Bar & Bench (

Similar documents
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION I.A NO OF 2012 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2012 ASSAM SANMILITA MAHASANGHA & ORS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRL.M.P. NO. OF 2017 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) 5777 OF 2017.

Bar & Bench (

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 63 OF Sandeep Parekh and ors.

Bar and Bench (

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2467/2015

$~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: July 24, W.P.(C) 7444/2018, C.M. APPL. No /2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH APPELLATE DIVISION (CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL NO OF 2010.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 960 OF 2018 (UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) VERSES

...Petitioner. Versus PAPER BOOK. Of 2015:- Application for permission to file SLP. of 2015:- Application for exemption from.

Bar and Bench (

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO OF Association for Democratic Reforms Versus

Bar & Bench (

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER. Writ Petition (Civil) No of Judgment reserved on : November 05, 2008

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION ( SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ) AND -VERSUS AND. Bhaban (3 rd Floor), 56, Agrabad C/A,

Draft of Public Interest Writ Petition Against Restrictions on Withdrawals from Bank Accounts

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT DELHI EXTRAORDINARY CRIMINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL.) NO. OF 2019 IN THE MATTER OF: VERSUS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. OF 2017 IN Writ Petition (Civil) No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION ( SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION )

Bar & Bench (

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW. Original Application No. 113 of Monday, this the 17 th day of April, 2017

LAW AREA NAME : WOMAN SECTION NAME : SPECIAL LAWS SUB SECTION NAME : DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT LAW IN BRIEF

under the Right to Information Act about action taken if any on the complaint/representations made by him to the Governor of Goa against Advocate

Bar & Bench ( SYNOPSIS

ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.5 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS. Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s).

Bar and Bench (

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2019 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD DISTRICT: AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO OF 2008 AND AND AND AND AND. In the matter between;

PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 1. The petitioner is filing the present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the

A FORTNIGHTLY VAT/GST LAW REPORTER 2003 NTN 22) [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 129 OF 2015 VERSUS J U D G M E N T


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (crl.) No. of Petition Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 408 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF Surat Singh (Dead).Appellant(s) VERSUS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION. Date of Judgment: CM(M) No.

Bar&Bench (

PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ORISSA NOTIFICATION The 20 th April 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION. CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005

COURT NO. 2, ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A. NO. 140 OF 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINA PROCEDURE. CRL.REV.P. 523/2009 & Crl. M.A. No /2009(Stay)

THE COMMERCIAL COURTS, COMMERCIAL DIVISION AND COMMERCIAL APPELLATE DIVISION OF HIGH COURTS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2018

RESPONDENTS. Article 14 read with Article 19 (1) G. Article 246 read with entry 77 list 1, 7 th schedule.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.117 OF 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014] Versus

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No of 2013

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO: OF In the matter:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. W.P.(C) No.3245/2002 and CM No.11982/06, 761/07. Date of Decision: 6th August, 2008.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) I.A. NO. OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION (C) No. 536 OF 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPANIES ACT, 1956 CRL.M.C. No. 179/2010 Judgment delivered on: 20th December, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION ( SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L. P. A. No. 511 of 2009

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Crl. M.C. No. 377/2010 & Crl. M.A. 1296/2010. Reserved on:18th May, 2011

Through Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Advocate with petitioner in person. VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO.3777 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014]

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgement delivered on: 12 th January, W.P.(C) 7068/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

CRIMINAL SECTION FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, Date of decision: WP(C) No. 3595/2011 and CM Nos.

Tamil Nadu Association For The... vs The Principal Secretary on 9 January, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgment delivered on: December 11, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA. Crl.A. No /2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1692 OF 2016 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No of 2012) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1693 OF 2016 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CDJ 2010 SC 546 JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH

THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI. M.A. No. 35 of 2013(SZ) in Appeal No. 31 of 2012

CRP No. 369 / S/O Late Ganraram Upadhaya. S/O Late Ganraram Upadhaya

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner.

2 4. RahulRaj Mall Notice to be served upon its Authorized Representative Notice to be served its Authorized Representative Dumas Road, Magdalla, Sura

I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my. esteemed learned brother, Hon ble Justice Shri S.B. Sinha,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos of 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CONDONATION OF DELAY. W.P (C ) No /2006. Judgment reserved on: October 19, 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. W.P. Crl. No. 1029/2010. Decided on: 9th August, 2011.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION ( SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, OMP No.356/2004. Date of decision : 30th November, 2007

Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for the State. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. for R-2. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

#1 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. MR RAJBIR ORS... Defendant Through: Ex Parte

% W.P.(C) No. 5513/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P. (L) No of 2008

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Small Industries Development Bank of India ( SIDBI)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Crl.M.C. 638/2009 & Crl.M.A.2384/09 (stay) Date of reserve:

Date and Event. 22/12/2008 The Information and Technology Act, 2000 was. 22/12/2008 The Information and Technology Act, 2000 was

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005. Judgment decided on:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

MODEL FORM OF NOTICE, COMPLAINT, AFFIDAVIT AND REPLY MODEL FORM -1 NOTICE BEFORE FILING THE COMPLAINT

$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgment delivered on:10 th September, 2015

Transcription:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO OF 2018 (WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF) (ARISING FROM THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER DATED 05.01.2018 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR, IN M.CR.C. NO. 3957 OF 2017) 7 BETWEEN: POSITION OF PARTIES In the Trial Court In the High Court In this Court Peeyush Bhatia Advocate R/o- H.No. 77 Street No. 1, Anand Nagar, Junwani, Bhilai, Dist.-Durg, Chhattisgarh. 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Through: The District Magistrate, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ved Prakash Prakash Gupta @ Gudda S/o Rajendra Prasad Gupta Aged About 46 Years R/o Polsai Para, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Not a party Not a Party Petitioner VERSUS Prosecution Agency Contesting Respondent Contesting Respondent no. 1 Accused Applicant Performa Respondent no. 2 TO

8 THE HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER DATED 05.01.2018 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR, IN M.CR.C. NO. 3957 OF 2017. MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH 1. This Special Leave Petition arises from impugned judgment & final order dated 05.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in M.CR.C. No. 3957 of 2017 whereby the Hon ble High Court apart from granting bail to accused person in the matter concerned, has made it mandatory to obtain Aadhar Cards of accused persons and sureties before issuing release warrant of a prisoner/accused in State of Chhattisgarh. 2. QUESTIONS OF LAW A. Whether the Hon'ble High Court was justified in issuing guidelines in state of Chhattisgarh directing for mandatory submission of Aadhar Cards of the accused and surety before issuing release warrants? B. Whether the Hon'ble High Court was justified in expanding the objects of THE AADHAAR (TARGETED DELIVERY OF FINANCIAL AND OTHER SUBSIDIES, BENEFITS AND SERVICES) ACT, 2016?

C. Whether the Hon'ble High Court has misconstrued the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Binoy Viswam v. Union of India and Others (2017) 7 SCC 59 the challenge in which was specifically confined to provisions of Income Tax Act 1961? D. Whether the Hon'ble High Court failed to appreciate that there are already numerous instances of violations of rights of prisoners who are languishing in jail for want of sureties and the directions passed in the impugned judgment will makes more regressive conditions for release of prisoners? E. Whether the Hon'ble High Court was justified in issuing such mandatory directions in spite of the fact that constitutional validity of THE AADHAAR (TARGETED DELIVERY OF FINANCIAL AND OTHER SUBSIDIES, BENEFITS AND SERVICES) ACT, 2016 is sub-judice before the constitutional bench of this Hon'ble Court? F. Whether the Hon'ble High Court was justified in issuing mandatory guidelines for verification of Aadhar of accused and sureties on hand of executives and further grant of seven days time period for such verification wherein admittedly there is no machinery established for same? 9 3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 2(2) The Petitioner states that no other petition seeking leave to Appeal has been filed by the petitioner against the

10 impugned final judgment and order. No writ appeal lies against impugned judgment. 4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4: The Annexures P-1 to P- 2 produced along with Special Leave Petition are true copies of the pleadings/documents which formed part of the records of the case in the Court/ Tribunal below against whose order the leave to appeal is sought for in this petition. 5. The present special leave to appeal is sought on the following amongst others: GROUNDS I. Because the portion of the impugned judgment and final order issuing guidelines to the learned trail courts for obtaining Aadhar cards from the accused and sureties before issuing release warrant is perverse in law. Petitioner herein is only aggrieved from that portion of the impugned judgment and prayer is limited to setting aside of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble High Court with regard to obtaining of Aadhar. Petitioner herein staunchly supports all the reforms positively being directed by the Hon'ble Courts for better administration of justice. II. Because the Hon'ble High Court has committed a grave error in law by issuing guidelines for mandatory submission of Aadhar Cards of accused and sureties before issuing release warrant in State of Chhattisgarh.

11 III. Because the Hon'ble High Court failed to appreciate that challenge to the constitutional validity of the basis of Aadhar card i.e. THE AADHAAR (TARGETED DELIVERY OF FINANCIAL AND OTHER SUBSIDIES, BENEFITS AND SERVICES) ACT, 2016 is already sub-judice before the Constitutional bench of this Hon'ble Court and as such any such mandatory verifications for release of a prisoner is not justified. IV. Because the Hon'ble High Court failed to appreciate that there are thousands of prisoners and common persons who have been not been enrolled for Aadhar card and as such any mandatory verification of Aadhar card before release will violate their constitutional and statutory rights. V. Because the Hon'ble High Court has mis-construed the judgment of this Hon'ble Court passed in Binoy Viswam v. Union of India and Others (2017) 7 SCC 59 wherein there was challenge to the amendment in the Income Tax Act 1961, more so, this Hon'ble Court has partially stayed the provision by which the rights of the individuals were curbed retrospectively in want of Aadhar card. VI. BECAUSE the Hon'ble High Court has committed grave error in directing mandatory submission of Aadhar card of the accused and sureties of prisoners.

12 VII. BECAUSE neither the legislature has intended for any such use of Aadhar Card in the THE AADHAAR (TARGETED DELIVERY OF FINANCIAL AND OTHER SUBSIDIES, BENEFITS AND SERVICES) ACT, 2016 nor there is any judicial or other impartial body established under any law for such verification of Aadhar Cards of accused persons and sureties as directed by the Hon'ble High Court. VIII. Because the Hon'ble High Court has gravelly overstepped in issuing such mandatory guidelines imposing a new and un-reasonable condition on prisoners for coming out on bail. This will gravely hamper the rights of the prisoners who are languishing in jails and there Aadhar card has not been prepared till date. IX. BECAUSE the Hon ble High Court has ignored the situation of inability of verification of Aadhar where the person is old and handicapped whose biometrics cannot be accessed. X. BECAUSE the Hon ble High Court guideline would create a chaos in the state of Chhattisgarh, where there is no mechanism or a statutory body for verification of Aadhar Cards of the prisoners and sureties. XI. BEACAUSE the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble High Court is rather regressive than progressive in nature.

13 XII. Because the mandatory requirement of Aadhar will violate the precious rights of the person confined who hasn t enrolled for Aadhar Scheme. 6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF: A. Along with the grounds raised in support of the present special leave petition, it is respectfully submitted that if the guidelines directed in the impugned judgment are not stayed, it will create a serious violations of the rights of the prisoners across the state of Chhattisgarh. B. That the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble High Court in the impugned judgment is also contrary to the established principles of law. 7. MAIN PRAYER: In aforesaid facts & circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that YOUR LORDSHIPS may graciously be pleased to:- i) Grant Special Leave to Appeal against the final order dated 05.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in MCRC. No. 3957 of 2017; and ii) Pass such other order or orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may deem fit. 8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

14 In aforesaid facts & circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that YOUR LORDSHIPS may graciously be pleased to:- i) Grant ad-interim stay on the portion of impugned judgment and final order which issues guidelines with regard to obtaining of Aadhar cards of accused and sureties for issuance of release warrants and further related direction in State of Chhattisgarh; ii) Pass such other order or orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may deem fit. AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL EVER PRAY AS DUTY BOUND DRAWN BY FILED BY MANOHAR PRATAP [ADVOCATE] Drawn on: 11.01.2018 Filed on: 12.01.2018 MANJU JETLEY ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. OF 2018 IN THE MATTER OF: PEEYUSH BHATIA. PETITIONER

15 VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR RESPONDENT C E R T I F I C A T E Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the pleadings before the High Court whose order is challenged and the other documents relied upon in those proceedings. No additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken therein or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified that the copies of the documents/ annexures attached to the Special Leave Petition are necessary to answer the question of law raised in the petition or to make out grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition for consideration of this Hon ble Court. This certificate is given on the basis of the instruction given by the petitioner whose affidavit is filed in support of the Special Leave Petition. FILED ON: 12.01.2018 NEW DELHI FILED BY MANJU JETLEY ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2018 IN THE MATTER OF: PEEYUSH BHATIA Petitioner

16 Versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR. Respondents AFFIDAVIT I, Peeyush Bhatia, aged 25 years, S/o- S K Bhatia, R/o- H.No. 77 Street No. 1, Anand Nagar, Junwani, Bhilai, Dist.-Durg, Chhattisgarh presently at New Delhi do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:- 1. That I am petitioner in the abovementioned Petition, and as such I am aware of the facts and circumstances of the case, hence entitled to swear this affidavit. 2. That the contents of the accompanying Special Leave Petition consisting in paragraph 1 to 8 from pages 7 to 17 accompanied with Synopsis and List of Dates at Pages B to M and CRLMPs has been read over to me in vernacular language I say that same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and nothing material information has been concealed therefrom. 3. That the Annexures P-1 to P- 2 are true/translated copies of their respective originals. 4. That no other Special Leave Petition against the order impugned has been filed by the Petitioner before this Hon ble Court. VERIFICATION: DEPONENT I, the above name deponent do hereby verify that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best

17 of my knowledge, belief and nothing material information has been concealed therefrom. No part it is false. Verified at New Delhi on this 12 th day of January, 2018 DEPONENT