The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA NO.365 of 2014 (In the matter of application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.). Parameswar Nanda Goswami …. Appellant -versus- State of Odisha (Vigilance) …. Respondent For Appellant : Mr. G. Mishra, Sr. Advocate For Respondent : Mr. M.S. Rizvi, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF JUDGMENT:05.02.2024 G. Satapathy, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.07.2014 passed by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Mayurbhanj at Baripada in TC No.4 of 2013 convicting the appellant for offences punishable U/Ss.7/13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short “the Act”) and sentencing him to undergo CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 1 of 27 Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof, to undergo further RI for three months on each count, the appellant named above has preferred this appeal. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the BDO, Bangiriposi had issued work order in favour of the mother of PW3 Ratha Singh for construction of an Indira Awasa House and after receipt of the work order, the beneficiary had constructed the house and it was about to be completed except fixing of windows and doors, but the Junior Engineer, Bangiriposi Block namely Parameswar Nanda Goswami (hereinafter referred to as “the convict”) had measured the work and, accordingly, he demanded bribe of Rs.2,000/- towards release of the first installment for the aforesaid construction work and Rs.600/- towards the percentage of the BDO, but PW3 requested him to disburse the amount because of his poverty. The convict, however, did not accede to the request and asked PW3 come on Monday on 03.04.2000 with bribe money. Finding no CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 2 of 27 way out, on 03.04.2000 at about 9:10 am in the
Legal Reasoning
morning, PW3 lodged an FIR which was came to be registered as Balasore Vigilance PS Case No.15 of 2000 and at about 12 Noon, he(PW3) arrived at the Vigilance Office with aforesaid demanded bribe of Rs.2,600/-. Accordingly, on the instruction of the Vigilance Authority, a trap party was constituted and a preparatory meeting was held therein and thus, a trap was laid at the Block Office of Bangiriposi to catch the convict, if he demand and accepts the aforesaid bribe. In the course of trap, when the accused (convict) was demanding and accepting the bribe from the complainant, the Vigilance raiding party reached there and the convict on seeing the vigilance party threw away the currency notes, but he was detained by the trap party and his fingertips wash and the pocket wash was taken with sodium carbonate solution, which not only gave positive result, but also the serial number of the recovered GC notes from him tallied with the serial numbers of the notes earlier noted by PW1 Kabindra CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 3 of 27 Kumar Sahoo. After observing all the formalities, the pocket wash and fingertips wash of the convict was kept in separate bottles duly labeled and sealed and the same were seized. Soon after the successful trap, inspector of vigilance Minaketan Das took up the investigation of this case, in the course of which, he examined the witnesses, seized relevant materials and documents and handed over the charge of investigation to PW4 Narayan Choudhury who in the course of investigation, obtained sanction order to launch prosecution against the convict under Ext.12 and also sent the pocket wash, hand wash and sample wash which were collected in separate sealed bottles to SFSL for chemical examination and subsequently, the chemical examination report was received under Ext.11. On conclusion of investigation, PW4 submitted charge-sheet against the convict for commission of offences U/Ss.7/13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act under which cognizance was taken, resulting in trial in the present case when the convict denied to the charge. CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 4 of 27 3. In the trial, the prosecution examined altogether six witnesses vide PWs.1 to 6 and proved certain documents under Exts.1 to 14 as well as identified material objects under MOI-VII in evidence as against the sole evidence of self, the convict Parameswar Nanda Goswami as DW1 in his defence. Of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW1- Kabindra Kumar Sahoo is an official witness, who was assigned the duty to tally with the currency notes soon after the trap, whereas PW2-Harish Chandra Lenka is the overhearing witness and he was assigned the duty to accompany the decoy (PW3) to the spot to overhear the conversation between the decoy and the convict and see the transaction of bribe between them, PW3 is none other than the decoy, PW4 is the IO after the trap, whereas PW5 Kalyan Kumar Mallick is the Trap Laying Officer(TLO) and lastly, PW6 Chunu Ram Singh is a post occurrence witness who had produced the relevant documents of the office of the convict. CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 5 of 27 4. In the course of the trial, the plea of the convict was not only denial, but also ignorance of the allegation. The convict, however, took a specific plea in his statement U/S.313 of Cr.P.C. that a sum of Rs.2,000/- was sanctioned in favour of Suni Singh (mother of PW3) for construction of house under Indira Awasa Yojana and on 02.02.2000, he had measured the work of the house and, accordingly, submitted the first running bill to the BDO for an amount of Rs.14,275/-, but 3 to 4 days thereafter, one Guruva Singh had pressurized him to submit final bill, but he replied that the bill has been submitted for whatever work that has been done and once the construction is complete, the final bill would be submitted. However, being dissatisfied, Guruva Singh threatened him. On 03.04.2000 in the evening, while he was returning to his house, somebody called him from behind near the gate of the Block and when he stopped the motor cycle, Guruva Singh and PW3 were there and suddenly PW3– Ratha Singh thrusted some money in his shirt pocket CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 6 of 27 which he brought out in his left hand and tried to return the money to PW3 by saying him that his work has already been done, why he is paying the money, but PW3 did not listen and, thereafter, he threw the money towards him. 5. After appreciating the evidence on record upon hearing the parties, the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Mayurbhanj at Baripada by answering the points of determination as formulated by him found the convict guilty of the charge for the offences U/Ss.7/13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act by mainly relying upon the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 5 and sentenced the convict to the punishment indicated supra. 6. In assailing the impugned judgment of
Legal Reasoning
conviction and order of sentence, Mr. Goutam Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellant has submitted that there is absolutely no evidence with regard to demand of bribe by the convict and in absence of demand of bribe, the mere recovery of some currency notes would not be sufficient to hold the CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 7 of 27 convict guilty of the offences for acceptance of bribe money by placing the burden upon the accused to discharge the statutory presumption as available U/S.20 of the Act, but the learned trial Court has erroneously held that the demand and acceptance has been well established by the prosecution and, thereby, the learned trial Court has placed the burden upon the convict to discharge the statutory presumption available U/S.20 of the Act and erroneously convicted the convict of the charge for offences. Mr. Mishra, by taking this Court through the evidence of PW2 submits that when overhearing witness has failed to reveal the conversation between the convict and the complainant, it cannot be said that the convict had demanded the bribe, especially when there is no substantive evidence forthcoming from the decoy who even failed to identify the accused in the dock. Mr. Mishra has further submitted that even by taking into consideration the prosecution evidence, the GC currency notes having been thrusted in the pocket of the convict by the CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 8 of 27 complainant-decoy, it cannot be said that the convict had accepted the bribe and the convict is, therefore, not at all required to discharge the burden of Sec. 20 of the Act. In summing up his argument, Mr. Mishra by relying upon the constitutional Bench decision of the Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi); (2023) 4 SCC 731 has prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence and consequently, to acquit the convict of the charges. As against these submissions, Mr. M.S. Rizvi, learned ASC, Vigilance has submitted that although the decoy has become hostile, but the evidence of overhearing witness and that of material witness being clear and cogent, the demand and acceptance of bribe by the convict can be well inferred. Mr. Rizvi by relying upon the constitutional Bench decision of the Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta (supra) has submitted that the prosecution can establish its case by proving the demand and acceptance of bribe CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 9 of 27 through circumstantial evidence and in this case, the circumstance so appearing against the convict having been found duly proved and the same being consistently revealing about the convict demanding and accepting the bribe together with the convict not having been able to discharge the burden as set up against him U/S.20 of the Act would by itself prove the guilt of the convict beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences and, therefore, the conviction of the convict cannot be questioned. Accordingly, Mr. Rizvi has prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7. Finding the conviction and sentence being under challenged in this appeal, this Court has bestowed an anxious and careful consideration to the impugned judgment together with the evidence on record keeping in view the rival submissions to examine the sustainability of the conviction of the convict. There is no quarrel about the position of the law that in order to sustain a charge for offences U/Ss.7/13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) under the Act, the prosecution inter-alia has to CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 10 of 27 establish the demand, offer and acceptance of bribe by the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt through legally admissible and acceptable evidence. Demand can be established by leading evidence with regard to prior/initial demand made by the accused and subsequent demand of bribe by the accused at the time of transaction of bribe. Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is sine-qua- non to establish the charge against the public servant for offences U/Ss.7 and 13(1)(d)(i) & 13(ii) of the Act. In the above backdrop of legal principle, when the evidence on record is scrutinized, it appears that PW3 being the decoy has become hostile to the prosecution case and it appears that the learned trial Court has considered him as unreliable, but the fact remains that the prosecution saw the light in this case on the basis of allegation made by the decoy. However, the decoy PW3 in his evidence has stated that in the year 2000 an Indira Awasa House was sanctioned in the name of his Mother Suni Singh and Rs.20,000/- was sanctioned CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 11 of 27 for construction of that house and he made to run to the Office of accused for about 8 to 10 times without any result regarding the loan, but one Guruva Singh of his village told him that if he goes to the Office, they would get his work done and he also paid him Rs.2,600/- and asked him to pay it in the aforesaid Office at Baripada. The aforesaid evidence as tendered by the decoy by itself relegates himself to be unreliable inasmuch as, as to why another person would pay Rs.2,600/- to the decoy to pay it in the aforesaid Office at Baripada. The prosecution, however, has declared the decoy as hostile and cross-examined him by putting leading question U/S.154 of the Indian Evidence Act, but what is significant is that the prosecution in the way of putting leading question has elicited from the mouth of PW3 in suggestive form that when his house was completed without fixing of doors and windows, the JE Goswami Babu (convict) in whose pocket, he thrusted the money had gone to measure the construction. It, therefore, clearly appears that the prosecution itself CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 12 of 27 believes that the tainted money was thrusted in the pocket of the convict. It is also surprising but true that the prosecution has brought from the mouth of the decoy that he (Guruva Singh) also told him that unless money is paid, their work will not be done by the JE. On the other hand, the decoy PW3 has admitted in cross- examination by the defence that the JE Goswami Babu had never demanded any bribe from him, but the JE brought out the money from his pocket and offered it to me and when he did not receive it, he threw upon him. This being the evidence of the decoy with regard to demand of bribe, this Court now embarks upon the evidence of other witness to ascertain about the demand of bribe made by the convict. 8. After the evidence of the decoy, the next best evidence to establish the demand can be brought from the accompanying witness, whose role is to see the transaction and over-hear the conversation between the decoy and the accused and it transpires from the evidence of accompanying witness being CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 13 of 27 examined as PW2 that he had attended the preparatory meeting where the SP, Vigilance disclosed before them that the accused-convict had demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/- from Ratha Singh (decoy) to pass the bill for Indira Awasa house and Ratha Singh had submitted a complaint in that regard and, thereafter, Ratha Singh disclosed that the accused is demanding Rs.2,000/- for passing the bill in his favour for construction of Indira Awasa house, but the facts remains that the Indira Awasa house being sanctioned in the name of mother of PW3 (decoy), such evidence of PW2 cannot be considered as acceptable one. On proceeding further, it appears that PW2 has also stated in his evidence that there was conversation between Ratha Singh (decoy) and the accused (convict) and, thereafter, the complainant gave the money of Rs.2,600/- to the accused(convict) and the Vigilance staff rushed to the accused (convict), but by that time, the accused (convict) had thrown the currency notes on the floor. It is also material to note that PW2 in his cross- CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 14 of 27 examination by defence has admitted that Ratha Singh had not disclosed in whose favour the Indira Awasa house was sanctioned and in which village it was situated and he cannot remember if Ratha Singh had told about the status of Indira Awasa house at that time and as per the disclosure of Ratha Singh, he could know him then and the conversation between the accused (convict) and Ratha Singh was not audible to him. It is also admitted by PW2 in his cross- examination by the defence that the tainted money was lying near the leg of the accused (convict) and he cannot say as to who lifted it. On a wholesome reading of the evidence of PW2, this Court does not find a word about the demand made by the convict for the bribe, rather PW2 has also introduced a new story that the SP, Vigilance had disclosed before them that the accused (convict) had demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/- from Ratha Singh, but the consistent case of the prosecution is that the accused (convict) had demanded bribe of Rs.2,600/- out of which Rs.2,000/- for him and CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 15 of 27 Rs.600/- for the BDO. This being the evidence of two material witnesses, who were supposed to say about the direct evidence with regard to demand of bribe by the accused (convict), which is not forthcoming in this situation. 9. In the above situation of evidence, as an abundant precaution, this Court now proceeds to examine the evidence of other witnesses to find out any prior demand made by the accused (convict). In this regard, PW1 being the other official witness has stated in his evidence that Ratha Singh disclosed before them that since 5-6 months, the work order was issued in his favour for construction of a house for his mother and he has constructed the house only window and door fitted, but the JE is demanding money for measuring the same. Again this Court at the cost of repetition notes that neither work order was issued in favour of Ratha Singh nor was it the case of the prosecution that Ratha Singh constructed a house for his mother, rather the house was sanctioned in favour of the mother of CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 16 of 27 Ratha Singh. Further, PW1 in his cross-examination by defence has admitted that when they reached near, the accused (convict) threw the money and started the motor cycle and he understood from the complaint that the accused (convict) JE was not measuring the house constructed by him (decoy) and not preparing his bills, but it was not the case of the prosecution that the accused (convict) was supposed to measure the house constructed by him (decoy), rather the house constructed by his mother was supposed to be measured by the convict. Similarly, the evidence of PW5 TLO (Inspector of Vigilance) that he has not heard the conversation between the accused (convict) and the decoy and his evidence is totally silent with regard to demand made by the appellant (convict). On a careful reading and scrutiny of the above evidence, it appears that the prosecution has not been able to establish the demand made by the appellant (convict) from the decoy beyond all reasonable doubt, but the learned trial Court by ignoring the aforesaid material evidence has CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 17 of 27 found the prosecution to have established the demand which was not at all established by the prosecution. 10. It is never in dispute that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is the sine-qua-non to sustain the charge for offence U/Ss.7/13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act. In the context, this Court considers it profitable to refer to the conclusion as rendered in paragraph-88 by the Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta (supra) which is as under:- 88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarized as under: 88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. 88.3.(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 18 of 27 gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence. 88.4.(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind: it (i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe- giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior gratification demand emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-giver and the demand servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d),(i) and (ii), the Act. respectively of Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must illegal public the for by CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 19 of 27 be an offer which emanates from the bribe- giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.5. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. trial, demand of 88.6. (f) In the event the complainant turns "hostile", or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. 88.7. (g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 20 of 27 for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.8. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature. On consideration of the aforesaid situation and circumstance of evidence on record in this case on the anvil of the principles as culled out by the Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta (supra), the demand made by the appellant (convict) having found to have not been established by the prosecution, the consequence is automatic and the charge against the accused is bound to fail on that score only. 11. Be that as it may, now coming to the offer of bribe by the decoy and the acceptance of it by the accused (convict), it appears on a conspectus of evidence on record that only some tainted GC notes were found lying scattered near the place of transaction CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 21 of 27 as it has been spoken to by all the witnesses like PWs.1 to 3 and 5 as well as that of DW1, but mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstance under which it was paid was not sufficient to constitute the offences U/Ss.7/13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act, when the substantive evidence is not reliable to prove the payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money (see Suraj Mal vs. The State (Delhi Administration); (1979) 4 SCC 725. However, the learned trial Court has placed the burden on the accused to discharge the statutory presumption as provided U/S.20 of the PC Act, but law is well settled that before raising the presumption U/S.20 of the PC Act, the prosecution has to bring evidence objectively to establish with reasonable probability that the money accepted by the accused is otherwise than as a motive or reward as referred to Section 7 of the Act and in case, the accused offers an explanation for receipt of the alleged amount, while invoking the provision of Section 20 of the Act, the Court is required to consider CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 22 of 27 such explanation on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Law never shifts the burden of prove on the defence to discharge the presumption U/S.20 of the Act, unless the initial burden regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is successfully demonstrated by the prosecution. In other words, the initial burden is on the prosecution to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused, since the proof of demand for illegal gratification is the gravamen of the charge for offences U/Ss.7/13(1)(d) of the Act and in absence thereof, the charge would surely fail. Law is also well settled that mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of any demand, ipso facto would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under those two Sections of the Act (see P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. The District Inspector of Police and another; (2015) 10 SCC 152). In coming back to the evidence on record with regard to acceptance of bribe, it appears CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 23 of 27 that all the witnesses of the raiding party has categorically stated in their evidence that the accused threw the money, but acceptance in the context denotes receiving the money as an illegal gratification with consent. It is also not revealed from the evidence as to what transpired between the complainant (decoy) and the appellant (convict) and therefore, in absence of such evidence, this Court is reluctant to buy the theory that the appellant (convict) had accepted the money tacitly as a bribe and threw it on being approached by the raiding party. Besides, PW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that the accused denied to have received any bribe amount from the complainant, but what cannot be lost sight of is that the Trap Laying Officer has also admitted in his cross-examination that the place where the accused threw away the tainted currency notes is situated within the Block Office Campus and as he was present at a distance, he could not hear the discussion between the complainant and the accused and the BDO was present at the spot and CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 24 of 27 he cannot say by which hand he (convict) received the currency notes. It is the specific admission in cross- examination by PW5 (TLO) that he does not remember as to if he has stated to the IO that seeing them, the accused (convict) threw away the currency notes. This Court, however, finds the learned trial Court to have placed the statutory burden on the accused to rebute the presumption U/S.20 of the Act without any discussion or reasoning, but it has been held by the catena of decision that the statutory presumption as provided U/S.20 of the Act has to be considered on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. In this case, when it is found from the evidence of all the witnesses examined as a member of raiding party that the accused threw the currency notes and when such evidence is considered on the face of the evidence of the decoy (PW3) who had stated to have thrust the money on the pocket of the accused (convict), the presumption as placed on the accused appears to have stood discharged or rebutted, especially when the CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 25 of 27 evidence of TLO reveals that from the beginning the accused (convict) was telling them that he has not received any amount as bribe and, therefore, the acceptance of bribe by the appellant (convict) cannot also be considered to have been established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. 12. In view of the discussions made hereinabove on the face of re-appreciation of evidence on record, this Court has found that the learned trial Court has erroneously appreciated the evidence on record and convicted the appellant (convict) without considering the fact that the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused (convict) has not been established beyond all reasonable doubt and, therefore, the necessary consequence is that the guilt of the appellant (convict) is found to have not been established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts and he is, therefore, entitled to an acquittal of the charge. 13. Resultantly, the appeal stands allowed on contest, but there is no order as to costs. CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 26 of 27 Consequently, the appellant (convict) is acquitted of the charge for offences U/Ss.7/13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed on 15.07.2014 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Mayurbhanj at Baripada in TC Case No.4 of 2013 are hereby set aside. 14. Since the appellant is on bail upon appeal, he is discharged of his bail bonds. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the5 th day of February, 2024/Subhasmita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 06-Feb-2024 14:57:26 CRLA No.365 of 2014 Page 27 of 27