1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.25197 OF 2024 (GM - RES) BETWEEN: 1 . SRI ASHOK KHENY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS S/O SRI MAHARUDRAPPA KHENY No.2-45, RANJOL KHENY VILLAGE BIDAR TALUK BIDAR – 585 329. ALSO AT: M/S. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LTD., No.1, MIDFORD HOUSE MIDFORD GARDENS, OFF M.G.ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . SRI SANJAY KHENY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O LATE GURUBASAPPA KHENY R/O SITALGEERA VILLAGE HUMNABAD TALUK BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 329. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI C.V.NAGESH, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI S.B.MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE) 2 AND: SRI ABRAHAM T.J., PRESIDENT KARNATAKA ANTI-GRAFT AND ENVIRONMENTAL FORUMS AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS NO.2326, ‘ASHIRWAD’ 2ND ‘A’ CROSS, 16TH 'B' MAIN H.A.L. 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGARA BENGALURU – 560 008. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI ABRAHAM T.J., PARTY-IN-PERSON) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (1) TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC II AT BIDAR IN P.C.R. NO.85/2021 NOW REGISTERED AS CC NO.4507 .2024 (I.E. ANNEXURE A), WHEREUNDER, THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE HAS PASSED AN IMPUGNED ORDER TO REGISTER THE CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS (WHO ARE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NOS. 2 AND 3) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 201, 204, 380, 34 AND SECTIONS 8 AND 9 OF THE KARNATAKA STATE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 2010 AND ISSUED PROCESS TO THE ACCUSED IN THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN P.C.R. 85/2021 NOW REGISTERED AS CC NO.4507/.2024. IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERNED AND ETC., 3 THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 04-07-2024 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-II at Bidar in P.C.R.No.85 of 2021, in which criminal case is directed to be registered against the petitioners/accused and accordingly summons are issued under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Heard Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri T.J. Abraham, respondent in person. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:- On 01-04-2013 an application is filed by the 1st petitioner for inclusion of his name in the voters’ list of Bidar South Constituency. The 1st petitioner contested the elections from Bidar South Constituency and becomes a returned candidate and was a Member 4 of the Legislative Assembly between 2013 and 2018. During the said period, a private complaint is filed by the respondent on 10- 07-2015 for various offences in P.C.R.No.112 of 2016. The respondent/complainant files an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., for summoning documents including Form No.6 filed by the 1st petitioner for the inclusion of his name in the voters’ list of Bidar South Constituency. Pending the said production, criminal case comes to be registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 167, 177, 182, 192, 193, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 217, 218, 409, 415, 420, 464, 468, 471 of the IPC r/w Section 31(a) and (b) of the Representation of People Act, 1950 r/w Rules 13(1) and 26 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. 4. The petitioners challenge the proceedings in P.C.R.No.112 of 2016, before this Court in Criminal Petition No.200086 of 2018. A coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the said criminal petition in terms of its order dated 02-04-2018. The order reads as follows: “…. …. …. 10. However, same is opposed by the respondent on the ground that when the signature of the petitioner along with his 5 admitted signatures were sent to FSL Bengaluru, under the pressure and influence of petitioners herein from various Quarter, the FSL did not take up to the same for investigation and sent it back with lame excuse. Thereafter, the admitted and disputed signatures were sent to FSL Chennai, where again same was not taken up for investigation in view of pressure being exerted on the said laboratory. It is only thereafter the said material was sent to private lab, however, the report of the said lab was not accepted, as it was based on the Photostat copy of admitted signature of petitioner. It is stated that the said objection was accepted by the Court. 11. However, in this background, what is required to be done is to ensure Quietus to this is provided instead of keeping this pending for eternity on technicalities. In the meanwhile, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the complaint which is now pending in C.C.No.3539/2017 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class-II, Bidar, is said to be sent Bengaluru to a newly constituted Court which has jurisdiction to take over all pending matters against the politicians and elected representatives. 12. In that view of the matter, this Court felt question of interfering with the order of the learned Magistrate does not arise at this stage. For the reason that what is to be done here is to ascertain whether the signature on Form No.6 is the signature of petitioner will have to be ascertained by the designated Court by securing the original signatures of the petitioner either from legislative Assembly or any other department where the petitioner has legitimate business to get the same compared with the signature on Form No.6 filed by the 1st petitioner. 13. At this juncture, there is one more twist to this litigation, the respondent bring to the notice of this Court that the concerned Electoral Officer is said to have stated that Form No.6 itself is missing. According to respondent the concerned Officer was drawn to the services of petitioner No.1 when he was functioning as MLA to work as his assistant and that person has a role in deliberately getting the original document misplaced. This Court 6 would observe that the same is required to be looked into by the designated Court while seeking production of original of Form No.6 from the concerned officer. If the Court below think it is necessary to hold an enquiry regarding alleged missing of original Form No.6 the same shall be conducted. Thereafter, to take necessary steps to get the verification of signature through scientific investigation from FSL Hyderabad. 14. The designated Court should go into the complaint to verify if the concerned officer who was in charge of the said document really worked as assistant of the petitioner while he was MLA if that is established, there could not be more serious offence than that. However, if it is found that the said information is incorrect as stated by the learned counsel Sri Summan the petitioners are at liberty to proceed against respondent for levelling such false charges against petitioners with liberty being provided to them to initiate such proceedings against the complainant to protect the interest of the petitioners also. 15. With aforesaid observations, this Court would dismiss this petition and refer the matter back to the Special Court, which is at Bengaluru to deal with the same keeping in mind the aforesaid observations. It is also made clear that the Special Court should ensure that the verification of admitted signatures of the petitioner should be secured in the aforesaid manner to be compared with the signature on Form No.6. After securing the same by taking appropriate steps in that behalf and complete the formalities within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” (Emphasis supplied) 5. The respondent/complainant files a subsequent complaint in P.C.R. No. 85 of 2021, for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 204, 380, 34 of the IPC and Sections 8 and 9 of the 7 Karnataka State Public Records Act 2010. The matter is then transferred to the Market Police Station, Bidar for investigation. The police after investigation files a ‘B’ report, which comes to be rejected by the concerned Court on the basis of the protest petition filed by the respondent/complainant. The concerned Court thereafter makes an order issuing summons to the accused. 6. The issue now would be, whether the order rejecting ‘B’ report and directing registration of crime against these petitioners is in tune with law or otherwise. The order issuing summons against the accused dated 04-07-2024 reads as follows: “:: ORDER ON ISSUANCE OF PROCESS :: The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 200 of CR.P.C against the accused No.1 to 3 for the alleged offences punishable U/s.120(B), 201, 204, 380 of IPC & section 8 & 9 of Karnataka state public records act 2010 R/w/s 34 of IPC. The same was refereed to Market police Bidar for investigation. The said police have submitted the B final report before the court. The complainant has filed protest petition against said B final report. After hearing the complainant, the protest petition is allowed and B final report is rejected. Thereafter the sworn statement of the complainant recorded and he got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to 28 on his behalf. 2. Brief facts of the complaint of the complainant that, he has filed complaint in respect of including the name of accused No.2 in the voters list by forging his signature in the form No.6 by the accused No.3. During inquiry of the said complaint, the 8 court has directed the Tahsildar to produce the said form No.6 before the court. But he has not produced the same before the court and stated that, it was in the custody of accused No.1 and said accused No.1 ran-away without giving the charge of said document. After inquiry, the complainant came to know that, the accused No.1 has been worked as a personal assistant to the accused No.2. Thereafter, he was got transferred to election division of Tahsildar office Bidar and had custody of said form No.6. Thereafter the accused No.1 has not attended to his office work and absconded with said form No.6 with intension to make disappearance and destroy the said document. For this facts of the case, after rejection of B report, the complainant has given his sworn statement before the court and got marked documents as Ex. C-1 to 28 in support of his case. 3. Heard the arguments & perused the case papers. 4. On careful perusal of the complaint allegations and on going through the complaint, sworn statement and documents produced by the complainant/CW-1, it shows the prima facie materials against the accused persons for the alleged offences and the complainant has made out sufficient grounds to issue the process against the said accused persons. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following: ::ORDER:: Office to Register the case in Criminal Register No. III against the accused No. 1 to 3 for the alleged offences P/U/s. 120(B), 201, 204, 380 of IPC and Sections 8 & 9 of Karnataka State Public Records Act, 2010 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Issue summons to the accused Nos. 1 to 3 if complainant complied the Section 204(2) of Cr.P.C. Returnable by: 09-09- 2024. Sd/- I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC-II Bidar.” The order is, in fact, an order on the protest petition filed by the complainant. The order issuing summons to the accused merely 9 states that sufficient grounds are made out to issue process against the accused persons, without giving any reasons for forming its opinion. 7. I deem it appropriate to notice Section 204 of the Cr.P.C., which reads as follows: “204. Issue of process.—(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognisance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be— (a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or (b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction. (2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. (3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub- section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. (4) When by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint. 10 (5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of Section 87.” (Emphasis supplied) Section 204(1) of the Cr.P.C. holds that the Magistrate shall issue summons to the accused if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 8.1. The issue regarding what constitutes ‘sufficient ground’ need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into matter, since the Apex Court in the case of SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION1, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused. 1 (2015) 4 SCC 609 11 52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction. 53. However, the words “sufficient ground for proceeding” appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect. (Emphasis supplied) 8.2. The Apex Court, in the judgment rendered in the case of VIKAS CHANDRA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH2, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 8. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the power of the Magistrate to issue summons even after filing of a negative report by the police. In other words, the Magistrate is not duty bound to accept the Final Report filed under Section 173(2), Cr. P.C. The power not to accept the Final Report and to issue summons to the accused is recognized by this Court in the decision in Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja. In this context, it is to be noted that this Court in the 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1534 12 decision in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police held that when a Final Report under Section 173(2), Cr. P.C., is filed before the Magistrate, which happens to be a negative report, usually called a “closure report”, he gets the following four choices to be adopted, taking into account the position obtained in the case concerned: (1) to accept the report and drop the Court proceedings (2) to direct further investigation to be made by the police (3) to investigate himself or refer for the investigation to be made by another Magistrate under Section 159, Cr. P.C., (4) to take cognizance of the offence under Section 200, Cr. P.C., as a private complaint when the materials are sufficient in his opinion and if the complainant is prepared for that course. 9. Now, there can be no two views that “existence of power” and “exercise of power” are different and distinct. Having found that a Magistrate is jurisdictionally competent to take cognizance and issue summons despite the receipt of closure report following the prescribed procedure, we will have to consider the sustainability of the exercise of such power, in view of the legal and factual position obtained, in this case. In the decision in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, this Court laid down the golden standard for summoning an accused after holding that summoning an accused is a serious matter involving interference with life and liberty of a person. Paragraph 28 therein is noteworthy and it reads thus:— “28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. it is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning 13 of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 10. In the contextual situation, it is also relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in D.N. Bhattacharjee v. State of West Bengal, wherein this Court observed that while conducting an inquiry, the Magistrate could go into the merits of the evidence collected by the investigating agency to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. It is relevant to note, in this context, that the sine qua non for exercise of the power under Section 204, Cr. P.C., to issue process is the subjective satisfaction regarding the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding. 11. Paragraph 7 in D.N. Bhattacharjee's case (supra), in so far as it is relevant, reads thus:— “7…… It is true that the Magistrate is not debarred, at this stage, from going into the merits of the evidence produced by the complainant. But, the object of such consideration of the merits of the case, at this stage, could only be to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further or not”. 12. In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda this Court held thus:— “22…..The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along with the statements recorded, would, prima facie, make the accused answerable before the court……….In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied 14 that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 of CrPC, if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 of CrPC, by issuing process for appearance. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction………..To be called to appear before criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting one's dignity, self respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment.” 13. A close scrutiny of the position of law revealed from the aforesaid decisions, which are constantly and consistently being followed by this Court, would reveal that issuance of summons is a serious matter and, therefore, shall not be done mechanically and it shall be done only upon satisfaction on the ground for proceeding further in the matter against a person concerned based on the materials collected during the inquiry. 14. In the aforesaid circumstances, the next question to be considered is whether a summons issued by a Magistrate can be interfered with in exercise of the power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. In the decisions in Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Pepsi Foods Ltd.'s case (supra) this Court held that a petition filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C., for quashing an order summoning the accused is maintainable. There cannot be any doubt that once it is held that sine qua non for exercise of the power to issue summons is the subjective satisfaction “on the ground for proceeding further” while exercising the power to consider the legality of a summons issued by a Magistrate, certainly it is the duty of the Court to look into the question as to whether the learned Magistrate had applied his mind to form an opinion as to the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding further and in that regard to issue summons to face the trial for the offence concerned. In this context, we think it appropriate to state that one should understand that ‘taking cognizance’, empowered under Section 190, Cr. P.C., and 15 ‘issuing process’, empowered under Section 204, Cr. P.C., are different and distinct. (See the decision in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. C.B.I.). 15. In Sunil Bharti Mittal's case (supra), this Court interpreted the expression “sufficient grounds for proceeding” and held that there should be sufficiency of materials against the accused concerned before proceeding under Section 204, Cr. P.C. It was held thus:— “53. However, the words “sufficient ground for proceeding” appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect.”” (Emphasis supplied) On a blend of the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court, what unmistakably emerges is, that the Court is required to record its reasons to demonstrate that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, before issuing summons under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. 9. Further, it also becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. 16 RAVIKUMAR v. Mrs. K.M.C. VASANTHA3, which lays down seven postulates elucidating the procedure to be followed by the Court when a ‘B’ report is filed by the Police after investigation. It reads as follows: “…. …. …. 5. The procedure followed by the Learned Magistrate is not in accordance with law. It is well recognized principle of law that, once the Police submit ‘B’ Summary Report and protest petition is filed to the same, irrespective of contents of the protest petition, the Court has to examine the contents of ‘B’ Summary Report so as to ascertain whether the Police have done investigation in a proper manner or not and if the Court is of the opinion that the investigation has not been conducted properly, the Court has got some options to be followed, which are,- i) The court after going through the contents of the investigating papers, filed u/s 173 of Cr. P.C., is of the opinion that the investigation has not been done properly, the court has no jurisdiction to direct the Police to file the charge sheet however, the Court may direct the Police for re or further investigation and submit a report, which power is inherent under section 156(3) of Cr. P.C., but before taking cognizance such exercise has to be done. This my view is supported by the decisions of the Hon’ ble Apex Court in a decision reported in between Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra [AIR 1968 S.C. 117.] (para 15) and also Full Bench decision of Apex Court in between Kamalapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal [(1980) 2 SCC 91.] (second head note.) ii) If the court is of the opinion that the material available in the ‘B’ Summary Report makes out a cognizable case against the accused and the same is sufficient to take cognizance, and to issue process, then the court has to 3 ILR 2018 KAR 1725 17 record its opinion under Sec. 204 of Cr. P.C., and the Court has got power to take cognizance on the contents of ‘B’ Summary Report and to proceed against the accused, by issuance of process. iii) If the court is of the opinion that the ‘B’ Summary Report submitted by the Police has to be rejected, then by expressing its judicious opinion, after applying its mind to the contents of ‘B’ report, the court has to reject the ‘B’ Summary Report. iv) After rejection of the ‘B’ Summary Report, the court has to look into the private complaint or Protest Petition as the case may be, and contents therein to ascertain whether the allegations made in the Private complaint or in the Protest Petition constitute any cognizable offence, and then it can take cognizance of those offences and thereafter, provide opportunity to the complainant to give Sworn Statement and also record the statements of the witnesses if any on the side of the complainant as per the mandate of Sec. 200 Cr. P.C. v) If the court is of the opinion that the materials collected by the police in the report submitted under section 173 of Cr. P.C. are not so sufficient, however, there are sufficient materials which disclose that a cognizable offence has been committed by the accused, the court can still take cognizance of the offence/s under Section 190 read with 200 Cr. P.C. on the basis of the original complaint or the protest petition as the case may be. After taking cognizance and recording sworn statement of the complainant and statements of witnesses if any and also looking into the complaint/Protest Petition and contents therein, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that, to ascertain the truth or falsity of the allegations further inquiry is required and he thinks fit to post pone the issue of process he can still direct the investigation under section 202 of Cr. P.C., to be made by a Police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit, to investigate and submit a report, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In the above eventuality, care should be taken that, the case shall not be referred to the Police under 18 section 156(3) of Cr. P.C., once the magistrate takes cognizance and starts inquiring into the matter himself. vi) After taking such report under section 202 of Cr. P.C., and looking to the entire materials on record, if the magistrate is of the opinion that there are no grounds to proceed against the accused, then the Magistrate is bound to dismiss the complaint or the Protest Petition u/s. 203 of Cr. P.C. as the case may be. vii) If in the opinion of the Magistrate there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, on examination of the allegations made in the Protest Petition or in the complaint, as the case may be and also after perusal of the sworn statement, then he has to record his opinion judiciously, and issue summons to the accused by exercising power u/s. 204 of Cr. P.C.” (Emphasis supplied) The co-ordinate Bench, while laying down the procedure to be followed by the Court pursuant to ‘B’ report being filed, holds that the Magistrate taking cognizance is required to record his opinion judiciously, before proceeding to issue summons to the accused under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. 10. In that light, the order directing issuance of process runs foul of the afore-quoted judgments rendered by the Apex Court and that of this Court and is accordingly, rendered unsustainable. 19 The concerned Court is directed to pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Writ Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The order of issuance of process dated 04-07-2024 is quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the concerned Court to pass necessary orders, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) All other contentions remain open. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ