REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal   Appeal No. 1934 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3884 of 2019)

Dr Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy                         …Appellant

Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors               …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

1 This appeal arises from the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court

of Andhra Pradesh dated 6 March 2019. A revision petition1 filed by the fourth

respondent against an order of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli was

allowed  and  directions  were  issued  for  the  framing  of  charges  against  the

appellant under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code 18602.  

2 On 10 March 2011, a First Information Report3 was lodged by the fourth

respondent, who is the father-in-law of the appellant, alleging that the appellant

and the members  of  his  family  had harassed his  daughter  with  demands for

1 Criminal Revision Case no 2712 of 2017 2 “IPC” 3 “FIR”

1

money and transfer of land in their names. The FIR recites that the appellant and

the daughter of the fourth respondent got married in 2003. Allegedly, in 2006 the

appellant and his family refused to take the complainant’s daughter to the United

Kingdom where  her  husband was  staying unless  her  Stridhana property  was

transferred in their names.   

3 On 30 June 2012, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and his

parents for offences under Section 498A of the IPC along with Sections 3 and 4

of  the  Dowry  Prohibition  Act  19614.  The  investigating  officer,  upon  receipt  of

additional information about the commission of other offences by the appellant,

obtained permission from the Trial Court for further investigation. Based on the

statements  of  various  witnesses  under  Section  161  of  the  Code  of  Criminal

Procedure 19735 with respect to the appellant raising a demand of Rs 5,00,000/-

for  securing  a  job  for  the  complainant’s  daughter  as  a  doctor  in  the  United

Kingdom, an additional charge-sheet was filed on 12 April 2013 in respect of the

alleged commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The Trial

Court framed charges against the appellant only for offences mentioned in the

original charge-sheet dated 30 June 2012 under Section 498A of the IPC along

with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial commenced and

after  the  recording  of  evidence  and  conclusion  of  arguments,  the  case  was

reserved for judgment on 13 February 2017.

4 On 13 February 2017, an application was filed by the Public Prosecutor

under Section 216 of CrPC for alteration of charge stating that even though an

4 “Dowry Prohibition Act” 5 “CrPC”

2

additional  charge-sheet  had been filed by the investigating officer  on 12 April

2013 implicating the appellant for crimes under Sections 406 and 420, charges

were not framed by the trial judge under those provisions. On 21 February 2017,

the Trial Court allowed the application and charges under Sections 406 and 420

were framed against the appellant. The Trial Court observed that the court only

had the opportunity of going through the original  charge-sheet dated 30 June

2012 and not the additional charge-sheet dated 12 April 2013 that was kept in a

separate bundle. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the appellant instituted

revisional proceedings before the High Court.

5 On 1 June 2017, a Single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision

petition6 and set aside the order of the Trial Court framing additional charges on

the ground of procedural irregularity but left it open to the Trial Court to frame, if

at all necessary, any additional charges after providing both the sides with an

opportunity of hearing and recalling witnesses.

6 The Trial Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the sides and

perusing  the  material  available  on  record  concluded  that  the  ingredients  for

offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC were not made out and by an order

dated 11 October 2017 rejected the application for framing additional charges.

The fourth respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court against the

above order of the Trial Court.

7 On 6 March 2019, a Single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision

petition7 and set aside the Trial Court’s order. The High Court held that the Trial

6 Criminal Revision Case no 661 of 2017  7 Criminal Revision Case no 2712 of 2017

3

Court  while  rejecting  the  application  under  Section  216  did  not  disclose  the

reasons for concluding that the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 were not

attracted and only touched upon the lapses of the prosecution in not seeking an

alteration of charges during the course of the trial. The High Court while directing

the framing of additional charges under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC evaluated

the witness statements brought on record during the course of investigation and

referred to the additional charge-sheet filed on 12 April 2013.

8 Aggrieved  by  the  order  dated  6  March  2019  of  the  High  Court,  the

appellant moved this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.  

9 Ms Anitha  Shenoy,  learned Senior  Counsel  appearing on behalf  of  the

appellant has urged the following submissions:  

(a) An  application  for  alteration  of  charge  under  Section  216  was

intentionally  filed  on  the  date  of  the  pronouncement  of  judgment  to

unnecessarily delay the proceedings; (b) The FIR dated 10 March 2011, filed by the fourth respondent, has no

mention of any demand or payment of Rs 5,00,000/- to the appellant for

securing a job for the complainant’s daughter. The FIR only refers to

facts with respect to alleged offences under Section 498A  of  the IPC

and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; (c) Both the fourth respondent and his daughter being doctors are aware

that a doctor’s job cannot be secured in the United Kingdom without

clearing  an  entrance  test.  Accordingly,  the  question  of  paying  Rs

5,00,000/- to the appellant for securing a job does not arise;

4

(d) PW 6, who is a friend of the fourth respondent is an interested witness

as they have been friends for the past twenty-five years; (e) PW  5,  who  is  the  brother-in-law  of  the  fourth  respondent,  is  an

interested witness and during the cross-examination he was unable to

mention the date, month and year on which the alleged amount was

paid to the fourth respondent for payment to the appellant. There exists

no  documentary  material  to  indicate  that  the  fourth  respondent

borrowed money from PW 5; and   (f) The ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 have not been fulfilled. At the

stage of framing of charge, the court is not expected to go deep into the

probative  value  of  the  material  on  record.  The  court  only  needs  to

consider whether there is ground for presuming that the offence has

been committed (Onkar Nath Mishra v The State8). There exists a fine

distinction between cheating and a mere breach of contract. It depends

upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may

be  judged  by  his  subsequent  conduct.  To  hold  a  person  guilty  of

cheating, it is necessary to show existence of  fraudulent or dishonest

intention at the time of making the promise. (Hridaya Ranjan Prasad

Verma v State of Bihar9).  

10 On the other hand, Mr A T M Ranga Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel,

appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent submitted thus:

(a) The fourth respondent did not intend to delay the pronouncement of the

decision. The additional charge sheet and the cognizance order had

been in place before the Trial Court since 2013. The additional charge-

8 (2008) 2 SCC 561 9 (2000) 4 SCC 168

5

sheet missed the attention of the Magistrate because it was kept in a

separate docket;  (b) The  charge  can  be  altered  by  the  court  at  any  time  before  the

pronouncement of  the judgment based on the materials  available or

subsequently brought on record during the course of the trial (Anant

Prakash  Sinha  v State  of  Haryana10).  In  the  present  case,  the

investigating  officer  filed  the  additional  charge-sheet  only  after  he

received  additional  information  during  the  course  of  investigation  in

relation to offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. Though,

the appellant was initially charged in pursuance of the original charge-

sheet  dated  30 June 2012,  subsequent  evidence brought  on record

does not restrict the court from altering the charge; and (c) At the time of framing of charge, it is sufficient if the court is able to form

a presumption regarding the existence of ingredients constituting the

offence found upon the material placed before it. It is not necessary for

the  court  to  undertake  an  analysis  of  the  credibility,  veracity  or

evidentiary  value of  the materials  placed before  it  (Sajjan Kumar  v

Central Bureau of Investigation11).

11 The rival submissions fall for our consideration.

12 In  the  present  case,  the  investigating  officer  upon  receipt  of  additional

information about the alleged commission of offences under Sections 406 and

420 by the appellant, obtained permission for further investigation. Statements of

witnesses recorded under Section 161 of CrPC indicated that the appellant had

raised a demand of Rs 5,00,000/- for securing a doctor’s job for the complainant’s

10 (2016) 6 SCC 105 11 (2010) 9 SCC 368

6

daughter in the United Kingdom. After investigation, an additional charge-sheet

was filed on 12 April 2013 against the appellant for offences under Sections 406

and 420 of the IPC. This is evident from the counter affidavit filed by the fourth

respondent before this Court which contains the docket order of the Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. In an order dated 16 August 2013 it was stated:

“...  Additional charge sheet filed by investigating officer through learned APP. This case was taken on file u/s 498 -A of  IPC  and  Sec.  4  of  D.P.  Act  against  A.1  to  A.3  on 28.09.2012.  Perused  the  Addl.  Charge  Sheet  and  other available material on record. Heard learned APP. It is a fit case  to  take  on  file  Section  406  and  420  of  IPC  also against A.1. Call on 16.09.2013.”           (Emphasis supplied)

The order dated 13 February 2017 stated thus:

“... In the case on hand, initially charge sheet was filed for the offence u/s 498-A IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and  the  cognizance  was  taken  for  those  offences  by  my predecessor. Later an additional charge sheet was filed by the investigation officer in this case and my predecessor was please to take cognizance of offences punishable u/s 406, 420 IPC also on 16.08.2013. But the fact of filing of additional charge sheet was not brought to the notice of this Court and the additional charge sheet was kept as a separate bundle in the record. So, charges were framed against the accused only for the offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC and Sec. 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sect. 406 and 420 of IPC were ignored. This fact came out to the notice of this Court while this Court has gone through the entire record after hearing arguments for disposal of the case. On 13.02.2017 the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor has also filed a petition u/s  216 of  CrPC, with a prayer to add Section  406,  420  of  IPC  and  to  frame  charges  for  those offences also...”                              (Emphasis supplied)

13 It is evident from the record that the earlier Additional Junior Civil Judge

perused  the  additional  charge-sheet  and  took  cognizance  of  offences  under

Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. However, at the time of framing charges, the

7

additional charge-sheet was not brought to the notice of the court and the framing

of  charges  against  the  appellant  under  Sections  406  and  420  was  not

considered. Therefore, the appellant was charged only for offences under Section

498A of the IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was

when  an  application  under  Section  216  of  CrPC  was  filed  by  the  public

prosecutor on 13 February 2017 that it  was brought to the notice of  the Trial

Judge that charges under Sections 406 and 420 were not framed.   

14 In order to adjudicate upon the dispute, it is necessary to refer to Section

216 of CrPC:

“216. Court may alter charge.—(1) Any court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.

(2)  Every  such  alteration  or  addition  shall  be  read  and explained to the accused.

(3)  If  the  alteration  or  addition  to  a  charge  is  such  that proceeding  immediately  with  the  trial  is  not  likely,  in  the opinion of the court, to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge.

(4)  If  the  alteration  or  addition  is  such  that  proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary.

(5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until  such sanction is obtained,  unless sanction has been already obtained for  a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded.”

15 Section 216 appears in Chapter XVII of the CrPC. Under the provisions of

Section 216, the court is authorised to alter or add to the charge at any time

8

before the judgment is pronounced. Whenever such an alteration or addition is

made, it is to be read out and explained to the accused. The phrase “add to any

charge”  in  Sub-Section  (1)  includes  addition  of  a  new charge.  The  provision

enables the alteration or addition of  a charge based on materials  brought  on

record  during  the  course  of  trial.  Section  216  provides  that  the  addition  or

alteration has to be done “at  any time before judgment is  pronounced”.  Sub-

Section (3) provides that if the alteration or addition to a charge does not cause

prejudice to the accused in his defence, or the persecutor in the conduct of the

case, the court may proceed with the trial as if the additional or alternative charge

is  the  original  charge.  Sub-Section  (4)  contemplates  a  situation  where  the

addition  or  alteration of  charge will  prejudice the accused and empowers  the

court to either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be

necessary to mitigate the prejudice likely to be caused to the accused. Section

217 of the CrPC deals with recalling of witnesses when the charge is altered or

added by the court after commencement of the trial.

16 The decision of a two-judge Bench of this Court in P Kartikalakshmi v Sri

Ganesh12,  dealt with a case where during the course of a trial for an offence

under Section 376 of the IPC, an application under Section 216 was filed to frame

an additional charge for an offence under Section 417 of the IPC. Justice F M

Ibrahim Kalifulla, while dealing with the power of the court to alter or add any

charge, held:

“6. ... Section 216 CrPC empowers the Court to alter or add any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It is  now  well  settled  that  the  power  vested  in  the  Court  is

12 (2017) 3 SCC 347

9

exclusive to the Court and there is no right in any party to seek for such addition or alteration by filing any application as a matter of right. It may be that if there was an omission in the  framing  of  the  charge  and  if  it  comes  to  the knowledge of the Court trying the offence, the power is always vested in the Court,  as provided under Section 216 CrPC to either alter or add the charge and that such power is available with the Court at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It is an enabling provision for the  Court  to  exercise  its  power  under  certain contingencies which comes to its notice or brought to its notice. In such a situation, if it comes to the knowledge of the Court that a necessity has arisen for the charge to be altered or added, it may do so on its own  and no order need to be passed for that purpose. After such alteration or addition when the final decision is rendered, it will be open for the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law.”

   (Emphasis supplied)

17 In Anant Prakash Sinha v State of Haryana13, a two judge Bench of this

Court  dealt  with a situation where for  commission of  offences under Sections

498A and  323  of  the  IPC,  an  application  was  filed  for  framing  an  additional

charge under Section 406 of the IPC against the husband and the mother-in law.

After referring to various decisions of this Court that dealt with the power of the

court to alter a charge, Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then

was), held:

“18. ... the court can change or alter the charge if there is defect or something is left out. The test is, it must be founded on the material available on record. It can be on the basis of the complaint  or  the FIR  or  accompanying documents or  the material brought on record during the course of trial. It can also  be  done  at  any  time  before  pronouncement  of judgment. It is not necessary to advert to each and every circumstance. Suffice it to say, if the court has not framed a charge despite the material on record, it has the jurisdiction to add a charge. Similarly, it has the authority to alter the charge. The principle that has to be kept in mind is that the charge so framed by the Magistrate is in accord with the materials produced before him or if  subsequent evidence

13 (2016) 6 SCC 105

10

comes  on  record. It  is  not  to  be  understood  that  unless evidence has  been let  in,  charges already framed cannot  be altered, for that is not the purport of Section 216 CrPC.   

19. In  addition  to  what  we  have  stated  hereinabove,  another aspect also has to be kept in mind. It is obligatory on the part of the court to see that no prejudice is caused to the accused and he is allowed to have a fair trial. There are in-built safeguards in Section 216 CrPC. It is the duty of the trial court to bear in mind that  no  prejudice  is  caused  to  the  accused  as  that  has  the potentiality to affect a fair trial...”          (Emphasis supplied)

18 In CBI v Karimullah Osan Khan14, this Court dealt with a case where an

application was filed under Section 216 of CrPC during the course of trial  for

addition of charges against the appellant under various provisions of the IPC, the

Explosives Act 1884 and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act

1987. Justice K S P Radhakrishnan, speaking for the Court, held thus:

“17. Section 216 CrPC gives considerable  power to the trial court, that is, even after the completion of evidence, arguments heard and the judgment reserved, it can alter and  add  to  any  charge,  subject  to  the  conditions mentioned therein. The expressions “at  any time”  and before the “judgment is pronounced” would indicate that the  power  is  very  wide  and  can  be  exercised,  in appropriate cases, in the interest of justice, but at the same time,  the  courts  should  also  see that  its  orders  would  not cause any prejudice to the accused.

18. Section  216  CrPC  confers  jurisdiction  on  all  courts, including the Designated Courts, to alter or add to any charge framed earlier, at any time before the judgment is pronounced and sub-sections (2) to (5) prescribe the procedure which has to be followed after that addition or alteration.  Needless to say,  the  courts  can  exercise  the  power  of  addition  or modification  of  charges  under  Section  216  CrPC,  only when there exists some material before the court, which has some connection or link with the charges sought to be  amended,  added  or  modified.  In  other  words, alteration or addition of a charge must be for an offence made out by the evidence recorded during the course of trial before the court.”              

14 (2014) 11 SCC 538

11

(Emphasis supplied)

19 In Jasvinder Saini v State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)15, this Court dealt with

the  question  whether  the  Trial  Court  was  justified  in  adding  a  charge  under

Section 302 of the IPC against the accused persons who were charged under

Section 304B of the IPC. Justice T S Thakur (as he then was) speaking for the

Court, held thus:

“11. A plain  reading of  the  above would  show that  the court's power to alter or add any charge is unrestrained provided such addition and/or alteration is made before the  judgment  is  pronounced. Sub-sections  (2)  to  (5)  of Section 216 deal with the procedure to be followed once the court decides to alter or add any charge. Section 217 of the Code deals with the recall of witnesses when the charge is altered or added by the court after commencement of the trial. There can, in the light of the above, be no doubt about the competence of the court to add or alter a charge at any time before  the  judgment.  The  circumstances  in  which  such addition  or  alteration  may  be  made  are  not,  however, stipulated in Section 216. It is all the same trite that the question  of  any  such  addition  or  alternation  would generally arise either because the court finds the charge already framed to be defective for any reason or because such  addition  is  considered  necessary  after  the commencement of the trial having regard to the evidence that may come before the court.”            

   (Emphasis supplied)

20 From the above line of precedents, it is clear that Section 216 provides the

court an exclusive and wide-ranging power to change or alter any charge. The

use of the words “at any time before judgment is pronounced” in Sub-Section (1)

empowers the court to exercise its powers of altering or adding charges  even

after the completion of evidence, arguments and reserving of the judgment. The

alteration or addition of a charge may be done if in the opinion of the court there

15 (2013) 7 SCC 256

12

was an omission in the framing of charge or if upon prima facie examination of

the material brought on record, it leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as

to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The

test to be adopted by the court while deciding upon an addition or alteration of a

charge is that the material brought on record needs to have a direct link or nexus

with  the  ingredients  of  the  alleged  offence.  Addition  of  a  charge  merely

commences  the  trial  for  the  additional  charges,  whereupon,  based  on  the

evidence, it is to be determined whether the accused may be convicted for the

additional  charges.  The  court  must  exercise  its  powers  under  Section  216

judiciously and ensure that no prejudice is caused to the accused and that he is

allowed  to  have  a  fair  trial.  The  only  constraint  on  the  court’s  power  is  the

prejudice  likely  to  be  caused to  the  accused by  the  addition  or  alteration  of

charges. Sub-Section (4) accordingly prescribes the approach to be adopted by

the courts where prejudice may be caused.  

21 The appellant has relied upon a two-judge Bench decision of this Court in

Onkar Nath Mishra v The State16 to substantiate the point that the ingredients of

Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC have not been established. This Court while

dealing with the nature of evaluation by a court at the stage of framing of charge,

held thus:  

“11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom,  taken  at  their  face  value,  disclosed  the existence of all  the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into  the  probative  value  of  the  material  on  record.  What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not

16 (2008) 2 SCC 561

13

a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At  that  stage,  even  strong  suspicion  founded  on  material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of  the factual  ingredients  constituting the offence alleged  would  justify  the  framing  of  charge  against  the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.”

   (Emphasis supplied)

22 In  the  present  case,  the  High  Court  while  directing  the  framing  the

additional charges has evaluated the material and evidence brought on record

after investigation and held:

“LW1 is the father of the de facto complainant, who states that his son in law i.e., the first accused promised that he would look after his daughter at United Kingdom (UK) and promised to provide Doctor job at UK and claimed Rs.5 lakhs for the said purpose and received the same and he took his daughter to the UK. He states that his son-in-law made him believe and received Rs.5 lakhs in the presence of elders. He states that he could not mention about the cheating done by his son-in- law,  when  he  was  examined  earlier.  LW13,  who  is  an independent witness, also supports the version of LW1 and states that Rs.5 lakhs were received by A1 with a promise that  he  would  secure  doctor  job  to  the  complainant’s daughter.  He  states  that  A1  cheated  LW1,  stating  that  he would provide job and received Rs.5 lakhs. LW14, also is an independent witness and he supported the version of LW13. He further states that A1 left his wife and child in India and went away after receiving Rs.5 lakhs.  

Hence, from the above facts, stated by LWs. 13 and 14, prima facie, the version of LW1 that he gave Rs.5 lakhs to A1 on a promise that he would provide a job to his daughter and that A1 did not provide any job and cheated him, receives support from LWs. 13 and 14. When the amount is entrusted to A1, with  a  promise  to  provide  a  job  and  when  he  fails  to provide the job and does not return the amount, it can be made out that A1 did not have any intention to provide job  to  his  wife  and  that  he  utilised  the  amount  for  a purpose other than the purpose for which he collected the amount from LW1, which would suffice to attract the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Whether there is truth in the improved version of LW.1 and what have been the reasons for his lapse in not stating the same in his earlier statement, can be adjudicated at the time of trial.  

14

It is also evidence from the record that the additional charge sheet filed by the investigating officer, missed the attention of the lower court due to which the additional charges could not be framed.”                

   (Emphasis supplied)

23 The test  adopted by  the High  Court  is  correct  and in  accordance with

decisions of  this  Court.  In  the counter  affidavit  filed by the fourth  respondent

before this Court, depositions of PW 1 (LW 1), PW 5 (LW 12) and PW 6 (LW 13)

and  their  cross-examination  have  been  annexed.  The  material  on  record

supports the possibility that in April 2006, the appellant demanded Rs 5,00,000/-

from PW 1, who is the complainant,  in order to secure a doctor’s job for the

complainant’s daughter in the United Kingdom. According to PW 1, he borrowed

the amount from PW 5 (brother-in-law of PW 1) and paid it to the appellant in the

presence of  PW 5 and PW 6 (friend of  PW 1).  Without  pronouncing on the

probative value of such evidence, there exists sufficient material on record that

shows a connection or link with the ingredients of the offences under Sections

406 and 420 of the IPC, and the charges sought to be added.  

24 The veracity of the depositions made by the witnesses is a question of trial

and need not be determined at the time of framing of charge. Appreciation of

evidence on merit is to be done by the court only after the charges have been

framed and the trial  has commenced. However,  for the purpose of framing of

charge  the  court  needs  to  prima  facie  determine  that  there  exists  sufficient

material  for  the  commencement  of  trial.  The  High  Court  has relied  upon the

materials  on record and concluded that  the ingredients of  the offences under

Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are attracted. The High Court has spelt out the

15

reasons  that  have  necessitated  the  addition  of  the  charge  and  hence,  the

impugned order does not warrant any interference.

25 We accordingly dismiss the appeal. The trial proceedings pending before

the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli shall continue.  

26 Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

…..............................................................J.                         [Dr DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD]

…..............................................................J.           [HRISHIKESH ROY]

New Delhi; January 21, 2020.

16