Page 1

       REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  730           OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3404 of 2013)

Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy                 .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Central Bureau of Investigation       ....  Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and  

order  dated  24.01.2013  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  

Judicature  of  Andhra  Pradesh  at  Hyderabad  in  Criminal  

Petition No. 8750 of 2012 in R.C. 19(A)/2011-CBI-Hyderabad,  

whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the  

appellant herein for grant of bail.  

1

Page 2

3) The only question posed for  consideration is  whether  

the appellant-herein has made out a case for bail.  

Brief facts:

4) (a) On the orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh  

in  Writ  Petition  Nos.  794,  6604  and  6979  of  2011  dated  

10.08.2011,  the  Central  Bureau  of  Investigation  (in  short  

“the  CBI”),  Hyderabad,  registered  a  case  being  R.C.  No.  

19(A)/2011-CBI-Hyderabad dated 17.08.2011 under Section  

120B read with Sections 420, 409 and 477-A of the Indian  

Penal  Code,  1860 (for  short  ‘IPC’)  and Section 13(2)  read  

with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption  

Act, 1988 (in short “the PC Act”) against Y.S. Jagan Mohan  

Reddy (A-1), Member of Parliament and 73 others.     

(b) The appellant-Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy was named as  

an accused at Sl. No. 1 in the FIR dated 17.08.2011 (after  

the  chargesheet  was  framed,  he  was  arrayed as  A-1  and  

hereinafter, he will be referred to as A-1).   

(c) During  investigation,  it  was  revealed  that  Y.S.  Jagan  

Mohan Reddy (A-1), son of Late Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy,  

the  then  Chief  Minister  of  Andhra  Pradesh,  has  adopted  

2

Page 3

several  ingenious  ways  to  amass  illegal  wealth  which  

resulted in great public injury.  The then Chief Minister of the  

State abused his public office to the benefit of his son Y.S.  

Jagan  Mohan  Reddy  (A-1).   Since  May,  2004,  A-1  started  

floating  a  number  of  companies  including  M/s  Jagathi  

Publications Pvt. Ltd., which was originally incorporated as a  

private limited company on 14.11.2006 and later converted  

into  a  public  limited  company  on  12.01.2009.   At  the  

relevant time, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1) was designated  

as the Authorised Signatory to operate the Bank accounts of  

the  said  Company.   He  was  appointed  as  a  Director  and  

Chairman with effect from 21.06.2007.  It is alleged that A-1  

floated M/s Jagathi Publications Pvt. Ltd. with an objective of  

conducting media business with the ill-gotten wealth.  Most  

of the shareholders were alleged to be the benamis of Y.S.  

Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1).   Further,  as  a  quid pro  quo to  

these  investments,  the  benefits  were  received  by  various  

investors  including  the  companies/individuals  from  the  

decisions of the State Government in allotment of lands for  

Special  Economic  Zones  (SEZs),  contracts  for  irrigation  

3

Page 4

projects,  special  relaxations/permissions  for  real  estate  

ventures, mines etc.  It is further revealed that Y.S. Jagan  

Mohan Reddy (A-1) laundered the bribe money by routing it  

through  various  individuals  and  companies  and  getting  

investments  made  by  them  in  his  companies  at  a  high  

premium.

(d) On  31.03.2012,  23.04.2012  and  07.05.2012,  the  CBI  

filed  first,  second  and  third  charge  sheet(s)  respectively  

before the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad and the  

appellant was arrayed as A-1 in all the charge sheets.  The  

Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases took cognizance of the  

charge sheet dated 31.03.2012 which was numbered as CC  

No. 8 of 2012.  The appellant was arrested on 27.05.2012 for  

his involvement and complicity in the case and presently, he  

is in judicial custody.  On 29.05.2012 and 30.05.2012, the  

Principal  Special  Judge  for  CBI  Cases  took  cognizance  of  

second and third charge sheet(s) which were numbered as  

CC Nos. 9 and 10 of 2012 respectively.

(e) On  29.05.2012,  the  appellant  filed  Crl.  M.P.  No.  

1055/2012  in  CC  No.  8  of  2012  before  the  Court  of  the  

4

Page 5

Special Judge for CBI Cases at Hyderabad for grant of regular  

bail  under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,  

1973 (in short ‘the Code’). The Special Judge, by order dated  

01.06.2012, dismissed his application for bail.   

(f) The CBI filed Criminal Petition Nos. 4743 and 4744 of  

2012  before  the  High  Court  for  the  remand  of  A-1  for  a  

period  of  5  days.   The  High  Court,  by  order  dated  

02.06.2012, allowed the petitions and remanded A-1 to the  

custody  of  the  CBI  from  03.06.2012  to  07.06.2012.   By  

further  orders  dated  08.06.2012  in  Crl.  M.P.  No.  4785  of  

2012 in Criminal Petition No. 4743 of 2012, the custody was  

extended to a further period of 2 days.

(g) Being aggrieved, the appellant moved the High Court  

for  enlarging him on bail  in  Criminal  Petition No.  5211 of  

2012.  The High Court, taking note of serious nature of the  

offence and having regard to personal and financial clout of  

the appellant (A-1) and finding that it cannot be ruled out  

that  witnesses cannot be influenced by him in case he is  

released  on  bail  at  this  stage,  by  impugned  order  dated  

04.07.2012, dismissed his bail application.  

5

Page 6

(h) Being aggrieved by the orders dated 02.06.2012 and  

04.07.2012,  the  appellant  preferred  two  special  leave  

petitions  being  Nos.  5901  and  5902  of  2012  before  this  

Court.  This Court, by order dated 09.08.2012, issued notice  

in SLP (Crl.) No. 5902 of 2012 and dismissed SLP (Crl.) No.  

5901 of 2012.

(i) On 13.08.2012, the CBI filed fourth charge sheet in the  

Court  of  Principal  Special  Judge for  CBI  Cases,  Hyderabad  

which was numbered as CC No. 14 of 2012.  

(j) This Court, on coming to know that the investigation is  

continuing  in  connection  with  7  matters,  dismissed  the  

special leave petition being SLP (Crl.) 5902 of 2012 by order  

dated 05.10.2012 with a direction to the CBI to complete the  

investigation as early as possible and to file a consolidated  

charge sheet  on the  remaining 7 issues.   This  Court  also  

directed the appellant to renew his prayer for bail before the  

trial court on completion of the investigation by the CBI.   

(k) On 16.11.2012, the appellant filed Crl. M.P. No. 1938 of  

2012  before  the  Special  Judge  for  CBI  Cases,  Hyderabad,  

seeking  default/statutory  bail.   On  the  same  day,  the  

6

Page 7

appellant filed Crl. M.P. No. 1939 of 2012 in CC No. 8 of 2012  

before the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, seeking  

regular bail.  By orders dated 28.11.2012 and 04.12.2012,  

the Special Judge rejected the bail applications filed by the  

appellant herein in Crl. M.P. No. 1938 of 2012 and Crl. M.P.  

No. 1939 of 2012 respectively.

(l) The appellant  preferred Criminal  Petition No.  8576 of  

2012 before the High Court for grant of bail which came to  

be dismissed on 24.12.2012.  Being aggrieved, the appellant  

preferred Criminal Petition No. 8750 of 2012 before the High  

Court.   The  High  Court,  by  order  dated  24.01.2013,  

dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein.

(m)  Being  aggrieved  by  the  order  of  the  High  Court,  the  

appellant herein has preferred this appeal by way of special  

leave.

5) Heard Mr. Harish N. Salve, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and  Mr.  

K.V. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel for the appellant-

accused and Mr. Ashok Bhan and Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned  

senior counsel for the respondent-CBI.   

7

Page 8

6) The CBI has filed a counter affidavit dated 06.05.2013,  

sworn by a senior officer, namely, Deputy Inspector General  

of  Police  and  Chief  Investigating  Officer  in  RC  No.  

19(A)/2011-CBI-HYD and has furnished various  information  

such  as  allegations  against  the  appellant,  

companies/persons involved, investigation conducted so far  

and  progress  of  the  investigation  with  regard  to  certain  

companies/persons.  During the course of hearing, the CBI  

also circulated the Status Report in respect of the FIR being  

No. 19(A)/2011-CBI-HYD regarding 7 issues mentioned in the  

order  of  this  Court  dated  05.10.2012.   Learned  senior  

counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant,  by  drawing  our  

attention to various materials/details including the fact that  

the appellant is in custody nearly for a period of 1 year and  

many  persons  alleged  to  have  been  involved  in  those  

transactions  are  not  in  custody  and  no  steps  have  been  

taken  by  the  CBI  for  their  arrest,  submitted  that  the  

appellant  may  be  enlarged  on  bail  after  imposing  

appropriate conditions.   

8

Page 9

7)  In  order  to  appreciate  the  rival  contentions,  

particularly,  the stand of  the CBI,  it  is  useful  to  refer  the  

earlier order passed by this Court on 05.10.2012 which reads  

as under:

“SLP (Crl.)No. 5902 of 2012

Heard  Mr.  Gopal  Subramaniam,  learned  senior  advocate appearing for the petitioner at some length.

Mr.  Mohan  Parasaran,  learned  ASG  appearing  on  behalf of the CBI, submitted before us a report from which  it  appears  that  the  investigation  is  still  going  on  in  connection  with  seven  matters.   In  paragraph  9  of  the  report, it is stated as under:

“…..The matters which are pending investigation also  involved  investigation  into  various  serious  economic  offences involving hundreds of crores of rupees.  The major  matters  which  are  now  under  investigation  relating  to  conspiracies distinctly involving the following entities which  by  themselves  are  independent  to  each  other  and  are,  therefore, distinct conspiracies. (i) Sandur Power Co. Ltd. (ii) Grant of mining lease to Bharti  Cements/Raghuram  

Cements which are companies none other than own  companies of A1, Mr. JMR.

(iii) Penna Cements and Group companies (iv) Dalmia Cements (v) India Cements (vi) Investment  through  paper  companies  based  in  

Kolkata and Mumbai,  popularly  known as suit  case  companies.

(vii) Indu Projects, Lepakshi knowledge Hub

The  amounts  involved  and  which  is  subject  matter  of  investigation in the above cases as per estimates exceed  Rs.3000 crores.”  

     (emphasis in the original) Mr.  Parasaran  stated  that  the  CBI  is  making  

investigation without wasting any time and he assured the  

9

Page 10

Court that the investigation will be completed as early as  possible  and on  completion  of  the  investigation  the  CBI  shall submit one final charge-sheet.

On  hearing  counsel  for  the  parties  and  on  going  through  the  report  submitted  by  the  CBI,  we  are  not  inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage.

The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

It will be, however, open to the petitioner to renew  his prayer for bail before the trial court on completion of  the  investigation  by  the  CBI  on  the  issues  as  indicated  above and submission of the final charge-sheet.

In  case,  such  a  prayer  is  made,  the  Court  shall  consider  the  prayer  for  bail  independently,  on  its  own  merits,  without  being influenced by the  dismissal  of  the  special leave petition.

SLP(Crl.)No.5946 of 2012

Put up after two weeks.”

  8) Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned senior counsel for the CBI, by  

pointing out the penultimate paragraph in the order dated  

05.10.2012, i.e., “It will be, however, open to the petitioner  

to  renew  his  prayer  for  bail  before  the  trial  Court  on  

completion of the investigation by the CBI on the issues as  

indicated above and submission of the final charge-sheet”,  

submitted that in view of the fact that the investigation is  

still continuing in respect of the transaction(s) with certain  

10

Page 11

companies/persons, the  present application for bail  is not  

maintainable.   

9) It is relevant to note that in the order dated 05.10.2012,  

this Court noted the statement made by learned ASG, who  

appeared  for  the  CBI,  that  the  investigation  relating  to  

conspiracies  distinctly  involving  7  entities  which  by  

themselves are independent to each other requires further  

time.  According to learned senior counsel for the CBI, they  

require  4-6 months’  time to complete the investigation in  

respect of the 7 entities as mentioned in the order dated  

05.12.2012 and to file  a  charge sheet.   In  support  of  the  

above claim, the CBI pointed out various instances from the  

counter affidavit as well as from the Status Report justifying  

their stand for the dismissal of the bail application.

10) In  the  Status  Report,  the  CBI  has  assured  that  the  

investigation is being carried out expeditiously as directed  

by this Court.  It is stated that among 7 issues, the CBI has  

completed  the  investigation  with  respect  to  M/s  Dalmia  

Cements  and  consequently  filed  the  charge  sheet  in  the  

Court  of  Special  Judge  for  CBI  Cases,  Hyderabad  on  

11

Page 12

08.04.2013.   According  to  the  CBI,  presently,  the  

investigation  is  progressing  with  regard  to  other  6  issues  

also and the CBI is in the final stages of investigation with  

respect  to  the  following,  viz.,  M/s  India  Cements,  Penna  

Cements and Investments through Kolkata companies.  It is  

also assured to this Court that the CBI is likely to file charge  

sheet/final reports in the above said three issues shortly.   

11) The CBI in its Status Report has elaborated the progress  

with  regard  to  the  investigation  in  the  remaining  issues  

which are as under:-

M/s Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd.

(a) The  investigation  has  revealed  that  M/s  Dalmia  

Cements (Bharat) Ltd. invested an amount of Rs. 95 crores  

into M/s Raghuram Cements Ltd. represented by Y.S Jagan  

Mohan  Reddy.   In  quid  pro  quo to  the  investments,  A-1,  

through  his  influence  over  his  father  Late  Dr.  Y.S.  

Rajasekhara  Reddy  facilitated  the  grant  and  transfer  of  

mining lease to the extent of 407 hectares in Kadapa District  

of  Andhra  Pradesh to  M/s  Dalmia  Cements.   The CBI  has  

highlighted the amount involved and the facilities provided  

12

Page 13

by the father of the appellant. It is further highlighted in the  

Status  Report  that  the  searches  were  conducted  by  the  

Income  Tax  Department,  New  Delhi  at  the  offices  of  M/s  

Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd. and the residential premises  

of their employees.   

(b) It  is  also  highlighted  that  as  per  the  pre-arranged  

agreement between Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1), V. Vijay  

Sai  Reddy  (A-2)  and  Puneet  Dalmia,  M/s  Dalmia  Cements  

(Bharat) Ltd. sold of their stake in M/s Raghuram Cements  

Ltd. to M/s PARFICIM, France, for a total consideration of Rs.  

135 crores out of which, an amount of Rs. 55 crores was paid  

to Y.S.  Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1) between 16.05.2010 and  

13.06.2011,  in  cash  through  hawala  channels,  and  the  

details  of  the  said  payments  were  found  in  the  material  

seized by the Income Tax Department, New Delhi.

(c) The CBI has further alleged that M/s Dalmia Cements  

(Bharat) Ltd. have returned the alleged sale proceeds to Y.S.  

Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1) in cash through hawala channels  

which  clearly  establish  that  the  initial  payment  of  Rs.  95  

crores was only illegal  gratification for  the undue benefits  

13

Page 14

received by them from the Government of Andhra Pradesh  

and was not genuine investments.   It  is further submitted  

that the charge sheet has already been filed with regard to  

the same on 08.04.2013 against A-1 and 12 others under  

various sections of the IPC and the PC Act.

M/s Sandur Power Company Ltd.

(a) Regarding  the  investigation  relating  to  M/s  Sandur  

Power Company Ltd., it is stated by the CBI that Y.S. Jagan  

Mohan Reddy (A-1) was the Director of this Company from  

16.06.2001 to 11.01.2010.   M/s Sandur Power Company Ltd.  

was  incorporated  on  23.10.1998  by  M.B.  Ghorpade  and  

subsequently,  Y.S.  Jagan  Mohan  Reddy  (A-1)  joined  the  

company during June 2001 along with the Board of Directors,  

viz., Harish C. Kamarthy and JJ. Reddy.  It is alleged by the  

CBI that the Company is closely held by Y.S. Jagan Mohan  

Reddy  (A-1).   The  CBI  also  highlighted  various  share  

transactions  amounting  to  Rs.  124.60  crores  with  two  

Mauritius based companies, viz., M/s 2i Capital and M/s Pluri  

Emerging Company by M/s Sandur Power Company Ltd.  It is  

projected by the CBI that the above said amount is of A-1  

14

Page 15

which was routed through the Mauritius based companies.  It  

is also highlighted that the role of Nimmagadda Prasad (A-3),  

who  is  currently  under  judicial  custody  is  also  being  

investigated for the same.  Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2), along with  

Y.S.  Jagan  Mohan  Reddy  (A-1),  was  the  brain  behind  this  

conspiracy inasmuch as A-2 had floated fictitious companies  

in Chennai so as to enable round tripping or routing monies  

into M/s Sandur Power Company Ltd. from India and foreign  

countries through companies falsely created in Chennai as  

well as in certain foreign countries.   

(b) It  is also pointed out by the CBI that notice has also  

been issued to one Maiank Mehta, who is suspected to be  

the person who handled the routing of money of Y.S. Jagan  

Mohan  Reddy  (A-1)  and  notice  has  been  issued  for  his  

presence in  India  for  examination and interrogation.   The  

said person is presently based in Hong Kong and is refusing  

to come to India citing frivolous reasons.  It is suspected that  

he is being influenced by Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1) and  

Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2) which amply prove that the witnesses  

are being influenced by these persons in this case.   

15

Page 16

Grant  of  Mining Lease to  Bharti  Cements/Raghuram  Cements:

It  is  pointed  out  by  the  CBI  that  investigation  is  under  

progress  regarding  grant  of  mining  lease  of  limestone  to  

Bharti  Cements/Raghuram  Cements  which  are  the  

companies owned by Y.S.  Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1).   It  is  

claimed by the CBI that during the period under review, they  

have collected nearly 400 documents running into thousands  

of pages from various Departments/Banks including Oriental  

Bank of Commerce, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Koramangala,  

Bangalore,  Head  Office,  Gurgaon  etc.  for  disbursement  of  

loan  of  Rs.  200  crores  violating  the  bank  guidelines  and  

rules.  It is also stated that the investigation disclosed the  

payment of illegal gratification of Rs. 30 crores to Y.S. Jagan  

Mohan  Reddy  (A-1)  by  Nimmagadda  Prasad  (A-3)  for  the  

wrongful  gain  obtained  by  A-3  from  the  Government  of  

Andhra  Pradesh  in  connection  with  awarding  a  project  

consisting of development of two Sea Ports and an Industrial  

Corridor as VANPIC Project and falsification of documents to  

cover up the said payment etc.

16

Page 17

M/s Indu Projects Ltd. (M/s Lepakshi Knowledge Hub  Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Indus Tech Zone Pvt. Ltd.)

The CBI has pointed out that the investigation is in progress  

in  respect  of  the above said group of  companies.   In  the  

Status Report, the CBI has highlighted a number of details  

about  the  nexus  of  the  appellant  along  with  those  

companies.  Since the investigation is still under progress in  

respect of those companies, we are not highlighting all those  

details furnished by the CBI in the Status Report.

M/s India Cements Ltd.

The  CBI  has  highlighted  the  investigation  relating  to  M/s  

India  Cements  Ltd.  and  the  various  amounts  exchanged  

between the parties.  In respect of the above, according to  

the CBI, they had made illegal  quid pro quo investments to  

the tune of Rs.140 crores into the group companies of Y.S.  

Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1) and had received several benefits  

in the form of permissions granted for utilization/additional  

quantity of water from Kagna and Krishna Rivers and lease  

of land.  It is also pointed out that the investigation in the  

case is almost complete except few more crucial witnesses  

17

Page 18

have to be examined.  The CBI also pointed out the details of  

investigation  relating  to  investment  through  paper  

companies based in Kolkata and Mumbai, popularly known  

as suit case companies.  Since investigation is on a half way,  

we are not referring all those details mentioned in the Status  

Report.

12) It is further pointed out that during investigation, a total  

number  of  140  witnesses  including  IAS  officers  and  

concerned  Ministers  have  been  examined  and  352  

documents  were  collected.  According  to  the  CBI,  out  of  

these, some more crucial witnesses have to be examined.    

13) Learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant  

pointed out that after the order dated 05.10.2012, the CBI is  

not  justified  in  prolonging  the  same  just  to  continue  the  

custody of the appellant.  It was also highlighted that even  

according to the CBI, several Ministers and IAS officers are  

involved, but no one has been arrested so far.   As far as  

those allegations are concerned, it  is the claim of the CBI  

that considering the huge magnitude of transactions, various  

beneficiaries, companies/persons involved with A-1 and his  

18

Page 19

associates,  the  CBI  is  taking  effective  steps  for  early  

completion of the same.  Though learned senior counsel for  

the appellant submitted that in view of non-compliance of  

Section 167 of the Code the appellant is entitled to statutory  

bail,  in  view  of  enormous  materials  placed  in  respect  of  

distinct entities, various transactions etc. and in the light of  

the  permission  granted  by  this  Court  in  the  order  dated  

05.10.2012,  we  are  unable  to  accept  the  argument  of  

learned senior counsel for the appellant.

14) On going into all the details furnished by the CBI in the  

form  of  Status  Report  and  the  counter  affidavit  dated  

06.05.2013 sworn by the Deputy Inspector General of Police  

and  Chief  Investigating  Officer,  Hyderabad,  without  

expressing any opinion on the merits,  we feel that at this  

stage, the release of the appellant (A-1) would hamper the  

investigation as it may influence the witnesses and tamper  

with  the  material  evidence.   Though  it  is  pointed  out  by  

learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellant  that  since  the  

appellant is in no way connected with the persons in power,  

we are of the view that the apprehension raised by the CBI  

19

Page 20

cannot  be  lightly  ignored  considering  the  claim  that  the  

appellant  is  the  ultimate  beneficiary  and  the  prime  

conspirator in huge monetary transactions.   

15) Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to  

be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The  

economic  offence  having  deep  rooted  conspiracies  and  

involving  huge  loss  of  public  funds  needs  to  be  viewed  

seriously  and  considered  as  grave  offences  affecting  the  

economy  of  the  country  as  a  whole  and  thereby  posing  

serious threat to the financial health of the country.

16) While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the  

nature  of  accusations,  the  nature  of  evidence  in  support  

thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will  

entail,  the  character  of  the  accused,  circumstances which  

are  peculiar  to  the  accused,  reasonable  possibility  of  

securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable  

apprehension  of  the  witnesses  being  tampered  with,  the  

larger  interests  of  the  public/State and  other  similar  

considerations.

20

Page 21

17) Taking note of all these facts and the huge magnitude  

of the case and also the request of the CBI asking for further  

time for completion of the investigation in filing the charge  

sheet(s), without expressing any opinion on the merits, we  

are of the opinion that the release of the appellant at this  

stage may hamper the investigation.  However, we direct the  

CBI  to  complete  the  investigation  and  file  the  charge  

sheet(s) within a period of 4 months from today.  Thereafter,  

as  observed  in  the  earlier  order  dated  05.10.2012,  the  

appellant is free to renew his prayer for bail before the trial  

Court and if any such petition is filed, the trial Court is free to  

consider the prayer for bail independently on its own merits  

without being influenced by dismissal of the present appeal.

18) With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed.

………….…………………………J.                   (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

       ………….…………………………J.                  (M.Y. EQBAL)  

NEW DELHI;

21

Page 22

MAY 9, 2013.

22