer of the police department. It is clear that the Director General of Police recommended to Home Secretary for registration of a case in this regard. The defence evidence adduced through official witness Dilawar Singh could not be belied by the prosecution and learned trial court glossed over the fact that the occasion for the bribe could arise only after facing the rigours of the procedure adopted by the department of Food and Supplies for release of security and it being a case of putting the cart before the horse. The application for release of security was submitted on 26.11.2002 whereas the alleged raid was conducted on 9.8.2002 in the evening on a non-working day. Surprisingly, the learned State counsel even failed to suggest to DW Dilawar Singh that the procedure narrated by him was not the correct one and some other procedure for release was prevalent. Not only this, the factum of filing any application for release of security before the alleged day of raid was not suggested to the defence witness, who came to depose about the procedure of withdrawal of security alongwith the official record. Not only this, the factum of filing any application for release of security before the alleged day of raid was not suggested to the defence witness, who came to depose about the procedure of withdrawal of security alongwith the official record. It appears that such suggestion was not given to the defence witness for fear of the same being falsified with the help of official record with the defence witness. Most of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant go to the roots of the case and no useful purpose would be served to repeat those in view of the same not being rebutted. No offer of personal search to appellant was given by the police officer/officials before personal search of the appellant. Then, the prosecution story could be treated as shrouded with suspicion. The very purpose of appointing the Duty/Executive Magistrate appointed by the District Magistrate is to give an element of supervision over the conduct of the police officials and the Courts rely upon their depositions treating them free from the influence of the police. Such an officer is not expected to act under the dictates of the police. The prosecution story becomes further doubtful that on that day i.e. 10.8.2002, appellant had come to Chandigarh, being Saturday and Govt. office being closed at District Headquarter. T.A. Bill Ex. DD and sanction order Ex. DE proves the same. Prior demand story cannot be accepted, especially when complainant is not a laymen. He being a contractor knows who is to be approached, when someone demands illegal gratification. The conduct of the PW 13 Amir Singh, DSP shows that he had acted under the directions of the S.P and adopted unusual mode of straight-way signing the currency notes and did not apply the phenolphthalein powder. Further, the inquiry against the DSP also shows that he had retained the money of the son of the appellant and subsequently returned the same without court's permission. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.8.2006 are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed strictly in consonance with the observations and authority of law laid down by the Apex Court in Banarasi Dass's case (supra). Ordered accordingly. Bail bonds stand discharged.