JUDGMENT : MARLI VANKUNG, J. 1. Heard Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned Legal Aid counsel for respondent No. 2. 2 . This is a jail appeal filed against the Judgment & Order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Special Court, Rape & POCSO Act, Aizawl, Mizoram in Sc. No. 120 of 2021 registered as Crl.Tr. No. 1604 of 2021, wherein, the appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I for a term of 20 years. 3 . Brief facts of the case is that an FIR was received on 20.07.2021 from the informant, who stated that her daughter ‘X’, aged 5 years had been sexually molested and raped frequently by Kawlthuamluaia (appellant) at her parental aunt, Ramliani’s residence during the years 2017 to 2020. It was prayed that legal action should be taken against the person who had committed such an act upon her daughter in such a manner. The case was registered as SLK-PS Case No. 13 of 2021 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with 376 AB IPC. 4 . During an investigation, the victim girl was sent for medical examination and her statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The Case I.O also recorded the statement of the other prosecution witnesses. The Birth Certificate of the minor child was also seized in the presence of the seizure witnesses. On receiving the medical examination report, the Case I.O found prima facie case against the accused/appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and charge sheet was filed accordingly. 5 . The learned trial Court framed charge against the accused/appellant under section 6 of the POCSO Act, which was read out and explained to the accused/appellant, to which he had pleaded not guilty and asked for trial. During trial, as many as 9 (nine) prosecution witnesses were examined. In the examination of the accused/appellant under Section 313 CrPC, he denied the incriminating evidence made out against him. No defence witnesses were produced. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court found the accused/appellant guilty and convicted him under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced him to undergo RI for 20 (twenty) years. In the examination of the accused/appellant under Section 313 CrPC, he denied the incriminating evidence made out against him. No defence witnesses were produced. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court found the accused/appellant guilty and convicted him under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced him to undergo RI for 20 (twenty) years. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the instant appeal from jail. 6 . Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove or establish a case against the accused/appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He submitted that nowhere was the time, month or date of the alleged incident mentioned by the prosecution witnesses. It was only in the FIR that the informant had stated that the incident happened between 2017 and 2020. He submitted that there was no eye-witness to the incident and what PW-1 knew about the incident was what was narrated by the minor victim child/PW-9. Both PW-2 & PW-3 have deposed only to the effect that the victim child used to go to the house of PW-2. PW-4 & PW-5 are the seizure witnesses and PW-6 is the Medical Doctor, who examined the victim child. There is nothing in the evidence of the Doctor as to when the incident had supposedly occurred. The medical examination simply stated that the hymen was ruptured and old. PW-7 is the initial Case I.O and the case was concluded by PW-8, who filed the charge sheet. 7 . The learned counsel submitted that the date of birth of the child is not disputed and therefore when her deposition was taken, she was only of about 8 (eight) years. However, no preliminary questions were asked to her. He submitted that the evidence of the victim child cannot be relied upon, since the learned Trial Court had not asked preliminary questions to her to ascertain that she was able to understand the importance of speaking the truth as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submitted that there were also marked discrepancies in her statement recorded before the Court and her statement recorded under 164 Cr.P.C about where the incident was supposedly to have taken place and therefore, her statement is unreliable. He submitted that there were also marked discrepancies in her statement recorded before the Court and her statement recorded under 164 Cr.P.C about where the incident was supposedly to have taken place and therefore, her statement is unreliable. The learned counsel also pointed out that though the victim girl had stated that she had mentioned about the incident to her aunts, PW-2 & PW-3 and had told them that her private part was bleeding, however, PW-2 & PW-3 have not stated anything about this in their depositions. The learned counsel also submitted that the trial against the accused/appellant stands vitiated because the accused/appellant was not given the opportunity to give his defence evidence during trial and produce his defense witnesses. He submitted that on perusal of the order sheet of the learned Trial Court, it is seen that after examination of the accused/appellant under Section 313 CrPC, next date was fixed for argument. There is nothing to show that an opportunity was given to the accused/appellant to produce his defence witnesses as provided under Section 233 Cr.PC. In support of the submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lalramnghaka & Another vs. State of Mizoram & Another, 2010 (5) GLT 628. 8. Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the incident had taken place between 2017 and 2020. The victim/prosecutrix at that time was of a tender age of 3 to 5 years. It is not possible for her to remember or narrate everything as she would not have actually understood what the accused/appellant had done to her. She submitted that the evidence clearly showed that the parents of the victim girl separated in December, 2016 and got together again in 2020. Because of the separation of her parents, it is proved that she used to sleep with her aunt, PW-2. It is also seen from the evidence that the accused/appellant is related to PW-2 and therefore, used to come to her(PW-2) place. Therefore, the foundational facts is proved that the incident which happened in the house of PW-2 was when the victim girl used to stay with PW-2 and the accused/appellant also used to spend the night in the house of PW-2. Therefore, the foundational facts is proved that the incident which happened in the house of PW-2 was when the victim girl used to stay with PW-2 and the accused/appellant also used to spend the night in the house of PW-2. She further submitted that the timeline when the incident happened is also well-established, since the evidence shows that it had happened while the parents of the victim girl were separated between December, 2016 and 2020. She thus submitted that the prosecution have proved the foundational facts and therefore, it is for the accused/appellant to prove his innocence, which he has failed to do so. That the medical evidence corroborated with the deposition of the victim child. She also submitted that the appellant could always inform the court that he had wanted to produce his defence witnesses and he is not barred from doing that. 9. Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned Legal Aid counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that she adopts the submissions of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, and further submitted that though no preliminary questions were asked while recording the statement of the victim child, who was of a tender aged of 8 years. However when her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and her testimony are the same, there was no reason to disbelieve the truthfulness of her testimony. Thus, there were no grounds to set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 10. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties, this court finds it appropriate to briefly highlight herein-under the evidence adduced before the learned trial court. PW-1, Lalruatfeli deposed to the effect that the accused Kawlthuamluaia is the cousin of her husband Kawlhnuna from Samlukhai village. She and her husband had got married in 2014 and the victim ’X’ is their daughter who was born on 25.08.2014. She and her husband got separated in December 2016, after which she moved to her mother's house in Chanmari West, Aizawl. Her daughter stayed with her father. She rejoined her husband and daughter in Samlukhai in January 2021. After some time, she became suspicious because her daughter would often touch herself or rub her private parts against their knees and elbows. She recalled an incident sometime in 2021, before August, when she found an empty Dildar packet inside her daughter's private part while bathing her. She rejoined her husband and daughter in Samlukhai in January 2021. After some time, she became suspicious because her daughter would often touch herself or rub her private parts against their knees and elbows. She recalled an incident sometime in 2021, before August, when she found an empty Dildar packet inside her daughter's private part while bathing her. When she asked her daughter ‘X’ about it, she told her that she kept it there for safety. She told her daughter ‘X’ not to do that again as it could cause problems and require surgery. However, her daughter ‘X’ continued to put paper inside her private parts. Feeling concerned, she asked her daughter what had happened. At first, her daughter was hesitant to tell her. However, when she confronted her, her daughter eventually revealed that the accused, Apate Baka @ Kawlthuamluaia, had sexually molested/raped her multiple times in the home of her aunt, Lalramliani @ Ani Zuruii, who is her father's sister. Her daughter told her that she used to sleep on a long chair, and the accused also slept on another long chair and the accused repeatedly raped her on several occasions at night while everyone else was sleeping. When she asked her daughter if she felt pain, her daughter replied that she did and she was also angry with her mother for being away in Aizawl during those times. She did not ask the accused about what happened because he was away working in the fields. The day, after her daughter told her, they took her to Sialsuk hospital. However, since there was no medical expert there, they returned home. The following day, they took her daughter to Serchhip hospital. The doctor at Serchhip hospital advised them to file an FIR because they could not provide the medical report without one. They went back to their village, and on 20.07.2021, she/PW-1 submitted an FIR against the accused at Sialsuk Police Station. The next day, on 21.07.2021, the police took her, her husband, and her daughter to Aizawl Police Station and the police recorded their statements. Her daughter was sent for medical examination at Civil Hospital Aizawl and her statement was also recorded by the JMFC. The police also took her daughter's original birth certificate from her. Exhibit P-1/PW 1 as FIR submitted. Exhibit P-2 as seizure memo. Exhibit M-1 as birth certificate. Her daughter was sent for medical examination at Civil Hospital Aizawl and her statement was also recorded by the JMFC. The police also took her daughter's original birth certificate from her. Exhibit P-1/PW 1 as FIR submitted. Exhibit P-2 as seizure memo. Exhibit M-1 as birth certificate. During her cross examination she admitted that she did not see the accused sexually assault the victim ‘X’. 11. PW-2, Lalramliani w/o Sanglianthanga deposed to the effect that he knew the accused Kawlthuamluaia, who is her cousin brother. She stated that his father and her father are brothers. The victim ‘X’ in this case is her niece, the daughter of her younger brother, Kawlhnuna. She stated that at the time of the incident, the victim's parents were divorced and living apart. The victim would often come to her house with her aunt, Lalchhanhimi, with whom she was staying along with her father and frequently stayed overnight at her house with her aunt. The accused also often came to their house and stayed overnight on some occasions. The witness stated that they only learned about the incident after the victim's mother and father got back together and after the filing of the FIR. 12. PW-3, Lalchhanhimi deposed to the effect that she knew the accused Kawlthuamluaia, who is her first cousin (the son of her father's elder brother, Thingremliana). They both belong to the Samlukhai village. She also knows the victim ‘X’ who is the daughter of her younger brother, Kawlhnuna. Her brother was divorced from his wife, and they looked after the victim when she was about one and a half years old. She also stated that the victim sometimes went to the house of their elder sister, Ramliani, and stay there for two or three nights before returning home. They, along with the victim and her other children, would visit her elder sister Ramliani's house. During the early part of 2021, she recalled that the victim's parents remarried, and the victim then lived with them. The victim's mother became suspicious about the victim's behavior and subsequently learned about the penetrative sexual assault that had occurred. She also stated that the victim never told them anything about any of the incidents that happened to her. They only became aware of the incident after the victim's mother filed an FIR against Kawlthuamluaia. The victim's mother became suspicious about the victim's behavior and subsequently learned about the penetrative sexual assault that had occurred. She also stated that the victim never told them anything about any of the incidents that happened to her. They only became aware of the incident after the victim's mother filed an FIR against Kawlthuamluaia. During cross examination, she admitted that the victim did not tell her anything about incident that happened on her and she came to know about the incident only after the mother of the victim filed an FIR against Kawlthuamluaia. She stated that she is the aunty (A ni) of the victim. 13. PW-4, Hmingthanpuii & PW-5, Lalropuii are the seizure witnesses on the seizure of the birth certificate of the victim where it showed that she was born on 25.08.2014. Exhibit P-2 as seizure memo. Exhibit M-1 as a photocopy of the birth certificate. 14. PW-6, Dr. Lalremruati Hmar deposed to the effect that on 20.07.2021, the victim ‘X’, who was about 5 years old, was brought by a female police officers to the Medical Officer at Civil Hospital Aizawl for a medical examination related to an alleged rape. After obtaining consent from the victim's mother, the examination was conducted at 1:20 PM being the Gynecologist at Civil Hospital Aizawl. The report and the findings of this examination were presented as evidence. The victim was accompanied by her mother, and a brief account of the incident, as provided by the mother, was included in the report. Exhibit P-4 as the examination report of the victim. During cross examination, she stated that one year has lapsed from incident of sexual assault and her medical examination of the victim. 15. PW-7, Ramfangzauva deposed to the effect that the case was registered at Sialsuk Police Station with C.No. 13/2021 dt 20.07.2021 u/s 6 of the POCSO Act, R/w 376AB of the IPC as he was assigned to investigate the case. During his investigation, he spoke with the complainant, the victim, other two reliable prosecution witnesses and two seizure witnesses and recorded their statements. Intimation regarding the case was given to Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) Aizawl and the Special Judge for POCSO without delay. The original birth certificate of the victim was seized in the presence of two reliable witnesses on 22.07.2021. Intimation regarding the case was given to Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) Aizawl and the Special Judge for POCSO without delay. The original birth certificate of the victim was seized in the presence of two reliable witnesses on 22.07.2021. The accused was arrested on 20.07.2021 following all formalities after thorough interrogation which was conducted under the calm atmosphere. The victim was sent for a medical check-up at Civil Hospital Aizawl with female police officer escorting her. A Gynecologist at the hospital examined her. The accused was also sent for a medical examination related to the alleged rape as well as other relevant points. A Judicial Magistrate First Class IV in Aizawl recorded the victim's statement u/s 164 of the CrPC. However, before he finished his investigation, he handed over the case to the OC of Sialsuk Police Station because he was transferred to another station, Bawngkawn PS. Exbt.P-1 as FIR filed by the complainant. Exbt.P-2 as seizure memo.Exbt. P-3 as judicial statement of the victim. Exbt.P-4 as report of the victim's medical examination. Exbt.P-5 as arrest memo. Exbt.P-6 as report of the accused’s medical examination. Exbt. P-7 as FIR u/s 164 CrPC, and P-7(a) as her endorsement. Exbt.M-1 as copy of the victim's birth certificate. Nothing to disbelieve the deposition of the witness was asked during cross examination which is an admission of facts already stated. 16. PW-8, Lalzuiliana deposed to the effect that the case was registered at Sialsuk Police Station with C.No. 13/2021 dt 20.07.2021 u/s 6 of the POCSO Act, R/w 376AB of the IPC. The case was given to Shri. Ramfangzauva, Sub Inspector of police to investigate the case, but before he finished his investigation, he was transferred to a different police station, so, the case was given to him to finish the investigation. During his investigation, he visited the PO, he also perused all the documents and evidence that the previous IO had collected and found it unnecessary to re-investigate again. So, based on his investigation and the previous IO’s work, he found that there was enough reason to believe the accused was guilty u/s 6 of the POCSO Act, R/w 376AB of the IPC. So, he filed a charge sheet. Exbt.P-1 as FIR filed by the complainant. Exbt.P-2 as seizure memo. Exbt.P-3 as judicial statement of the victim. Exbt.P-4 as report of the victim's medical examination. Exbt.P-5 as arrest memo. So, he filed a charge sheet. Exbt.P-1 as FIR filed by the complainant. Exbt.P-2 as seizure memo. Exbt.P-3 as judicial statement of the victim. Exbt.P-4 as report of the victim's medical examination. Exbt.P-5 as arrest memo. Exbt.P-6 as report of the accused’s medical examination. Exbt.P-7 as FIR u/s 154 CrPC. Exbt.M-1 as copy of the victim's birth certificate. 17. PW-9, 'X', deposed to the effect that she knows the accused, Kawlthuamluaia, she calls him Uncle Tebak. Her parents got divorced but she doesn't remember the year. She lived with her paternal aunt, Ramliani. Her father lived and worked at a different locality. One night, after her aunt and others were sleeping, Uncle Tebaka put his private part inside her private part and her butt hole. It hurt and there was blood. She told her aunt, Ramliani/PW No. 2 but her aunt said that she must have been bitten by a leech. ‘X’ told her aunt Chhani/PW No. 3 again but her aunt didn't believe and again said that she must have been bitten by a leech. Her aunt Ramliani drank alcohol and sometimes she would scold her when she was drunk. Uncle Tebaka touched her sexually many more times while others were sleeping, he closed her mouth when she screamed but she never told her aunt again. While playing house, Rinhlua, Lalhmingthanga, and Rodingpuia also had sexual intercourse with her and they were all children. When her mother and father remarried, her mother checked her and asked, "Who has touched you sexually?" she told her how uncle Tebaka used to touch her. Her mother report the matter to the police and the police called her and asked her questions. She was taken to court, a woman there asked her questions and she told her how Uncle Tebaka used to touch her and the woman made her put her thumbprint on a letter. They took her to a hospital and the doctor checked her private part. She has been living in a Home called CDP, Saron Veng since this happened. Ext P-3 is the judicial statement. Ext P-3(a) is my thumb impression. During cross examination, she stated that she was 8 years at the moment and she cannot state the exact time when she stayed under the same roof with Uncle Tebaka. Nobody told her what to say before the Court today. 18. Ext P-3 is the judicial statement. Ext P-3(a) is my thumb impression. During cross examination, she stated that she was 8 years at the moment and she cannot state the exact time when she stayed under the same roof with Uncle Tebaka. Nobody told her what to say before the Court today. 18. After careful analysis of the evidence adduced and on considering the submission made by the learned counsels for both the parties, we find that PW-1/ informant, is not an eye- witnesses and her evidence is based only on what was told to her by the prosecutrix who was aged only 6 or 7 years in 2021 when the FIR was filed. The prosecutrix narrated an incident which had taken place while she was staying with her aunty. No date or month is mentioned, except it was between 2017 and 2020. 19. We have thus noted that the date of birth of the prosecutrix ‘X’ is 25.08.2014 as per her Birth Certificate exhibited as Exhibit M-1.On the date of the said incident i.e between 2017 and 2020, ‘X’ would be between 3 to 6 years and when her deposition was recorded on 20.07.2021, by the learned Trial Court, she was about 8 years of age. We find that the learned Trial Court had not asked any preliminary questions whether she was able to understand the importance of speaking the truth or able to understand the questions put to her. Though we find that a child witness is not someone to be frowned upon, however, conviction on the basis of the child witness should be accepted with great caution and circumspection. The Apex court in Rameshwar vs. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54 , pointed out that Judges should record their opinion whether the child understands the need of speaking the truth, and state why they think so. Otherwise, the credibility of the witness cannot be well established and in some cases, it may become necessary to reject the evidence altogether by the upper tier courts. 20. The Supreme Court in Dattu Ramrao Sakhare and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 5 SCC 341 , in relation to child witnesses, held as under:- “5. ...A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. 20. The Supreme Court in Dattu Ramrao Sakhare and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 5 SCC 341 , in relation to child witnesses, held as under:- “5. ...A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to understand the questions and able to give rational answers thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored.” 21. The Supreme Court in P. Ramesh Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, (2019) 20 SCC 593 also held as under:- “15. In order to determine the competency of a child witness, the judge has to form her or his opinion. The judge is at the liberty to test the capacity of a child witness and no precise rule can be laid down regarding the degree of intelligence and knowledge which will render the child a competent witness. The competency of a child witness can be ascertained by questioning her/him to find out capability to understand the occurrence witnessed and to speak the truth before the court. In criminal proceedings, a person of any age is competent to give evidence if she/he is able to (i) understand questions put as a witness; and (ii) give such answers to the questions that can be understood. 22. The Apex Court in Pradeep Vs. State of Haryana (Supra) (Para 7) has also held as follows:- “7. We have carefully considered the submissions. The fate of the case depends on the testimony of the minor witness Ajay (PW1). Under Section 118 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, “the Evidence Act”), a child witness is competent to depose unless the Court considers that he is prevented from understanding the questions put to him, or from giving rational answers by the reason of his tender age. Under Section 118 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, “the Evidence Act”), a child witness is competent to depose unless the Court considers that he is prevented from understanding the questions put to him, or from giving rational answers by the reason of his tender age. As regards the administration of oath to a child witness, Section 4 of the Oaths Act, 1969 (for short “Oaths Act”) is relevant. Section 4 reads thus: “4. Oaths or affirmations to be made by witnesses, interpreters and jurors.—(1) Oaths or affirmations shall be made by the following persons, namely:— (a) all witnesses, that is to say, all persons who may lawfully be examined, or give, or be required to give, evidence by or before any court or person having by law or consent of parties authority to examine such persons or to receive evidence; (b) interpreters of questions put to, and evidence given by, witnesses; (c) jurors: Provided that where the witness is a child under twelve years of age, and the court or person having authority to examine such witness is of opinion that, though the witness understands the duty of speaking the truth, he does not understand the nature of an oath or affirmation, the foregoing provisions of this section and the provisions of Section 5 shall not apply to such witness; but in any such case the absence of an oath or affirmation shall not render inadmissible any evidence given by such witness nor affect the obligation of the witness to state the truth. (2) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..” Under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4, it is laid down that in case of a child witness under 12 years of age, unless satisfaction as required by the said proviso is recorded, an oath cannot be administered to the child witness. In this case, in the deposition of PW1 Ajay, it is mentioned that his age was 12 years at the time of the recording of evidence. Therefore, the proviso to Section 4 of the Oaths Act will not apply in this case. In this case, in the deposition of PW1 Ajay, it is mentioned that his age was 12 years at the time of the recording of evidence. Therefore, the proviso to Section 4 of the Oaths Act will not apply in this case. However, in view of the requirement of Section 118 of the Evidence Act, the learned Trial Judge was under a duty to record his opinion that the child is able to understand the questions put to him and that he is able to give rational answers to the questions put to him. The Trial Judge must also record his opinion that the child witness understands the duty of speaking the truth and state why he is of the opinion that the child understands the duty of speaking the truth.” 23. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that when the victim child was aged only about 8 years at the time when her deposition was recorded by the learned trial court, it was imperative, in terms of the judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, that the learned Trial Judge should have asked preliminary questions to the child, to be satisfied that the child was able to understand the questions put to her and she understood the duty of speaking the truth. No such steps were taken by the learned Trial Court. 24. In view of the above, considering the gravity of the offence, wherein, the appellant was charged and convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act for committing penetrative sexual assault upon a child aged between 3 to 5 years, we find that it would be appropriate to remand the case back to the Trial Court for denovo trial/re-trial wherein the learned Trial Court should examine the victim “X” by asking questions to the victim child and ascertain whether she is able to give rational answers to the questions, in line with the judgments of the Apex Court as highlighted and discussed above. Thereafter, the Trial Court should record whether the Court is satisfied that the child is competent to depose before the Court and understand the duty of speaking the truth, before her deposition is recorded. 25. Thereafter, the Trial Court should record whether the Court is satisfied that the child is competent to depose before the Court and understand the duty of speaking the truth, before her deposition is recorded. 25. This Court also finds that Section 233 CrPC is not violated in the instant case, since, on perusal of the case record of the Trial Court, there appeared to be ample opportunities for the defence counsel representing the accused/appellant, to mention before the Trial Court that they have defence witnesses whom they wish to produce in the Court. Further, on the case being remanded back to the learned Trial Court for re-trial, the appellant/accused has the opportunity to produce their defence witnesses, if felt necessary. 26. Accordingly, Crl. A. No. 26/2024 is disposed of as above. Registry to do the needful by sending the Trial Court records back to the learned Trial Court. 27. In appreciation of the services rendered by Mr. Victor L Ralte, and Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned Amicus Curiae and learned legal Aid Counsel respectively, the State Legal Services Authority is to pay the learned Amicus Curiae a fee of Rs. 8500/- and the learned Legal Aid Counsel a requisite fee as per existing rates.