The High Court
Case Details
A.F.R. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK TRPCRL No.115 of 2022 In the matter of an application under Section 407 read with Section 482, Cr.P.C. --------------------- Shyam Sundar Patel …..… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & another …..… Opp.parties For Petitioner : Miss. Bini Mishra, Advocate For Opp.parties : Mr. T.K. Praharaj, Standing Counsel Mr. G.C. Swain, Advocate (for opp.party no.1) (for Opp.party no.2-complainant) ------------------ P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of hearing: 17.04.2023 Date of judgment: 17.04.2023 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ M.S.SAHOO, J The Office note dated 13.04.2023 put up by the Registry indicates that neither un-served notice nor A.D. returned back from opposite party no.2. Postal tracking report has been annexed to the brief marked as Flag-B which indicates the postal item has been delivered on 12.04.2023. 2. The Mr.G. C. Swain, learned Advocate submits that he has instruction to appear on behalf of opposite party no.2 and has filed Vakalatanama on 13.04.2023. Office to tag the Vakalatnama on the case brief. The name of Mr. G.C. Swain, learned counsel for opp.party no.2 be indicated in the case brief as well as the cause list. // 2 //
Legal Reasoning
Brief background facts and submissions of the petitioner 3. The petition under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, who is named as accused in G.R.Case No.56 of 2022 corresponding to Lephripada P.S. Case No.56 of 2022 for commission of offences punishable under Section 305 of the I.P.C. read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act to transfer of trial of G.R. Case No.56 of 2022 pending before the learned ADJ-cum-PO, Special Court (POCSO), Sundargarh to any other Court on the following grounds as stated in the
Legal Reasoning
petition which have also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner : that the case has been posted for commencement of trial and recording of evidence, however, the same has not been substantially progressed due to various factors which directly hit the right of the accused to fair trial; the mother of the deceased girl is an advocate, practicing in Sundargarh, as a result of which, lawyers of Sundargarh Bar Association have decided not to represent the petitioner and they also carry a sense of hostility to the petitioner; lawyers have expressed their personal bias in taking up the case when the petitioner approached the lawyers though there is no formal resolution to the said effect by the Sundargarh Bar Association; engagement State defence counsel will not erase existing bias in the continuance of the criminal case in the court of learned trial court; the apprehension of the petitioner being stripped off a fair trial, is based on the fact that the petitioner cannot avail a fair trial in the trial court of Sundargarh Page 2 of 18 // 3 // in view of the hostile environment against the present petitioner; as the victim’s family will act hand in glove, there is every chance of miscarriage of justice due to lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution; the lawyers of the Sundargarh Bar Association will directly or indirectly interfere with the course of justice; the trial of the case has also delayed which is also infringed the right of the accused to speed trial; and lastly, it is contended, the transfer of the trial to any other court will have no adverse impact on the witnesses of the prosecution or on the day to day conduct of the trial. 4. As the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not expect to get justice from the Court. On being specifically asked under which provision of Cr.P.C. such statement of the petitioner without any further supporting material is a ground to transfer the case from Special Court having jurisdiction which is proceeding with the trial or there is any decision of this court/Hon’ble Supreme Court on the said aspect, no such provision of law or any decision rendered as a precedence could be pointed out. It is further stated that despite seeking assistance of the State defence counsel there was none to defend the accused. 5. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel that the trial has been unfair to the accused, whereas nothing has been pointed out either in the petition or in the form of the affidavit or any order passed by the learned trial court to substantiate such plea of unfairness/bias/prejudice. Page 3 of 18 // 4 // 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner though has not pointed out anything or stated anything in his pleadings in this petition regarding the trial being biased, this Court has to call for the records of the learned trial court to ascertain the said allegation. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2-informant submits on instruction that a learned counsel from the Sambalpur has already appeared on behalf of the accused before the learned trial court to act as defence counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she has no instruction regarding that and it may be a subsequent development after filing of the present petition before this court. Submissions by the Opp.Party no.1-State Counsel. 8. Referring to the pleadings of the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that baseless allegations against the presiding of the Special Court have been made describing him to be partial as at paragraph-11 of the petition. The said paragraph is quoted herein : “11. That fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated. Therefore in order to ensure that the present petitioners gets a fair trial, the instant case should be transferred to any other Court.” It is submitted by learned Standing Counsel for the State that there cannot be allegation that the Judge is biased on any finding of fact and the petitioner is also not yet aggrieved by any particular order passed by the learned trial judge apart from filing the present petition on the somewhat Page 4 of 18 // 5 // imaginary ground of bias and making allegations in the petition that he will not be treated fairly in the trial. 9. This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State- opp.party no.1. Analysis and Conclusion 10. In considered opinion of this Court while making such allegations of unfair trial due to any order passed by the learned trial court, the minimum should have been done by the petitioner-accused to substantiate such plea or the accused may show that any such thing has happened to draw an inference. It has to be observed that this Court is under no such duty to call for the records on the basis of averments made in the petition without being substantiated by referring to any order. On the face of it, the petitioner has also admitted that he has engaged the learned counsel who has appeared to defend him in the trial. 11. On a specific querry being made by the Court : whether the accused-petitioner has challenged, any order passed by the learned trial court which is prejudicial to him, before this Court, it is submitted that there is no such order that has been challenged. Apparently, apart from making bald allegations based on unfounded apprehension regarding the judicial process being biased there is no other material to support such contention. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner though vehemently contended that the accused has not been granted any certified copy of any order but it is submitted no such details are available regarding any certified copy of order that was Page 5 of 18 // 6 // applied and granted/not granted, nor there is anything to show that when the application was made and when certified copy was granted/not granted. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2- complainant submits that ten witnesses have been cross- examined on behalf of the accused after they were examined by the prosecution. The photo copies of certified copies of the order-sheets produced by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, are taken on record. Considering the allegations made by the petitioner, from the certified copies of orders passed by the learned trial court produced by learned counsel for opposite party no.2, this Court takes note of the proceeding so far before the learned trial court and the same is indicated herein. The P.W-1 appeared through the Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Center, was cross-examined by the defence on behalf of the accused on 13.12.2022. P.W-2 is a minor appeared through the Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Center in camera and was cross- examined by the accused on 14.12.2022. P.W-3 is the another minor who appeared through the Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Center in camera and was cross-examined by the defence on behalf of the accused on 14.12.2022. P.W-4 is the minor appeared before the learned trial court and was cross-examined on behalf of the defence for the accused on 06.02.2023. P.W-5 was cross-examined on behalf of the defence for the accused on 06.02.2023. P.W-6 has been cross-examined by the defence on behalf of the accused on 27.02.2023. Similarly, P.Ws.7, 8 and 9 after their examination-in-chief have been Page 6 of 18 // 7 // cross-examined by the defence on behalf of the accused on 27.02.2023. P.W.10 has been examined and was cross- examined on behalf of the defence on 21.03.2023. P.W.11 on behalf of the prosecution was declared hostile by the prosecution, was cross-examined by the defence on behalf of the accused on 21.03.2023. After going through the certified copies of the depositions, it is apparent that the trial has proceeded substantially. The defence on behalf of the accused has cross- examined the prosecution witnesses. 14. This Court takes note of Section 35 of the POCSO Act ; “Period for recording of evidence of child and disposal of case- (1) The evidence of the child shall be recorded within a period of thirty days of the Special Court taking cognizance of the offence and reasons for delay, if any, shall be recorded by the Special Court. (2) The Special Court shall complete the trial, as far as possible, within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence.” [Emphasis Supplied] 15. Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. provides as follows : “407. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals- (1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court— (a)that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or (b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise; or (c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, Page 7 of 18 // 8 // or is expedient for the ends of justice, it may order- (i) that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not qualified under sections 177 to 185 (both inclusive), but in other respects competent to inquire into or try such offence; (ii)that any particular case, or appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction; (iii) that any particular case be committed for trial of to a Court of Session; or (iv) that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before itself. (2) The High Court may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested, or on its own initiative; Provided that no application shall lie to the High Court for transferring a case from one criminal Court to another criminal Court in the same sessions division, unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him. (3) Every application for an order under Sub- Section (1) shall be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Advocate- General of the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation. (4) When such application is made by an accused person, the High Court may direct him to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for the payment of any compensation which the High Court may award under Sub-Section (7). (5) Every accused person making such application shall give to the Public Prosecutor notice in writing of the application, together with a copy of the grounds on which it is made; and no order shall be made on the merits of the application unless at least-twenty-four hours have elapsed between the giving of such notice and the hearing of the application. Page 8 of 18 // 9 //
Decision
(6) Where the application is for the transfer of a case of appeal from any subordinate Court, the High Court may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice, order the application, the proceedings in the subordinate Court shall be stayed, on such terms as the High Court may think fit to impose; the disposal of that, pending Provided that such stay shall not affect the subordinate Court’s power of remand under section 309. (7) Where an application for an order under SubSection (1) is dismissed, the High Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case. (8) When the High Court orders under Sub- Section (1) that a case be transferred from any Court for trial before itself, it shall observe in such trial the same procedure which that Court would have observed if the case had not been so transferred. (9) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any order of Government under section 197.” 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the aspect of expeditious trial, protection of witnesses as well as the victim, who are vulnerable during trial of the accused charged with offence under the POCSO Act and the Court has issued several directions such as : having dedicated trial courts, availability of forensic science laboratories for analysis of samples, protection of witnesses, measures for expediting trial etc. Such directions and the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are contained in the following decisions: Page 9 of 18 // 10 // “17.01.2020 Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape In Re: (2020) 7 SCC 136; 16.12.2019 Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape In Re: (2020) 7 SCC 112; 01.10.2019 Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape In Re: (2020) 7 SCC 104; 25.07.2019 Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape In Re: (2020) 7 SCC 87;” This Court takes note of the aforesaid decisions and the guidelines contained therein while deciding and disposing of the present petition. 17. This Court takes note of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manoj Pratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan : 2022 (9) SCC 81, particularly paragraphs under the heading H. Procedural questions relating to investigation and trial and in particular paragraphs-48.3, 48.4 and 49 : “48. xxx xxx xxx 48.3. The suggestions that the charge-sheet was filed within 12 days of his arrest and even without receipt of DNA report and that the appellant should have been given more time to study the police report stand rather at conflict with the desirability of prompt proceedings by the investigating agency and also by the trial court in such matters. The constitutional guarantees of equality before law, protection of life and personal liberty, protection in respect of conviction, and protection against the arrest and detention, do not expand into a corresponding right with an accused person to question the swiftness of investigation and expeditious proceedings of the trial or to suggest that he has to be tried at a pace of his choice. It sounds rather preposterous that Page 10 of 18 // 11 // an accused would question the trial proceedings only because of the pace maintained by the prosecution and the trial court so as to take the trial to its logical conclusion at the earliest. While rejecting the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant, we would rather observe that the speed and pace expected in the cases like the present one, per force, require utmost expedition by the investigating agency as also by the trial court. [Emphasis Supplied] 48.4. The contention that the appellant was deprived of his right of defence and he was given services of an inexperienced counsel remain too far-stretched and rather unjustified. Apart from that no such grievance was ever suggested before the trial court or even before the High Court, we find from the record that legal aid counsel was appointed at the request of the appellant himself and in fact, the trial court proceeded with the matter only after appointment of a counsel for the appellant. A perusal of the record further makes it clear that the legal aid counsel left no stone unturned to defend the appellant and thoroughly cross-examined each and every witness to the minutest and minor details. He contested every proposition of the prosecution and even the application for recalling of PW 1 (only for the purpose of identification of the clothes of the deceased, which were received later from FSL) was also thoroughly contested by him by filing a reply and contending that the prosecution was trying their case. Hereinbefore, we have referred to the extensive contentions urged on behalf of the appellant- accused by the legal aid counsel, as dealt with by the trial court in its judgment dated 28-9-2013 [Vide supra paras 26 and 26.1 to 26.6] . fill up a lacuna in to 49. Having examined the record, we find the criticism in this appeal against the conduct of case by the legal aid counsel to be unwarranted and Page 11 of 18 // 12 // indeed rather unfair. The said counsel had faithfully discharged his duties and had thoroughly defended the appellant. As regards the defence version, it has not been shown if the appellant ever suggested to the counsel about his desire to have one or more meetings with him or to confer with him about any particular line of defence. We are constrained to observe that the negative comments qua the said legal aid counsel cannot be countenanced and raising of such contentions is difficult to be appreciated; these contentions are rejected in toto.” [Emphasis Supplied] in this appeal 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision, Nahar Singh Yadav and another –vs.-Union of India and Others; (2011) 1 SCC 307, dealt with the provisions of Section 406 (2) Cr.P.C. which can be profitably referred to here (Paragraph-29 of SCC) “ xxx xxx xxx 29. Thus, although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide whether or not power under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised, it is manifest from a bare reading of sub-sections (2) and (3) of the said Section and on an analysis of the decisions of this Court that an order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested some has apprehension about the proper conduct of a trial. This power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional it becomes situations, where necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial. Some of the broad factors which could be kept in mind while considering an application for transfer of the trial are:- expressed party (i) when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in glove with the accused, and there is likelihood of miscarriage of Page 12 of 18 // 13 // justice due to the lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution; (ii) when there is material to show that the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant; to to be caused (iii) comparative inconvenience and hardships likely the complainant/the prosecution and the witnesses, besides the burden to be borne by the State Exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the official and non-official witnesses; the accused, (iv) a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability of holding fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and the nature of the crime committed by the accused; and (v) existence of some material from which it can be inferred that the some persons are so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere either directly or indirectly with the course of justice.” [Emphasis Supplied] 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with a petition filed by an accused facing trial for allegations under the POCSO Act, praying for transfer of the trial alleging that the leaned Judge had made up his mind and therefore, the applicant/accused apprehended that he will not get justice from the learned Judge. The said plea was opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the victim and learned counsel appearing for the Union of India before the Hon’ble Suprme Court. The records of the proceeding as reported, are reproduced herein: Page 13 of 18 // 14 // Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents, In re, (2020) 7 SCC 139 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 123 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 566 at page 140 1. These applications bearing Nos. 14888 and 14891 of 2020 have been filed by the accused Birendra Singh alias Bauaa Singh for transfer of cases bearing RCs Nos. 9 and 10 of 2018 from the court of Shri Dharmesh Sharma to any other court and for impleadment. The main grievance of the petitioner is that while dealing with case bearing RC No. 8 of 2018, the learned Judge has made the following observations: “(iii) Indeed, the incident of rape was not reported immediately by ‘AS’ nor disclosed by her in her statement under Section 164 CrPC dated 22-5-2017 before the Magistrate during investigation in FIR No. 316 of 2017 PS Makhi [RC No. 11(S) of 2018]. However, the delay of two months and 10 days in reporting the incident for the first time on 17-8-2017 vide letter, Ext. PW 9/D addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Minister, State of U.P. has been cogently and reliably explained by PW 10 victim girl ‘AS’, PW 8 her mother ‘MS’ and her uncle PW 9 Mahesh Singh. (iv) That it is explained by PW 10 victim girl ‘AS’ as well as PW 8 ‘MS’ and PW 9 that such facts were not disclosed by her on 22-6-2017 before the Judicial Magistrate, Unnao, U.P. as she had been threatened by accused Kuldeep Singh Sengar (A-2) to keep quite or else she and her family would not be spared, and it established on the record that no sooner the incident was reported, a vicious tirade against PW 9 Mahesh and his deceased brother ‘SS’ (father of victim ‘AS’) was orchestrated by (A-2) to keep PW 9 Mahesh Singh, uncle of victim girl ‘AS’ behind the bars, who was the mainstay of the family and leading to the alleged incident of beatings of ‘SS’ on 3-4-2018.” 2. Mr Siddhartha Dave, learned counsel for the applicant(s) submits that the aforesaid observations show that the learned Judge had made up his mind and therefore the applicant(s) apprehend that they Page 14 of 18 // 15 // will not get justice from the learned Judge. He, therefore, submits that the case be transferred to some other court. This plea has been opposed by the learned counsel for the victim and the learned counsel for the Union of India. 3. We have gone through the entire order of the Judge and the observations at paras (iii) & (iv) were necessitated only to explain the delay in filing the complaint by the prosecutrix. These observations are not on the merits of the allegations made therein. Even the Judge is cognizant of this and therefore had recorded the following observations in para (xiv): instant case, shall not “(xiv) Lastly, it is specifically provided that any observation or expression of opinion by this Court in the to an expression on the merits of crime case/FIR No. 316/17 now RC No. 11(S) of 2018 or for that matter RC No. 9(S) of 2018 and RC No. 10(S) of 2018.” tantamount xx xx xx The purpose of this Court referring to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 139 is that in the said case transfer of trial was sought by the accused and even though certain observations are made by the learned Presiding Judge, the same cannot be taken exception to in all cases by the accused to contend that the Judge is biased. The observations of the learned trial Judge has to be considered in the context in which it has been made and in the proper perspective. In the case at hand, before this Court, no such reference is made by the accused to any such order of the learned trial court much less to take any exception to the same. 20. As it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also a plea is taken in the petition Page 15 of 18 // 16 // regarding appointment of the amicus curie/State Defence Counsel may lead to a situation of disadvantage to the accused, this Court refers to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anokhilal v. State of M.P., (2019) 20 SCC 196 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 803 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1637 to observe that the learned trial court shall also take note of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anokhilal (supra) when the accused is represented/defended by the State Defence Counsel, the relevant paragraphs containing the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anokhilal (supra) reproduced herein: 25. In V.K. Sasikala v. State [V.K. Sasikala v. State, (2012) 9 SCC 771 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1010] a caution was expressed by this Court as under : (SCC p. 790, para 23.4) “23.4. While the anxiety to bring the trial to its earliest conclusion has to be shared it is fundamental that in the process none of the well-entrenched principles of law that judicial have been illuminating laboriously built by In no precedents are sacrificed or compromised. circumstance, can the cause of justice be made to suffer, though, undoubtedly, it is highly desirable that the finality of any trial is achieved in the quickest possible time.” is undoubtedly required 26. Expeditious disposal in criminal matters and that would naturally be part of guarantee of fair trial. However, the attempts to expedite the process should not be at the expense of the basic elements of fairness and the opportunity to the accused, on which postulates, the entire criminal administration of justice is founded. In the pursuit for expeditious disposal, the cause of justice must never be allowed to suffer or be sacrificed. What is paramount is the cause of justice and keeping the basic ingredients which secure that as a core idea and ideal, the process may be expedited, but fast tracking of process must never ever result in burying the cause of justice. Page 16 of 18 // 17 // 28. All that we can say by way of caution is that in matters where death sentence could be one of the alternative punishments, the courts must be completely vigilant and see that full opportunity at every stage is afforded to the accused. 30. It must be stated that the discussion by this Court was purely confined to the issue whether, while granting free legal aid, the appellant was extended real and meaningful assistance or not. The discussion in the matter shall not be taken to be a reflection on the merits of the matter, which shall be considered and gone into, uninfluenced by any observations made by us. 31. Before we part, we must lay down certain norms so that the infirmities that we have noticed in the present matter are not repeated: 31.1. In all cases where there is a possibility of life sentence or death sentence, learned advocates who have put in minimum of 10 years' practice at the Bar alone be considered to be appointed as Amicus Curiae or through legal services to represent an accused. 31.2. In all matters dealt with by the High Court concerning confirmation of death sentence, Senior Advocates of the Court must first be considered to be appointed as Amicus Curiae. 31.3. Whenever any learned counsel is appointed as Amicus Curiae, some reasonable time may be provided to enable the counsel to prepare the matter. There cannot be any hard-and-fast rule in that behalf. However, a minimum of seven days' time may normally be considered to be appropriate and adequate. 31.4. Any learned counsel, who is appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused must normally be granted to have meetings and discussion with the accused concerned. Such interactions may prove to be helpful as was noticed in Imtiyaz Ramzan Khan [Imtiyaz Ramzan Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 9 SCC 160 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 721] . It is clarified that the observation of this Court as above, i.e., reference to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not to be construed as any reflection on the merits of the case of either of the prosecution or the defence, inasmuch as Page 17 of 18 // 18 // they are not within the scope of the present petition nor this Court has any occasion to deal with the same at present. 21. Applying the principles laid down in directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred above and after going through the available orders passed in the proceeding before the learned trial court, in considered view of this Court, the apprehension of the petitioner expressed in the petition is unfounded and based on his own perception. In any event an accused would have apprehension of being convicted after he faces trial, but since no other material has been brought before this Court, apart from the bald statements and baseless allegations, this Court is not inclined to grant the prayer of the transfer of the trial pending before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Special G.R.Case No.56 of 2022 to any other court within the State. In view of the above discussions, the petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit, with the further observations as indicated in the paragraphs above. Copy of the order be transmitted to the learned ADJ-cum-P.O., Special Court (POCSO), Sundargarh and also be uploaded in the official website. …………………… M.S.Sahoo, J. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJIT KUMAR DUTTA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 23-Nov-2023 17:48:33 Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 17th April,2023/dutta/Gs Page 18 of 18