IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.169 of 2011 with Cr. Revision No.190 of 2011 Date of Decision : 15.06.2026 _______________________________________________________ 1. Criminal Revision No.169 of 2011 Subhash Kainthla & others ….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent. 2. Cr. Revision No.190 of 2011 Surat Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ….. Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.P.Chauhan and Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioners, in the respective petitions. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. Sandeep Sharma, Judge (Oral) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions and the petitioners ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) in both the cases, are aggrieved of common judgment Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 dated 26.07.2011, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.29-S/10 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal No.30-S/10 of 2008, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.06.2008/10.06.2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Case No.49-1 of 2005, this Court, after having clubbed both the petitions, heard the same together and now same are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of clarity, the facts of Cr. Revision No.169 of 2011, titled as Subhash Kainthla and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, are being discussed herein below. 2. Quintessential facts necessary for adjudication of the present case, which are otherwise common in both the cases, are that PW-9, Jagmohan Singh, who at the relevant time was working as Forest Guard/In-charge of Shirgul forest detected illicit felling in Shirgul forest and seized 40 scants of Deodar. Though, afore Official wanted to entrust the forest produce to the local residents, but since none was prepared to take possession thereof, he after having applied his mark and hammer to the forest produce stacked the same by the side of the road. PW-8, Prakash Chand, Forest Guard, PW-9, Jagmohan Singh, as also the Block Officer, while patrolling Shrigul Forest on the intervening night of 14.10.2004 and 15.10.2004, at about 2.00 Α.Μ, noticed one Mahindra utility vehicle loaded with forest produce proceeding from Shrigul Forest towards Kotkhai. The forest 3 officials signalled the aforesaid vehicle, which was not bearing any registration number plate, to stop, however, the driver ignored the signal and sped away. After sometime, Mazda truck No. HP-62-0465 was also noticed proceeding from Shrigul Forest towards Kotkhai. The Forest Officer signalled the truck to stop, but driver did not stop and hurriedly took the vehicle towards Kotkhai. The forest officials thereafter telephonically informed Police Post, Kotkhai regarding the illicit export of forest produce in the Utility vehicle and Mazda Truck. On the basis of aforesaid information, PW-17, Vikram Chauhan, A.S.I., recorded Report No. 18 in the daily diary and alongwith other police officials, rushed towards Chander Nagar. PW- 17 signalled for stopping the vehicle coming from Shrigul side. Accused person namely, Subhash Kainthla was found driving the vehicle, whereas another co-accused Suresh Kumar was sitting in the vehicle. The registration number of the vehicle being driven by Subhash Kainthla was found to be HP-09A-0710 and afore vehicle was found to be carrying 10 scants of deodar. Since accused Subhash Kainthla and Suresh Kumar failed to produce export permit or transit pass in respect of forest produce, PW-17 alongwith other police officials, detained them alongwith the vehicle and at a distance of 80 metres police found Swaraj Mazda Truck No. HP-62-0465, which had struck against the valley side of the road. The accused Sanjay Mehta was found in the rear portion of the truck and there were 8 scants of deodar in the truck. 22 scants of Deodar stood unloaded from the 4 truck and had been thrown on the lower side of the highway. PW-8, PW-9 and the Block Officer had left for Kotkahi on foot through a shortcut route and reached Chander Nagar at about 5/6.00 Α.Μ, where they found Utility vehicle alongwith the forest produce having been detained by the police. The truck was being driven rashly and negligently and had struck the valley side of the road. PW-17 had prepared report Ex.PW-17/B and sent the same to the Police Station concerned for registration of a case under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Accused Subhash Kainthla, Suresh Kumar and Sanjay Mehta were arrested, whereas the remaining accused namely, Rajinder Singh, Surat Singh and Chander Mohan, who were allegedly traveling in the truck alongwith the forest produce, managed to flee from the spot. 3. Accused persons, namely Subhash Kainthla, Suresh Kumar and Sanjay Mehta arrested by the police got the site of theft demarcated, whereas remaining accused persons Chander Mohan, Rajinder Singh and Surat Singh had applied for anticipatory bail, which came to be allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. After being enlarged on anticipatory bail, they also demarcated the site from where they had picked up the forest produce in the vehicles. After completion of the investigation, police prepared the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C against the accused persons and presented the same before the competent court of law. 5 4. Learned trial Court, after satisfying itself that a prima- facie case exists against the accused, framed charges against them under Sections 279, 379 of IPC and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court vide judgment dated 07.06.2008 acquitted the accused Surat Singh of the charge framed against him under Section 279 IPC and convicted other accused under Section 379 of IPC and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and accordingly, sentenced them as under:- 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial Court, present petitioners-accused filed appeals under Section 374(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 29-S/10 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal No.30-S/10 of 2008. Learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 26.07.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 29-S/10 of 2008, acquitted the accused Chander Mohan, but upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the accused Subhash Kainthla, Suresh Kumar and Sanjay Mehta. In another Sr. Offence Sentence Fine amount( ) 1. 379 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act Rigorous imprisonment for two years and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 1000/- 6 Criminal Appeal No. 30-S/10 of 2008, judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court came to be affirmed in toto. In the aforesaid background, present petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant criminal revision petitions, praying therein for their acquittal after quashing and setting-aside the impugned judgments passed by the learned Courts below. It is also pertinent to take note of the fact that during the pendency of present revision petitions, one of the convicts, namely Sanjay Mehta, expired and consequently, the proceedings qua him stood abated. 6. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners-accused, as has been highlighted in the grounds of petitions and further canvassed by Mr. P.P.Chauhan and Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioners, is that the judgments passed by both the Courts below are perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law as both the Courts below have erred in not appreciating that there was no proper charge framed against the accused, which went to the core of entire issue and in fact rendered the entire trial initiated against the accused void abinitio and bad in law. Learned counsel representing the accused vehemently argued that Courts below erred in not taking note of Violation of Rule 20 of Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit(Land Routes)Rules,1978, framed under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Act, which was necessary because Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act is merely an enabling Section empowering the State Government to prescribe by Rules, penalties of imprisonment or fine 7 or both for contravention of Rules framed under Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submitted that it is mandatory for the trial Magistrate to specifically state the precise Rules framed under Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act, for the violation of which the accused were required to be punished and therefore charge was defective. They further submitted that had trial Magistrate specifically mentioned precise rules framed under Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act in charge, accused would have been afforded an opportunity to present their defence accordingly. However, on account of defective charge, findings prejudicial to the interests of the accused came to be recorded by the Courts below. 7. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while supporting the impugned judgments passed by learned Courts below, vehemently argued that there was no specific requirement, if any, for making reference to Rules at the time of framing of charge, rather Court below rightly proceeded to frame charges under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. He further submitted that otherwise also, this Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C., has very limited jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence. He further submitted that prosecution successfully proved on record that scants recovered from the vehicles being driven by the accused or the persons sitting in the same were not owned by them and same were forest produce, learned Court 8 below rightly held them guilty of their having committed the offence punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. While referring to Section 69 of the Indian Forest Act, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that once accused failed to prove ownership of the timber allegedly recovered from their vehicles, forest produce was liable to be treated under the ownership of the State Government. Learned Additional Advocate General, also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case State of Kerala versus Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999)2 Supreme Court Cases 452, wherein it has been held as under:- “ In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.” 8. In the aforesaid background, he prayed that the present petitions deserve to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. 9 9. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and gone through the record carefully. 10. True, it is that while exercising the power under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, this Court has very limited power to re-appreciate the evidence available on record. But in the present cases, where accused has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 379 of IPC and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, this Court solely with a view to ascertain that the judgments passed by both the Courts below are not perverse and same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence available on record, undertook an exercise to meticulously examine the evidence available on record to reach a fair and just decision in the case. 11. As far as scope of power of this Court, while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishnan and another Versus Krishnaveni and another, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Case 241; has held that in case Court notices that there is a failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:- 10 8. The object of Section 483 and the purpose behind conferring the revisional power under Section 397 read with Section 401, upon the High Court is to invest continuous supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to mete out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised revisional power under Section 397(1). However, when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/ incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order.” 12. In the instant case, this Court solely with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the submissions having been made by the learned counsel representing the petitioner as well as to find out “whether there is any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments passed by the Court below, undertook an exercise to peruse the evidence led on record by the prosecution, perusal whereof, certainly persuades this Court to agree with the submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused that learned courts below have not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective, as a result of which, erroneous findings to the detriment of the petitioner-accused have come on record. 11 13. To ascertain the correctness of the submissions rasied at the behest of the petitioners/accused, it would be profitable to take note of Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, which read as under:- “41. Power to make rules to regulate transit of forest produce.—(1) The control of all rivers and their banks as regards the floating of timber, as well as the control of all timber and other forest produce in transit by land or water, is vested in the (State Government), and it may make rules to regulate the transit of all timber and other forest produce. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rules may— (a) prescribe the routes by which alone timber or other forest-produce may be imported, exported or moved into, from or within (the State); (b) prohibit the import or export or moving of such timber or other produce without a pass from an officer duly authorized to issue the same, or otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of such pass; (c) provide for the issue, production and return of such passes and for the payment of fees therefor; (d) provide for the stoppage, reporting, examination and marking of timber or other forest-produce in transit, in respect of which there is reason to believe that any money is payable to the (Government) on account of the price thereof, or on account of any duty, fee, royalty or Charge due thereon, or, to which it is desirable for the purposes of this Act to affix a mark; (e) provide for the establishment and regulation of depots to which such timber or other produce shall be taken by those in Charge of it for examination, or for the payment of such money, or in order that such marks may be affixed to it, and the conditions under which such timber or other produce shall be brought to, stored at and removed from such depots; (f) prohibit the closing up or obstructing of the channel or banks of any throwing of grass, brushwood, branches or leaves into any such river or any act which may cause such river to be closed or obstructed; (g) provide for the prevention or removal of any obstruction of the channel or banks of any such river, and for recovering the cost of such prevention or removal from the person whose acts or negligence necessitated the same; 12 (h) prohibit absolutely or subject to conditions, within specified local limits, the establishment of saw-pits, the converting, cutting, burning, concealing or making of timber, the altering or effacing of any marks on the same, or the possession or carrying of marking hammers or other implements used for marking timber; (i) regulate the use of property marks for timber, and the registration of such marks; prescribe the time for which such registration shall hold good; limit the number of such marks that may be registered by any one person, and provide for the levy of fees for such registration. (3) The (State Government) may direct that any rule made under this section shall not apply to any specified class of timber or other forest-produce or to any specified local area. 42. Penalty for breach of rules made under section 41.—(1) The (State Government) may by such rules prescribe as penalties for the contravention thereof imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or both. (2) Such rules may provide that penalties which are double of those mentioned in sub-section (1) may be inflicted in cases where the offence is committed after sunset and before sunrise, or after preparation for resistance to lawful authority, or where the offender has been previously convicted of a like offence.” 14. The Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 have been framed under Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act. Rule 11 provides pass for transportation of forest produce. Rule 20 provides imprisonment or fine or both for contravention of Rules. The proviso to Rule 20 provides penalty double in case offence committed after sunset or before sun-rise or after resistance to the lawful authority or where the offender has been previously convicted for like offence. Section 41 of the Act empowers State Government to make rules to regulate transit of forest produce. Section 42 of the Act provides penalties for breach of rules made under Section 41 of the Act, meaning thereby reference of Rule 20, which provides for 13 imprisonment or fine or both for contravention of Rules, is necessary where there is allegation of violation of rules. However, in the instant case, close scrutiny of record reveals that trial Court, while framing charge failed to make reference of violation of Rule 20 framed under Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Though, petitioners came to be convicted and imposed penalty for breach of Rules as contemplated under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act, but, there is no mention of the Rules which were so framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh as provided in Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and accordingly, there is nothing on record as to which Rule so framed by the State of Himachal Pradesh has been violated by the petitioners, thus, causing prejudice to accused by depriving them opportunity to put up their defence qua violation of the Rules in issue for which they have been convicted under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 15. Careful perusal of the judgment passed by learned trial Court clearly reveals that accused came to be convicted under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, whereas conviction, if any, ought to have been under Rule 20 of Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules 1978 framed under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, if breach thereof was otherwise proved. 14 16. Since there is no reference of violation of any Rule framed under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act in the charge, there was no occasion, if any, for the Courts below to convict the petitioners under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 17. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case titled State of Himachal Pradesh versus Nagnu Ram and others, Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2004, while placing reliance upon the judgment passed in Shiv Narain Bhasin v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1985 SLC 274, held that Section 42 of Indian Forest Act is merely an enabling Section empowering the State government to prescribe by Rules, penalties of imprisonment or fine or both for contravention of Rules framed under Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act and it was necessary for the trial Magistrate to state the precise Rules framed under Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act for the violation of which the accused was required to be punished and therefore, notice of accusation was held to be defective. In afore judgment, this Court further held that non-reference of Rule 20 framed under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act by the State Government in the notice of accusation which was put to the accused who were not given an opportunity to project their defence to the accusation of violation of Rules framed under Section 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act caused prejudice to the accused/ respondents. Aforesaid proposition of law further came to be reiterated by this Court in Criminal Revision 15 No. 116 of 2008, Fateh Singh and Ors. Versus State of H.P., decided on 30.11.2016. 18. At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce paragraphs 11 to 13 of the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Nagnu Ram and others (supra), wherein the issue in question came to be examined in detail. The said paragraphs read as under:- 11. PW-6 has stated that timber was not cut but was lifted from Dharotu Nallah. The source of the timber could not be traced. There is no charge of theft. The notice of accusation was put to respondents for transporting 10 sleepers of deodar in van No.HP02-0139 without any valid permit and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Section 41 provides that State Government may make rules to regulate transit of timber and other forest produce. Section 42 provides that State Government may by such rules prescribe as penalties. 12. In the notice of accusation put to respondents in the present case no reference of violation of rules framed under Sections 41,42 of the Indian Forest Act has been stated. In Shiv Narain Bhasin v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1985 SLC 274 it has been held that section 42 of the Indian Forest Act is merely an enabling section empowering the State government to prescribe by rules penalties of imprisonment or fine or both for contravention of rules framed under Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act. The Court has further held that it was necessary for the trial Magistrate to state the precise rules framed under section 41 of the Indian Forest Act for the violation of which the accused was required to be punished and therefore, notice of accusation was held to be defective. 13. The Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 have been framed under Sections 41, 42 of the Act. Rule 11 provides pass for transportation of forest produce. Rule 20 provides imprisonment or fine or both for contravention of rules. 16 The proviso to rule 20 provides penalty double in case offence committed after sunset or before sun-rise or after resistance to the lawful authority or where the offender has been previously convicted of like offence. Therefore reference of rule 20 in the accusation is necessary where there is allegation of violation of rules. In the present case there is absence of reference of rules, more particularly, rule 20 framed under Sections 41,42 of the Indian Forest Act by the State Government in the notice of accusation which was put to respondents, who were not given an opportunity to project their defence to the accusation of violation of rules framed under Sections 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act which has caused prejudice to respondents. In these circumstances, after due appreciation of material on record the finding of benefit of doubt given by the learned Magistrate to the respondents cannot be said to be wrong.” 19. In yet another case titled Rajinder Pal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr. Revision No.120 of 2007 alongwith connected matters, decided on 11.07.2017, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while placing reliance upon Nagnu Ram case(supra) reiterated that Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act is merely an enabling Section empowering the State Government to prescribe by Rules, penalties of imprisonment or fine or both for contravention of Rules framed under Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act and it was necessary for the trial Magistrate to specify the precise Rules framed under Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act for the violation of which the accused was required to be punished and therefore, notice of accusation was held to be defective. 20. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Admittedly, the seized timber i.e., the case property was never produced before the 17 trial Court. Though, with a view to prove recovery of 40 scants Deodar wood, the prosecution placed on record seizure memo Ex.PW8/A & Ex. PW8/ B, but mere production of seizure memo does not tantamount to the production of the seized woods and the lorry. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Pawan Kumar and others vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.442 of 2019, decided on 06.03.2019, categorically held that unless the seized wood was produced, mere production of a sample is not sufficient to prove recovery. At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce para Nos. 5 and 6 of aforesaid judgment, which reads as under:- “5. In the appeal against acquittal by the State, the High Court held that the independent witness did not deny his signatures on the seizure memo. In view of a sample of the log having been produced, non-production of the vehicle was not relevant, reversing the acquittal and sentencing the appellants under Sections 41 and 42 of the Forest Act for three months with fine of Rs.500/- with a default stipulation of one month. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent in opposition to the appeal and considered the nature of evidence available. Non-production of the seized wood and the vehicle, the primary evidence of the offence, renders the prosecution case fragile and unsustainable. Mere production of the seizure memo does not tantamount to the production of the seized woods and the lorry. Unless the seized wood was produced, mere production of a sample, and there is no material in support that the sample was out of the same 22 logs, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the appellants.” 21. Though, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused also attempted to persuade this Court to agree with their contention that prosecution was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that 18 petitioners-accused committed offence under Sections 41 and 42 of the Act, but in view of the findings returned qua violation in framing of notice of accusation, this Court sees no reason to go into that aspect of the matter. Otherwise also, bare perusal of the evidence led on record by the prosecution reveals that majority of prosecution witnesses turned hostile, but yet Court below merely on the basis of the suspicion proceeded to hold accused guilty of their having committed the offence punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Para 16 of the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.30-S/10 of 2008 itself suggests that there was no cogent and convincing evidence adduced on record by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, but yet Court merely on the basis of suspicion proceeded to hold them guilty of their having committed the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 22. By now, it is well settled that suspicion cannot take place of evidence and the prosecution is under obligation to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and convincing evidence. By no stretch of imagination, accused can be called upon to explain the circumstances, which are claimed to be against him. 23. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in both the petitions and accordingly, same are allowed. The 19 judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned Appellate Court are quashed and set- aside and the petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Their bail bonds/personal bonds are ordered to be discharged. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. The records of the learned Courts below be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment. (Sandeep Sharma) June 15, 2026 Judge (shankar)