High Court

Legal Reasoning

CriAppeal-719-2005-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 719 OF 20051.Santosh s/o Shrirang MaharnorAge : 30 years, Occu : Agril.,R/o Dhamangaon, Tq. Jamkhed,Dist. Ahmednagar.2.Shrirang s/o Kondiba MaharnorAge : 65 years, Occu :Agriculture,R/o as above.[Appeal abated against appellant no.2 as per court’s order dated 19.10.2018.]3.Janabai Shrirang Maharnor,Age : 59 years, Occu: Agril. & Household,R/o as above.4.Ushabai w/o Sainath Dhayagude,Age : 34 years, Occu : Agril & Household.R/o as above.… AppellantsVersus1.The State of Maharashtra2.Lahu Rama ShindeAge 48 years, Occupation Agri.R/o Hiwra Pahadi,Taluka and District Beed.… Respondents…..Ms. Usha Wayal, Advocate for the Appellants.Mr. D. R. Korade, APP for Respondent No.1-State.Mr. D. G. Nagode, Advocate for Respondent No.2...... CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.Reserved on: 15.10.2024Pronounced on: 18.10.2024 CriAppeal-719-2005-2- JUDGMENT : 1.Convicts for offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306of the Indian Penal Code [IPC], are hereby challenging the judgmentand order dated 30.09.2005 passed by Ist Adhoc Additional SessionsJudge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 101 of 2005.PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF2.In nutshell, case of prosecution is that, deceased Ashwini, i.e.daughter of PW2, was married to appellant no.1 five to six years priorto her death. Informant father set law into motion reporting that, oneyear after marriage, there was ill-treatment to deceased at the handsof husband, parent’s in law and sister-in-law on the count of notdoing household work and for not giving proper honours to their son-in-law. Accused persons beat his daughter. Whenever she came, shereported the above treatment meted out to her. 8 to 9 months prior toher death also she had reported ill-treatment and harassment whenthey had all met in the marriage of informant’s nephew Pandurang.Ashwini reportedly left house of accused for gathering fuel wood, butdid not return and on being searched, her dead body was foundhanging to a tree. Therefore, vide report Exhibit 36, crime wasregistered and it was investigated by PW6 and accused came to bechargesheeted and tried vide Sessions Case No. 101 of 2005. CriAppeal-719-2005-3- 3.At trial, prosecution adduced evidence of as many as 6witnesses and relied on documentary evidence like postmortemreport, FIR, spot panchanama etc. After appreciating the evidence,learned trial Judge accepted the case of prosecution for commission ofoffence under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and sentencedappellants to suffer imprisonment as spelt out in the operative part.Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction,present appeal has been preferred.SUBMISSIONSOn behalf of the appellants :4.Learned counsel for the appellants would, at the outset,introduced the appellants that, appellant no.1 is husband, appellantno.2 is father-in-law, appellant no.3 is mother-in-law and appellantno.4 is sister-in-law. She further pointed out that appellant no.2father-in-law is no more and therefore appeal stands abated asagainst such appellant. 5.Taking this court through the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4 andPW5, she would submit that apparently case of prosecution is weakand does not meet essential ingredients for attracting any of the CriAppeal-719-2005-4- charge. She submitted that PW2 and PW5, who are parents, arelevelling vague, general and omnibus allegations and are merelydeposing about ill-treatment and harassment without quoting theinstances or providing details as to, of what kind there was ill-treatment, when and in what form? She pointed out that theirtestimonies are also full of material omissions, inconsistencies andcontradictions and in fact they both are not lending support to eachother in spite of being parents of deceased. From their evidence, shequestions that, it is suspicious also as to when they got knowledgeabout alleged maltreatment because, according to learned counsel,mother PW5 Salubai deposed about hearing from daughter whenevershe came to paternal home, and she did not specify regarding hervisits, whereas, father PW2 speaks of learning from daughter whenthey went to meet her. Thus, according to learned counsel, parentsare not consistent. She pointed out that, even otherwise allegationsare of trivial nature as they speak about not giving honour and notdoing household work. Therefore, according to her, this itself wouldnot amount to cruelty and does not fit in the legal requirements forattracting Section 498-A IPC. 6.She pointed out that apparently, from the evidence of parents,it is emerging that there is no unlawful demand also. She pointed out CriAppeal-719-2005-5- that in the entire married life, only two instances are quoted.Therefore also, she submits that, there is no continuous harassmentwhich is contemplated by law. She pointed out that from theirevidence, it is also emerging that there is gap of 9 months duringwhich there are no allegations of any nature i.e. about harassmentand ill-treatment. That, informant himself has admitted that he isunable to give date and time of alleged ill-treatment and when it waslearnt. Resultantly, it is her submission that prosecution has miserablyfailed to establish the charge of Section 498-A IPC.7.She further pointed out that even there is delayed FIR withoutassigning any plausible reasons for the delay of 48 hours. Therefore,according to learned counsel, there was ample scope for concoctedversion reported to police out of annoyance. She submitted that evenmaterial witnesses, whose statements were recorded during A.D.inquiry, are not examined. Their evidence would have extracted thetruth behind the alleged suicidal death. 8.Learned counsel next took this court through the evidence ofPW3 Meera and would submit that she is a child witness andprosecution alleges that she was put up with accused to take care ofthe newborn of deceased. Learned counsel pointed out that this CriAppeal-719-2005-6- witness has never reported PW3 or PW4 about any maltreatment,beating, which is directly alleged by the parents while in the witnessbox and that too, after death. She pointed out that she being childwitness, was vulnerable to tutoring. Therefore, her evidence cannotbe straightway accepted. 9.Learned counsel next submitted that another witness PW4Rambhau, who is uncle, has no personal knowledge and he hasfurther admitted that FIR is upon due deliberation. That, evidence ofimportant witnesses i.e. parents PW2 and PW5 is not correctlyappreciated by learned trial court. The answers given by PW2 in cross,more particularly para 5, which is full of material omissions,contradictions, has been overlooked by learned trial Judge. Moreover,in para 8 and 11, PW2 has categorically admitted that husband usedto frequently come to take deceased which suggests that husband waskeen in having company of deceased, and as such, there was nodiscord on account of any demand. Resultantly, learned counsel submits that evidence has not beencorrectly appreciated by learned trial Judge. Therefore, according tolearned counsel, said judgment cannot be said to be legal, just andsustainable and hence, prays for indulgence by allowing the appeal. CriAppeal-719-2005-7- On behalf of the State and the Informant :10.Per contra, learned APP as well as learned counsel forrespondent no.2, also took this Court through the evidence of PW2,PW3, PW4 and PW5 and would submit that they are all consistentabout ill-treatment and harassment. Their evidence has remainedunshaken on material count. Prosecution story has not beendisturbed. Only because of ill-treatment, deceased committed suicidewhile she was in the house of accused. There was no other reason forsuicide. Only because of ill-treatment, she committed suicide andhence learned trial court committed no error in accepting the case ofprosecution as proved and hence, it is prayed that appeal bedismissed for want of merits. EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT11.The role and status of the six witnesses examined byprosecution, and the sum and substance of their evidence is as under:PW1Narayan acted as pancha to spot panchanama Exhibits 33 & 34.PW2Lahu is father of deceased. His evidence at Exhibit 35 is that hisdaughter Ashabai was married to accused Santosh. Aftermarriage, her name was changed and she was addressed as CriAppeal-719-2005-8- Ashwini. For one year, she was treated properly. Thereafterthere was ill-treatment by husband and in-laws on the groundthat she was not doing household work and because they werenot honouring son-in-law. Accused beat her. She narratedwhenever they went to her house. She also told that there wasill-treatment for not knowing cooking. When she met atmarriage of Pandurang in village Dhamangaon, i.e. 8 to 9months prior to the incident, she again reported harassment attheir hands, i.e. beating on the ground that she was not cookingproperly. After said marriage, she accompanied him to hishouse. After half month, her husband and cousin father-in-lawcame to take her and they assured to give her proper treatment.His younger daughter Meera was sent with them to take care ofthe newborn. On Saturday night, around 3.00 a.m., husband,brother-in-law, cousin father-in-law and two-three personscame to inquire the whereabouts of his daughter and they allwent in her search and her dead body was found hanging to aneem tree in the forest and therefore he lodged report.While under cross, following omissions are brought,“daughter Ashwini told that accused persons were ill-treatingher and beating her for not doing household work and they didnot honour son-in-law when he came to them; that, accusedpersons were ill-treating his daughter because she does notknow cooking properly and that time, accused were pacified.”In further cross, he is unable to state the day, date, monthand year when they went to the house of accused. He admitted CriAppeal-719-2005-9- that accused persons were related to them since previously. Headmitted that there was no dispute or quarrel amongst themand the accused persons on account of the honours in themarriage of Ashwini/Asha or thereafter. He admitted that hisdaughter was not desirous of getting married in the hilly area.He admitted that husband of Asha was loving her too much andtherefore, he frequently came to take her back with him. In para15, he admitted that previously he did not feel like lodgingcomplaint to police because of the ill-treatment. He alsoadmitted that on completion of funeral of his daughter atvillage Dhamangaon, they went back to their village HiwraPahade and he thereafter went to Jamkhed to lodge report. Restis all denial.PW3Meera, a child witness, in her evidence at Exhibit 37 stated thatAshwini @ Asha was her elder sister. At the time of incident,she was taking education in 3rd standard and she went to residewith accused and her elder sister to take care of daughter of herelder sister. According to her, there was ill-treatment, beatingand abusing to her sister by accused. On the day of incident, itwas Saturday. She was present in the house. Her sister Ashwiniwent to village with her daughter to administer polio dose. Shereturned home late, due to which accused persons raisedquarrel with her. Her mother-in-law and sister-in-law sent herfor gathering fuel wood. Her husband beat her. After beating,she went to the forest to collect fuel wood, but she did notreturn home back. Next morning, she learnt that her sister hadhanged herself. CriAppeal-719-2005-10- Relevant cross of this witness is since para 6 onwards,wherein she answered that on Saturday, her brother-in-lawSantosh had left for work in the morning. Similarly, father-in-law of Ashwini, namely, Shrirang went for grazing goats in theforest. Mother of Santosh, namely, Janabai was present but shewas ill. She answered that her sister Ashwini came home atabout 11.00 a.m. after giving polio dose to her daughter. Sheadmitted that after 3.00 p.m., her sister Ashwini went to collectfuel and in the evening Santosh came back home aftercompleting his work, whereas, father of Santosh also returnedwith goats. Sister of Santosh also came back home in theevening. She answered that Santosh came home and madeinquiry about Ashwini and she told him that Ashwini had beento forest to collect fuel wood and that she had not come back.As Ashwini did not came home till late, Santosh searched totrace her. His brothers and relatives also searched for her.Santosh and other relatives also went to Hiwra Pahade by jeepand as Ashwini was not found there, her parents, maternaluncle and other relatives came to Dhamangaon. In cross para 7,she stated that corpse of Ashwini was found by her paternaluncle, police had been to Dhamangaon, and after funeral, theywent back to village Hiwra Pahade via Jamkhed. Rest is alldenial.PW4Rambhau, maternal uncle, in his evidence at Exhibit 38 deposedthat after marriage, his niece was treated properly for onemonth. Thereafter her husband and in-laws ill-treated her CriAppeal-719-2005-11- constantly. Those persons beat her and were not providing hermeal and keeping her without food. This fact was disclosed byAshwini to her parents as well as this witness whenever shecame to paternal house. According to him, accused were ill-treating Ashwini on the ground that accused and their relativeswere not honoured. Similarly, sarees were not purchased. Theyalso ill-treated her for not cooking well and not doinghousehold work properly. Nine months prior to the incident,she had come to parents’ house and after 2 to 2 ½ months herhusband and cousin father-in-law came and that time, they hadtaken Meera to take care of their child. Early morning onSunday at 4.00 a.m., accused Santosh came with some personsand they all searched for Ashwini and her corpus was foundhanging in the forest.While under cross, in para 4, witness is unable to statedate, date and month of he meeting Ashwini at Hiwra Pahade.He answered that he was thinking of lodging complaint for ill-treatment, but because of assurance given by accused, he didnot lodge complaint. He admitted that after dead body wasfound, khabar was given to police. Till completion of funeral, hehimself, parents of Ashwini and other relatives were presentand even police were present. After funeral, they all went toHiwra Pahade. There, at Hiwra Pahade, discussion amongstthem took place in order to lodge complaint and then it wasdecided to lodge complaint. Rest is all denial. PW5Salubai, mother of deceased, in her evidence at Exhibit 39testified that after marriage, her daughter Ashwini cohabited CriAppeal-719-2005-12- well for 12 months. When she came to paternal house, shestated that accused were ill-treating and beating her on theground that she is not cooking well, not doing household workproperly, not honouring accused persons and not purchasingsarees. 8 to 9 months prior to the incident, they went to attendmarriage at Dhamangaon. There also, Ashwini met and toldabout ill-treatment on same ground. She was brought backhome and she stayed for 2 and ½ months. Her husband andcousin father-in-law came to take her back and they assured togive proper treatment to Ashwini. Her younger daughter Meerawas sent along with Ashwini and her husband to take care ofAshwini’s daughter. On Sunday morning at 4.00 a.m., accusedSantosh, cousin father-in-law and other persons came to askwhether Ashwini had come there. Thereafter they all searchedfor her and her dead body was found hanging to a tree.According to her, above incident took place because of ill-treatment on the part of accused.While under cross, in para 4, she too is unable to state thedate, day or month when Ashwini came to their house.According to this witness, it was the month of Jeshtha, but shecould not name the year. She admitted that they did not lodgecomplaint to police station regarding ill-treatment. In para 5,omission is brought about accused persons saying to herdaughter that she cannot cook well. Rest is all denial.PW6PSI Govind Ashtrao is the Investigating Officer. CriAppeal-719-2005-13- ANALYSIS12.Here, conviction of appellants is recorded by learned trial Judgefor offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.Charge under Section 498-A IPC :13.As regards charge under Section 498-A is concerned, as to whatactually constitutes cruelty has been lucidly and succinctly dealt in thelandmark cases of State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1SCC 73], Giridhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 5SCC 177; State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao (2008)15 SCC 582; Bhaskar Lal Sharma v. Monica (2009) 10 SCC 604 G. V.Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka (2010) 3 SCC 152 and GurnaibSingh v. State of Punjab (2013) 7 SCC 108; K. Subba Rao v. The Stateof Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452.In Girdhar Shankar Tawade (supra), succinct enumeration ofthe object and ingredients of Section 498-A IPC is given as under : "3. The basic purport of the statutory provision is toavoid "cruelty" which stands defined by attributing aspecific statutory meaning attached thereto as noticed CriAppeal-719-2005-14- hereinbefore. Two specific instances have been takennote of in order to ascribe a meaning to the word"cruelty" as is expressed by the legislatures: whereasExplanation (a) involves three specific situations viz. (i)to drive the woman to commit suicide or (ii) to causegrave injury or (iii) danger to life, limb or health, bothmental and physical, and thus involving a physicaltorture or atrocity, in Explanation (b) there is absence ofphysical injury but the legislature thought it fit to includeonly coercive harassment which obviously as thelegislative intent expressed is equally heinous to matchthe physical injury : whereas one is patent, the other oneis latent but equally serious in terms of the provisions ofthe statute since the same would also embrace theattributes of "cruelty" in terms of Section 498-A.” 14.Bearing in mind the legal requirements echoed in abovejudgments and on sifting the evidence in the instant case, here, it isnoticed that according to informant father PW2, for one year Ashwiniwas treated properly. Similarly, even mother PW5 speaks of propertreatment for 12 months. Thereafter, they alleged that, there was ill-treatment by husband and in-laws on two counts, i.e. not doinghousehold work properly and secondly, not doing honours. However,according to informant, ill-treatment was because son-in-law was notproperly honoured whereas according to mother, ill-treatment was CriAppeal-719-2005-15- inflicted for not giving honours to all of them. Third reason for ill-treatment as alleged is that, she was not knowing cooking. As pointedout, neither of the parent is pointing out what was the form andnature of ill-treatment and by which of the accused, as here, there arefour accused who faced trial. Informant’s evidence shows thatdaughter reported ill-treatment when he went to see her at hermatrimonial house, whereas according to PW5 mother, Ashwinireported ill-treatment whenever she came to parent’s house.Therefore, as pointed out, regarding reporting about ill-treatment,parents are not consistent and their source of knowledge differs.15.PW4 Rambhau, maternal uncle of deceased Ashwini, is givingtotally different version as according to him, there was propertreatment only for one month. But his sister and brother-in-law havealready stated about proper treatment for a period of one year. Evenallegations attributed by him are not tallying with PW2 and PW5 as,according to him, there was beating, not providing meals and keepingher starved. This is not stated by either of the parents of Ashwini. Hestated that, there was ill-treatment on the ground that accused andtheir relatives were not honoured properly and sarees were notpurchased. But informant’s evidence is silent on such count.Therefore, as regards ill-treatment is concerned, there is very weak, CriAppeal-719-2005-16- feeble and inconsistent evidence. Even otherwise, about such allegedill-treatment like, on the ground of not cooking properly and notdoing household works, no specific instances are quoted, in spite ofmarriage being almost five to six years old. 16.Another crucial witness PW3 is younger sister of Ashwini andher evidence shows that she was sent to take care of child of accusedSantosh and deceased Ashwini. But except stating general andomnibus allegations in her evidence in para 2 that there was ill-treatment, beating and abuses to her sister by accused, she has notstated that it was on the count of not preparing good food or notdoing household work properly, as stated by others. In fact, thiswitness has stayed with deceased Ashwini. She had not reported herparents about any such ill-treatment even when they had been insearch of Ashwini and after dead body was brought home. Apparentlyshe is a child witness and though she denied that she was tutored, herversion is also unworthy of credence as it is silent on crucial aspect ofill-treatment or its nature. Therefore, necessary ingredients forattracting Section 498-A are patently missing in the prosecutionevidence. CriAppeal-719-2005-17- Charge under Section 306 IPC :17.Second charge with which conviction is recorded is Section 306IPC. In umpteen judgments, Hon’ble Apex Court has time and againexpounded legal requirements for attracting the charge of 306 IPC i.e.in the known cases, which are time and again referred to till date, anda few of them can be named as State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal(1994) 1 SCC 73; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh (2001) 9SCC 618; Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and another (2021) 19SCC 144; M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of Police,(2019) 3 SCC 315; Ude Sing & others v. State of Haryana (2019) 17SCC 301; Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200;Mariano Anto Bruno & another v. The Inspector of Police, 2022 SCCOnLine SC 1387; Kashibai & Others v. The State of Karnataka, 2023SCC OnLine SC 575; Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana [CriminalAppeal (No.) 1722 of 2010 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on22.02.2024] and Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka[Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 2011 decided by the Hon’ble ApexCourt on 01.03.2024] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 216.In Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka (supra) frompara 60 onwards, the Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed the legal CriAppeal-719-2005-18- aspect of abetment to suicide, as to what amounts to abetment asdealt under Section 107 of IPC and also, after discussing previouslegal pronouncements in M. Mohan v. State (2011) 3 SCC 626;Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (supra), Chitresh KumarChopra v. State (2009) 16 SCC 605; Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v.State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707; Rajesh v. State of Haryana(2020)15 SCC 359 and State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal (supra),culled out a principle that, in order to prove guilt of accused forabetment to commit suicide, prosecution has to prove :(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceasedby words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct whichmay even be a wilful silence until the deceased reactedor pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words orwilful omission or conduct to make the deceased moveforward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge orencourage the deceased to commit suicide while actingin the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence ofmens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. Referring to the case of Amalendu Pal (supra), it has beenobserved in para 69 that : CriAppeal-719-2005-19- 69.… this Court after referring to some of the previousdecisions held that it has been the consistent view thatbefore holding an accused guilty of an offence underSection 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine thefacts and circumstances of the case and also assess theevidence adduced before it in order to find out whether thecruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left thevictim with no other alternative to put an end to her life. Itmust be borne in mind that in a case of alleged abetment ofsuicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) ofincitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on theallegation of harassment without there being any positiveaction proximate to the time of occurrence on the part ofthe accused which led or compelled the deceased to commitsuicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would notbe sustainable. Thereafter, this Court held as under:13. In order to bring a case within the purview ofSection 306 IPC there must be a case of suicideand in the commission of the said offence, theperson who is said to have abetted thecommission of suicide must have played anactive role by an act of instigation or by doingcertain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.Therefore, the act of abetment by the personcharged with the said offence must be provedand established by the prosecution before hecould be convicted under Section 306 IPC.”18.Keeping in mind the legal preposition settled by the aboveprecedents, in the facts of the case in hand, it can be gathered from CriAppeal-719-2005-20- the prosecution evidence that deceased went missing when sheallegedly went to collect fuel wood, but did not return. Dead bodywas found hanging to a tree, suggesting suicidal hanging. PW3 Meera,younger sister of deceased, herself answered in cross that its wasSaturday and after administering polio dose to daughter, around 3.00p.m., her sister went to forest to collect wood. She in para 6 hadalready admitted that on that day, since morning, husband Santosh,father-in-law and sister-in-law had left the house for work and theyhad returned in the evening. Going by her such testimony, it is clearthat when Ashwini left the house, at that time, husband, father-in-lawand sister-in-law were not present. Only mother-in-law was presentbut she, according to this witness, was sick. PW3 did speak inexamination-in-chief that Santosh beat her for coming late, but incross, she has already stated that husband was out since morning forwork. Therefore, there is no material suggesting any sort of overt actattributable to accused persons during the day when she left to collectwood. Unless there is active role attributable to them or materialsuggesting abetment, inducement or harassment which was above allof such nature that deceased was compelled to end up her life, chargeof Section 306 IPC cannot be fastened. There is nothing to indicatethat only because of harassment, ill-treatment or beating, deceasedwent and ended up her life. The necessary ingredients for attracting CriAppeal-719-2005-21- Section 306 IPC are also patently missing from the prosecutionevidence. Therefore, even this charge fails.19.Perused the judgment under challenge. Learned trial court hasapparently not taken into consideration the answers given byinformant, his wife PW5 and even uncle, who have categoricallyadmitted that they are unable to give date, day, time of instances ofreporting cruelty. There are in-consistencies in the version ofinformant and his wife. Admittedly, phrase used by prosecutionwitnesses is that there was ill-treatment. However, there is noelaboration about its nature and no details or instances are quoted,still learned trial Judge has accepted the prosecution version. Learnedtrial court has also failed to appreciate that abetment, inducement orenticement to commit suicide is also not cogently established from theavailable evidence. As evidence as well as settled law is not applied,interference is called for to set aside the impugned judgment. Hence,following order is passed : ORDERI.The appeal is allowed.II.The conviction awarded to the appellants by learned Ist AdhocAdditional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. CriAppeal-719-2005-22- 101 of 2005 under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC on 30.09.2005stands quashed and set aside.III.The appellants stand acquitted of the offence punishable underSections 498-A and 306 of IPC.IV.The bail bonds of the appellants stand cancelled.V.Fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to the appellantsafter the statutory period.VI.It is clarified that there is no change as regards the orderregarding disposal of muddemal. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]vre