Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 558 (BOM)

Rupa Deepak Dhande v. State Of Maharashtra

2023-02-22

G.A.SANAP

body2023
JUDGMENT G.A.SANAP,J. - Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties. 3. In this application, made under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the challenge is to the order dtd. 6/1/2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, Khamgaon, District Buldhana, whereby the learned Judge allowed the application at Exh. 108 made by the accused No.2 to add this applicant-Mrs Rupa Dhande and one Shri Satish Dinanath Jalgaonkar as an accused in Special Case ACB No. 04 of 2014 by invoking the provisions of Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C. "). 4. The facts relevant for deciding this application may be stated as follows: Non-applicant No.2 - Harshwardhan Nanoti is the accused No.1 (hereinafter referred as 'accused No.1 ') and the non-applicant No. 4 - Rajendrakumar Jaiswal is the accused No.2 (hereinafter referred as 'accused No.-2 ') in the Special case ACB No. 04 of 2014. They are being charged and prosecuted for commission of an offence under Ss. 7, 8, 15 read with Sec. 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was registered on the basis of the report lodged by the informant- Dr. Sadanand Madhukar Ingle, who is the non-applicant No.5, with the Central Bureau of Investigation. Informant is a Doctor by profession and resident of Khamgaon. On 10/9/2013, at about 12:00 p.m. a team of Income Tax Officers, Income Tax Office, Khamgaon and Akola consisting of Shri Mistri, Joint Commissioner, Shri Nanoti, ITO, Khamgaon, Mrs Rupa Dhande, ITO, Akola, Smt. Jog, ITO, Akola, Shri Khandagale, Income Tax Inspector, Khamgaon, Shri Pankaj Kumar Inspector, Income Tax, Akola and Shri Sadiq had conducted survey of the hospital and residence of the informant at Khamgaon. At the time of survey the officers of the raiding team found the cash of Rs.8.00 lacs in his residence. The officers returned the said amount of Rs.8.00 lacs to the informant. However, the officers unauthorizedly carried the records related to his hospital and property documents without preparing panchanama. 5. The informant stated before income tax officer Shri Nanoti that he has been regularly paying the admissible tax. He showed him the available record. The officers returned the said amount of Rs.8.00 lacs to the informant. However, the officers unauthorizedly carried the records related to his hospital and property documents without preparing panchanama. 5. The informant stated before income tax officer Shri Nanoti that he has been regularly paying the admissible tax. He showed him the available record. It is stated that accused No.1-Shri Nanoti told the informant that the documents found from his residence revealed that the amount of Rs.8.009 crores was unaccounted money and on the said money he is liable to pay income tax of Rs.3.00 crores. The informant pleaded before accused No.1- Shri Nanoti for help. It is the case of the informant that the accused No.1 told him that on disclosed income he was required to pay a tax of Rs.3.00 crores. The accused No.1 proposed to settle the matter by paying him Rs.1.00 crore. It is stated that in order to do this favour accused No.1-Shri Nanoti demanded amount of Rs.75.00 lacs, as illegal gratification, for himself and other officers of income tax office namely Shri Mistri, Joint Commissioner, Shri Nanoti, ITO, Khamgaon, Mrs Rupa Dhande, ITO, Akola, Smt. Jog, ITO, Akola, Shri Khandagale, Income Tax Inspector, Khamgaon, Shri Pankaj Kumar Inspector, Income Tax, Akola and Shri Sadiq. Accused No.1 threatened the informant that if he is not agreeable to this settlement then his office, hospital and property would be seized and he would be required to face the criminal prosecution. At that time, he did not answer accused No.1- Shri Nanoti. 6. It is further stated that on receipt of summons from income tax office, Khamgaon he went there on 12/9/2013 at about 11:30 a.m. and at that time the accused No.1 demanded illegal gratification of Rs.75.00 lacs for himself and above named officers. The informant did not want to pay the amount. Therefore, he approached the Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB, Nagpur. On the basis of his report, the FIR came to be registered. The telephonic conversation between the accused No.1 and the informant was recorded on two occasions. The telephonic conversation between the accused No.2 and the informant was recorded on three occasions. The telephonic conversation with the applicant, the proposed accused - Rupa Dhande, was recorded once. The informant as per the demand of accused No.1 had agreed to pay the amount. The telephonic conversation between the accused No.1 and the informant was recorded on two occasions. The telephonic conversation between the accused No.2 and the informant was recorded on three occasions. The telephonic conversation with the applicant, the proposed accused - Rupa Dhande, was recorded once. The informant as per the demand of accused No.1 had agreed to pay the amount. As directed by accused No.2, he went to Akola to pay the first installment of Rs.20.00 lacs to accused No.2. However, the accused No.2 got the clue and therefore, the raid could not be fructified. The investigating officer conducted the investigation and found the complicity of accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the commission of the crime. The charge-sheet was, therefore, filed against the accused Nos. 1 and 2. 7. Learned Special Judge framed the charge against the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The prosecution evidence commenced with the examination of the informant- Dr. Ingle as PW-1. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused Nos. 1 and 2. At the end of his cross examination, on 3/8/2021, the accused No.2 made the application at Exh. 108 under Sec. 319 for adding the applicant-Rupa Dhande and Shri Jalgaonkar, as an accused in the case. Learned special Judge initially decided the said application and rejected it on 6/8/2021. The accused No.2 challenged the said order before this Court. This Court vide order dtd. 16/12/2021 in Criminal Application (APL) No. 927 of 2021 set aside the said order and remitted the matter back to the Special Judge for deciding the application at Exh. 108 afresh for the reasons recorded in the order. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge granted the opportunity of hearing to the parties and decided the said application afresh on 6/1/2021. Learned Special Judge for the reasons recorded in his order dtd. 6/1/2022 allowed the application and directed that Mrs Rupa Dhande and Satish Jalgaonkar be added as accused in the Special Case ACB No. 04 of 2014, by invoking the provisions of Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against this order, the applicant has come before this Court. 8. I have heard the learned Advocate Shri. R. P. Joshi for the applicant and senior Advocate Shri Anil Mardikar for the accused No.2. I have also heard Smt. Mugdha Chandukar for the non-applicant No.1 CBI. Perused the record and proceedings. 9. Against this order, the applicant has come before this Court. 8. I have heard the learned Advocate Shri. R. P. Joshi for the applicant and senior Advocate Shri Anil Mardikar for the accused No.2. I have also heard Smt. Mugdha Chandukar for the non-applicant No.1 CBI. Perused the record and proceedings. 9. At the outset it is necessary to note that Satish Jalgaonkar had filed a separate application challenging this order. During the pendency of the said application Satish Jalgaonkar died. His application has, therefore, been disposed of as having rendered infructuous. 10. Learned Advocate Shri Joshi for the applicant submitted that the learned Special Judge has committed a patent illegality. Learned Advocate submitted that there is no iota of evidence to form a prima facie opinion about involvement of the applicant - Rupa Dhande in this case. Learned Advocate took me through the record and particularly the transcript of the recorded conversation and the facts recorded in the FIR. Learned Advocate submitted that if the transcript of the recording is looked at from any angle and accepted as it is, the same is not sufficient even to presume that the applicant - Rupa Dhande has either made demand of any illegal gratification or abated the demand of illegal gratification by accused No.1. The learned Advocate submitted that the informant has not attributed any role to Rupa Dhande in the matter of demand of illegal gratification. Learned Advocate submitted that the transcript of the recorded conversation would show that the topic of demand made by the accused No.1 was initiated by the informant and that the applicant -Rupa Dhande was reluctant to talk to him on that subject. Learned Advocate submitted that in the report the names of other officers, for whom the demand of illegal gratification was made by accused No.1, have been mentioned. It is pointed out that in the report, the informant has stated that the accused No.1 demanded the gratification of Rs.75.00 lacs for himself and for other 6-7 officers including Rupa Dhande. Learned Advocate submitted that in the substantive evidence adduced before Court by the informant as PW-1, he has not attributed any role to Rupa Dhande in the matter of demand of illegal gratification. Learned Advocate submitted that in the substantive evidence adduced before Court by the informant as PW-1, he has not attributed any role to Rupa Dhande in the matter of demand of illegal gratification. Learned Advocate took me through his evidence and submitted that the evidence indicates that it was a general talk between informant and applicant -Rupa Dhande, wherein the informant had expressed his anxiety and concern with her. Learned Advocate relied upon decision in the case of Hardeep Singh .v/s. State of Punjab and ors. (2014) 3 SCC 92 and submitted that if the material sought to be relied upon against the applicant -Rupa Dhande to add her as an accused is considered on the touch stone of the law laid down in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra), it would show that it is not at all sufficient to prima facie establish her involvement and complicity in this crime in any manner. Learned Advocate more particularly relied upon para 106 of the decision in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra). Para 106 reads as follows: "106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross-Examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. In Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if "it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence " is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused. " The words used are not "for which such person could be convicted. " There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused. " 11. Learned Advocate Smt Mugdha Chandurkar for non-applicant No.1 submitted that the thorough investigation conducted in crime revealed the involvement of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 only. Learned Advocate supported the contention of the applicant - Rupa Dhande. " 11. Learned Advocate Smt Mugdha Chandurkar for non-applicant No.1 submitted that the thorough investigation conducted in crime revealed the involvement of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 only. Learned Advocate supported the contention of the applicant - Rupa Dhande. Learned Advocate submitted that the material on record is not at all sufficient to add applicant- Rupa Dhande as an accused. Learned Advocate further submitted that Rupa Dhande is their star witness. 12. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Mardikar for the non-applicant No.2 submitted that Exh. 137, the transcript of the recorded conversation, is the best evidence against applicant- Rupa Dhande. Learned senior Advocate submitted that in the report the informant has stated the name of applicant -Rupa Dhande, being one of the officers, for whom the demand of Rs.75.00 lacs was made by the accused No.1. Learned senior Advocate took me through the evidence of PW-1 and pointed out the substantive evidence to seek support to his submission. Learned senior Advocate submitted that in his evidence PW-1 has specifically stated about role of the applicant -Rupa Dhande. Learned senior Advocate took me through the cross examination of PW-1 conducted on behalf of the accused No.2 to substantiate his submission that the answers given by PW-1 in his cross examination with regard to the role of the applicant -Rupa Dhande are sufficient to invoke the provisions of Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. and to add her as an accused. Learned senior Advocate further took me through the evidence of PW-2, who is panch witness to the pre-trap panchanama, wherein he has made reference to the telephonic conversation between PW-1 and the applicant -Rupa Dhande. Learned senior Advocate submitted that the evidence on record is sufficient to proceed against the applicant -Rupa Dhande by invoking the provisions of Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. Learned senior Advocate submitted that on the basis of the evidence on record the applicant can be prosecuted for the offence of abatement of demand of illegal gratification by the accused No.1. Learned senior Advocate in order to substantiate his submission relied upon decisions in following three cases- 1. Sartaj Singh .v/s. State of Haryana and Anr. (2021)5 SCC 337 , 2. Hardeep Singh .v/s. State of Punjab and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 92 , 3. Manjeet Singh .v/s. State of Haryana and Ors. (2021) SCC OnLine 632. 13. Learned senior Advocate in order to substantiate his submission relied upon decisions in following three cases- 1. Sartaj Singh .v/s. State of Haryana and Anr. (2021)5 SCC 337 , 2. Hardeep Singh .v/s. State of Punjab and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 92 , 3. Manjeet Singh .v/s. State of Haryana and Ors. (2021) SCC OnLine 632. 13. The decision in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) has been considered and followed in Sartaj Singh (supra) and Manjit Singh (supra) . Learned senior Advocate more particularly relied upon para No. 117 of the judgment in Hardeep Singh 's case. The relevant portion reads thus: "117. We accordingly sum up our conclusions as follows: Questions (i) and (iii) -What is the stage at which power under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised? AND -Whether the word "evidence" used in Sec. 319(1) Cr.P.C. has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word "evidence" is limited to the evidence recorded during trial? Answer 117.1. In Dharam Pal case, the Constitution Bench has already held that after committal, cognizance of an offence can be taken against a person not named as an accused but against whom materials are available from the papers filed by the police after completion of investigation. Such cognizance can be taken under Sec. 193 Cr.P.C. and the Sessions Judge need not wait till "evidence " under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. becomes available for summoning an additional accused. 117.2. Sec. 319 Cr.P.C., significantly, uses two expressions that have to be taken note of i.e. (1) Inquiry (2) Trial. As a trial commences after framing of charge, an inquiry can only be understood to be a pre-trial inquiry. Inquiries under Ss. 200, 201, 202 Cr.P.C., and under Sec. 398 Cr.P.C. are species of the inquiry contemplated by Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. Materials coming before the Court in course of such inquiries can be used for corroboration of the evidence recorded in the court after the trial commences, for the exercise of power under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C., and also to add an accused whose name has been shown in Column 2 of the chargesheet. 117.3. In view of the above position the word "evidence " in Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial. " 14. 117.3. In view of the above position the word "evidence " in Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial. " 14. As far as the case on hand is concerned, the evidence of two witnesses has been recorded by the learned Special Judge. The transcript of the recorded conversation between informant and applicant - Rupa Dhande has been exhibited. The decision in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) has been followed in the case of Sartaj Singh (supra) and Manjit Singh (supra). In this case, the moot question of fact that needs to be addressed is whether the evidence brought on record and relied upon, to add the applicant -Rupa Dhande as an accused in this case, is sufficient or not to make her to face the trial for so called offence of abatement. 15. In this case, the main evidence relied upon to add the applicant as an accused is her recorded conversation with the informant. The transcript of the recorded conversation is, therefore, the best document to discern the role of the applicant- Rupa Dhande. The evidence adduced before the Court by PW-1 and PW-2 is required to be considered in juxtaposition with the actual conversation between the informant and the applicant- Rupa Dhande. It would be necessary to consider the transcript of recorded conversation between informant and the applicant -Rupa Dhande. It is to be noted that the first conversation recorded between the informant and accused No.1 is dtd. 12/9/2013 at 2:20 p.m. The second conversation recorded between informant and the accused No.1 is dtd. 16/9/2013. The transcript of the first conversation is at Exh. 136 and the second conversation is at Exh. 105. Perusal of these two transcripted conversation would show that there is no mention of name of Rupa Dhande. As far as the other contents of two transcripted conversation are concerned it is not necessary to go into it. Transcripted conversation between Rupa Dhande and the informant is at Exh. 137. The first call was made by Rupa Dhande to the informant. Perusal of this transcript of the recorded conversation would show that she had made a phone call to the informant to make inquiry about the address of Dr. Sarnaik at Nagpur, who was not concerned with this matter at all. 137. The first call was made by Rupa Dhande to the informant. Perusal of this transcript of the recorded conversation would show that she had made a phone call to the informant to make inquiry about the address of Dr. Sarnaik at Nagpur, who was not concerned with this matter at all. The informant told her that he was residing at Ramdaspeth, but within 5-10 minutes he would call her back and would give his detail address. So after this topic, the informant started the next topic about accused No.1-Shri. Nanoti with Rupa Dhande. In his further talk with Rupa Dhande he requested Rupa Dhande to talk to Mr. Nanoti and help him. She assured him that she will talk to accused No.1- Shri Nanoti and there would be no problem. After this, the call was disconnected. The second call was made by the informant to Rupa Dhande. Perusal of this conversation would show that the informant talked to her about his problems and the trouble he has been facing because of this raid. The informant started the topic of payment of 35, meaning thereby 35 lacs demanded by saheb, meaning thereby accused No.1, but he was not able to pay it on that day. The applicant -Rupa Dhande told him that it was his internal matter and he should solve it on his own. Perusal of this transcript of second conversation indicates that the informant wanted to invite her to discuss this topic with him. However, the transcript of the recorded conversation indicates that she was reluctant to talk to informant on that topic. On perusal of this transcript of the recorded conversation of two phone calls there is no statement or material to indicate that the applicant -Rupa Dhande directly or indirectly made a demand of gratification. The transcript of the recorded conversation further indicates that she even did not suggest him to pay any gratification to accused No.1. There is nothing in the transcript of the recorded conversation to conclude that she was privy to this transaction in any manner. On the basis of the transcript of the recorded conversation it is not possible to conclude that she abated this crime of demand of gratification by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in any manner. There is nothing in the transcript of the recorded conversation to conclude that she was privy to this transaction in any manner. On the basis of the transcript of the recorded conversation it is not possible to conclude that she abated this crime of demand of gratification by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in any manner. These recorded conversations between informant and the applicant -Rupa Dhande is the basis of the application made by the accused No.2 under Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. It is seen that the substantive evidence vis-a-vis applicant -Rupa Dhande is consistent with this recorded conversation. Learned Judge relying upon this recorded conversation and the evidence of PW-2 was satisfied that applicant - Rupa Dhande was one of the abator. 16. It is to be noted that apart from Rupa Dhande the names of the 6-7 officials were mentioned in the FIR. As stated above, in the recorded conversation between the informant and the applicant -Rupa Dhande there is no iota of material to indicate that she made a demand of gratification from the informant. It, therefore, goes without saying that the role of Rupa Dhande and the role of other officials whose names have been mentioned in the FIR would be at par. PW-1 has deposed consistent with his report and stated the names of those officials as well, in his evidence. In my view, the learned Judge has not taken this fact into consideration. 17. It is not the case of the prosecution that the demand of gratification was made at any point of time by applicant -Rupa Dhande from the informant. In the report, no role has been attributed to applicant -Rupa Dhande in the matter of demand of illegal gratification. Informant in his evidence has stated that Rupa Dhande was a member of raiding team. Accused No.1. was the incharge of the raiding team. In his evidence, he has attributed specific role to accused No.1 and accused No.2. In his evidence at para No. 5, he has stated about the telephonic conversation between him and the applicant -Rupa Dhande. The said conversation was recorded. The transcript of the said conversation is on record. In his evidence, he has nowhere stated that during his telephonic conversation with the applicant -Rupa Dhande, Rupa Dhande, either directly or indirectly, demanded the gratification or suggested to pay it to accused No.1. The said conversation was recorded. The transcript of the said conversation is on record. In his evidence, he has nowhere stated that during his telephonic conversation with the applicant -Rupa Dhande, Rupa Dhande, either directly or indirectly, demanded the gratification or suggested to pay it to accused No.1. Perusal of his further evidence and particularly cross examination on behalf of the accused No.1 would show that certain acts and statements attributed to Rupa Dhande have been found to be the omission from his report. Witness No.1 has admitted those omissions. He has categorically admitted in his cross examination that it is not mentioned in his transcripted conversation with the applicant- Rupa Dhande that he told Dhande Madam that the amount of Rs.75.00 lacs demanded by the accused No.1 was huge amount. He has admitted that this fact is not there in the transcripted conversation. Learned Advocate took me through the cross examination of this witness on behalf of the accused No.2 and particularly para Nos. 53 and 54 of his evidence. In his cross examination, he has admitted that he had given report to CBI, Nagpur against the accused No.1 and other officers of Income Tax Department, who were the members of raiding team. In further part of his cross examination he was asked to give an opinion about the correctness of the facts stated in the panchanama. 18. The evidence adduced by the prosecution has to be considered prima facie for the purpose of deciding the limited issue. The oral evidence has been tested by the cross examination. The evidence consistent with the transcripted conversation between the informant and applicant - Rupa Dhande needs to be taken into consideration. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 consistent with the transcripted conversation between the informant and applicant-Rupa Dhande falls short to invoke the provision of Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. and add the applicant as an accused. PW-1 has admitted that he had requested Mrs Rupa Dhande to help him and talk to accused No.1. Perusal of his substantive oral evidence and the report clearly indicates that there was no demand of gratification, either direct or indirect, by Mrs Rupa Dhande from the informant. The informant has reiterated this fact time and again. 19. PW-1 has admitted that he had requested Mrs Rupa Dhande to help him and talk to accused No.1. Perusal of his substantive oral evidence and the report clearly indicates that there was no demand of gratification, either direct or indirect, by Mrs Rupa Dhande from the informant. The informant has reiterated this fact time and again. 19. It is pertinent to note that the learned Judge apart from relying upon this recorded conversation between informant and Rupa Dhande has relied upon the evidence of panch and police witness. I have perused their evidence. Perusal of their evidence would show that they have not said anything more than what has been stated by the PW-1 and in the recorded conversation. 20. It is to be noted that the object underlying Sec. 319 is to see that the real perpetrator of a crime does not get unpunished. The person whose role has been specifically spelt out on the basis of the evidence, but has not been arrayed as an accused by investigating agency for any reason, can be added as an accused by invoking Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. The person, who therefore appears to have committed the offence but not made an accused, can be made to face trial by exercising the power under Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. However, the Court has to be very careful while exercising the power. Before exercising the power, the Court must be satisfied that there is a prima facie evidence to establish the complicity of the person sought to be added as an accused. What is required is much stronger evidence than mere probability of his or her complicity. The test which is required to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of a charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes un-rebutted, would lead to conviction. The Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) has held that in the absence of such satisfaction the Court should refrain from exercising power under Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. In my view, the material sought to be relied upon in this case against applicant is not sufficient to make a prima facie case with regard to the complicity of the applicant -Rupa Dhande. Therefore, in my view, the proposition of law in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) would support the contention of the applicant -Rupa Dhande rather than contention of the accused No.2. 21. It is not out of place to mention that in this crime thorough investigation was conducted by the CBI. After thorough investigation, the investigating officer found prima facie evidence against the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The investigating officer after thorough investigation did not find any material to file the charge-sheet against the remaining persons named in the FIR. The applicant -Rupa Dhande has been cited as a witness by the CBI. In my view, this conclusion drawn by the investigating officer on the basis of the material would also support the contention of the applicant -Rupa Dhande. Applicant - Rupa Dhande cannot be added as an accused merely because she was member of the raiding party. It is further pertinent to note that she was junior to accused No.1 and working under his supervision. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the application made by the accused No.2 by invoking the provisions of Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of the above discussed material was not at all justifiable. Learned Special Judge has committed a mistake in granting the application relying on this material. In my view, therefore, this application is deserves to be allowed. 22. The criminal application is allowed. 23. The impugned order dtd. 6/1/2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Khamgaon, District Buldhana, is quashed and set aside. 24. The application Exh. 108, made by the accused No.2 to add this applicant-Mrs Rupa Dhande as an accused in Special Case ACB No. 04 of 2014, stands dismissed. 25. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs. 26. The criminal application stands disposed of, accordingly.