REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 553 OF 2008

BALDEV SINGH     … APPELLANT

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB           … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  and  order  dated  

14.12.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab &  

Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 298-DB of 2006 affirming  

the judgment and order dated 30.3.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions  

Judge,  Jalandhar  convicting  the  appellant  herein  for  commission  of  an  

offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal  

Code  (for  short,  “IPC”)  and  sentencing  him  to  undergo  rigorous

imprisonment  for  life  and  pay  a  fine  of  Rs.5000/-,  and  in  default  of  

payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.  

2. Appellant – Baldev Singh and Pritam Singh (the deceased) were  

brothers.  Both were Non Resident Indians (N.R.I.).   

A civil  suit  was  filed  by  the  deceased  Pritam Singh against  his  

nephew Harbhinder  Singh,  Tehal  Singh  and  his  brother  Baldev  Singh  

seeking declaration that the sale deed executed on 21st October, 1997 on  

the basis of a Power of Attorney dated 15th October 1990 is null and void  

as it was allegedly forged and fabricated.   

On or about 17.2.2001 at about 11.00 a.m., when Pritam Singh was  

making preparation to leave his house in Paragpur for Jalandhar (Punjab),  

he was killed at his residence.  The said incident was allegedly witnessed  

by Nath Ram (P.W. 25), who was a servant of Pritam Singh for last 40  

years and Parminder @ Bittu, the driver of the deceased.

A First Information Report (“FIR” for short) was lodged marked as  

FIR No. 131 of 2001 on 17.2.2001 at about 1.40 p.m. by P.W. 25, wherein  

he stated:

“Since last forty years, I have been working as  Servant with Pritam Singh, resident of Pragpur.  Pritam  Singh  is  an  NRI  who  is  residing  in  England.   He  has  kothi  and  land  in  village  Pragpur.  I look after it  and Pritam Singh also  visits the place.  Pritam Singh has been living in  

2

his kothi at Pragpur for the last about 5-6 years.  Whenever in the morning, Pritam Singh used to  go out in car, then after his crossing I used to  close the gate from inside.  Today, at about 11  A.M., Pritam Singh after taking meals got ready  to go to Jalandhar and I also came out from the  Kothi.   Parminder  Singh  @  Bittu  driver  was  standing outside, who also accompanied us.  In  the  meanwhile  two  youngmen  came  inside  through main gate and came to us.  One of these  youngmen was clean shaven who had covered  himself with thin blanket (loi).  He was having  good height,  wheatish  complexion and putting  helmet on his head.  The second one was a Sikh  having wheatish complexion wearing turban on  his  head  and  having  beared.   Clean  shaven  person took out small double barrel gun .12 bore  from loi  wrapped  by  him and  fired  a  shot  at  Pritam Singh.  Then Pritam Singh saved himself  cleverly and went inside.  Both these youngmen  chased  Pritam Singh  and  went  inside  through  Kainchi  gate.   Then clean shaven person gave  fired another shot at Pritam Singh, which hit on  the right side of the back of Pritam Singh as a  result of which, Pritam Singh fell down straight  on the floor and blood started oozing from back  and  chest.  Both  these  youngmen  ran  away  together  with  their  arms  and  ammunition  through main gate.  We both saw Pritam Singh.  The abdomen of Pritam Singh was ruptured and  he had died.  Parminder Singh driver and I have  witnessed this occurrence.  The cause of grudge  is  that  a  dispute  between  both  real  brothers  Pritam Singh and Baldev Singh regarding Kothi  and land is pending in the Court at  Jalandhar,  which  was  fixed  for  hearing  on  yesterday  i.e.  15.2.2001  (sic  16.2.2001).   In  the  year  1988,  Baldev  Singh  along  with  his  sons,  son-in-law  and other persons duly armed with ammunition  had tried to take possession of kothi and land.  Baldev  Singh  and  his  accomplices  had  fired  shots and Gurmej Singh of Pritam Singh’s party  had died, and one person  had become injured.  

3

In  this  regard,  case  FIR  No.221/88,  under  Section  302/307,  148/149  IPC  25/27/54/59  Arms Act was registered in the Police Station, in  which Baldev Singh was convicted and his sons  are  absconders  and have  fled  away  to  foreign  country.  I am sure that even now Baldev Singh,  by sending both these youngmen by giving them  allurement has got murdered Pritam Singh with  gun-shot.  I can identify both these youngmen if  they come across me.  Action be taken.  I have  heard my statement, which is correct.”

The Investigating Officer prepared an inquest report on 17.2.2001.  

He  recovered  the  clothes  and  a  pair  of  spectacles  with  the  left  glass  

missing belonging to the deceased.  He noticed a gun shot injury on the  

right  side of  the back of  the deceased.   His  abdomen was ruptured as  

pellets had struck in the back and right hand. The Investigating Officer  

also  picked  up  the  blood  stained  soil  from  the  spot,  a  blood  stained  

spectacles cover and two empty .12 bore cartridges.  He also recovered  

from outside the room a Canadian driving licence bearing No. 6130617  

allegedly belonging to Harbhinder Singh.  The dead body was thereafter  

sent for post mortem examination.

On 18.2.2001, the post mortem of the deceased was conducted by a  

medical board consisting of Dr. H.S. Kahlon (P.W.1), Dr. Rajnish and Dr.  

Ranbir Singh.  It  was of the opinion that the death was caused due to  

shock and hemorrhage, following fire arm injuries which was sufficient to  

cause death in the ordinary course of business.  It was also stated in the  

4

report that the death had occurred immediately and the time of death is 24  

hours prior to holding of the post mortem examination.  

On  20.2.2001,  Harbhinder  Singh  was  arrested  from  the  Indira  

Gandhi International Air Port at Delhi while he was about to leave for  

London.   On the same day,  one Avtar  Singh was also arrested by the  

police.   

On 23.2.2001, both Harbhinder Singh as well as Avtar Singh made  

disclosure  statements  to  the  police.  Pursuant  to  the  recording  of  the  

alleged disclosure, some recoveries were made on the pointing out of the  

accused persons, including two empty cartridges allegedly fired from the  

gun.  

3. The  learned  Additional  Sessions  Judge  framed  charges  against  

Harbhinder Singh and Avtar Singh under Section 302/450 IPC read with  

34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.   

A large number of witnesses were examined during the course of  

the  trial.  Learned  Additional  Sessions  Judge  opining  that  Harbhinder  

Singh and Avtar Singh were guilty, convicted them for commission of  

offences under Sections 302/450 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms  

Act.   

5

4. Indisputably, appellant – Baldev Singh left India on 16th February  

2001 for  Vancouver.   He returned  to  India  on 19th August,  2004.  His  

arrival  at  Delhi Airport  was communicated to SSP, Jalandhar.   On the  

basis  of  this  information,  ASI  Harpal  Singh (P.W.  13)  after  obtaining  

production  warrants  arrested  Baldev  Singh  on  20th August,  2004.   A  

supplementary  report  under  Section  173  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  

Procedure (“Code” for short) was filed against him on 24th August 2005.  

Charge  was  framed  against  him  under  Section  120-B  IPC  on  19th  

September, 2005.  He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.   

The learned Sessions Judge conducted the trial against the appellant  

separately  and  examined  as  many  as  28  prosecution  witnesses.   The  

learned Sessions Judge found him guilty for commission of an offence  

under Section 302 read with 120B IPC and sentenced him to undergo life  

imprisonment and to pay a fine of  Rs.5000/-, and in default whereof to  

undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.   

In arriving at the said finding , the following evidences were taken  

into consideration:

i) Deceased was brother of the appellant;

ii) He had a motive to get the brother killed;

6

iii) Lalit  Kumar (P.W.26)  being an independent  witness,  there  

was no reason to disbelieve his evidence;

iv) Statement of Avtar Singh is admissible under Section 30 of  

the Evidence Act;

v) Gun with which the shots were fired earlier belonged to the  

appellant.

5. As noticed hereinbefore, criminal appeal filed by the appellant has  

been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment  

inter alia holding:

“When  all  the  evidence  is  taken  together  the  conclusion  that  is  irresistible  is  that  Baldev  Singh  master-minded  his  brother’s  murder.  Baldev  Siingh  was  a  convict  who  was  undergoing life sentence,  was on bail  after  his  sentence  was  suspended.   Baldev  Singh  had  managed  to  convince  Avtar  Singh,  a  fellow  jailmate,  to  also  join  Harbhinder  Singh,  who  arrived  in  India  on  February  7,  Baldev  Singh  purchased the weapon, his son took the weapon  and shot the deceased, Baldev Singh left India a  day  before  the  occurrence  while  Harbhinder  Singh tried to flee three days after occurrence.  The  latter  was  arrested  but  the  former  had  successfully managed to escape.  Baldev Singh’s  gun was recovered from the possession of  his  son Harbhinder Singh.  

The  above  chain  of  circumstances  is  so  complete that one cannot take a view other than  that  Pritam Singh’s murder was committed  on  the  basis  of  a  conspiracy  in  which  Pritam  Singh’s brother Baldev Singh was a participant,  

7

may  be  the  leader.   The  circumstances  are  crystal clear and there does not appear to be any  ambiguity and inconsistency in the  chain.  The  circumstantial evidence also finds support from  the  evidence  of  Sukhdev  Singh  (PW-22)  and  Lalit Kumar (PW-26).  Therefore, the argument  of the learned counsel for the appellant that the  appellant  was  not  in  the  country  when Pritam  Singh  was  murdered  and  could  not  have  conspired  in  the  murder  cannot  be  accepted.  Conspirators  conspire  in  secrecy  and  disperse  after  the  plan  has  been  finalized  and  separate  tasks  are  assigned  to  each  members  of  the  conspiracy.  The conspiracy in this case was to  murder  Pritam Singh.   It  was between Baldev  Singh  and  his  son  and  also  between  Baldev  Singh and Avtar Singh.  Therefore, the obvious  conclusion in this  case,  on the basis  of strong  circumstantial  evidence,  would  be  that  Baldev  Singh indeed was a member of the conspiracy.

In  the  light  of  the  above,  evidence  of  Sukhdev  Singh  and  Lalit  Kumar  provides  support  to  the  circumstantial  evidence.   The  argument that Harbhinder Singh had not acted at  the behest of his father finds no support, either  from the evidence on record or from any other  circumstance.   This argument is  hollow as the  circumstantial  evidence against the appellant is  very  strong  regarding  his  participation  as  a  conspirator in his brother’s murder.”

6. Indisputably, the incident took place on 17.2.2001.  Appellant had  

left India for Vancouver (Canada) on 16.2.2001, i.e., a day prior to the  

date of incident.  He came back to India in August 2004 when he was  

arrested.  The main accused, namely, Avtar Singh and Harbhinder Singh,  

however,  were tried separately.   We may notice that Harbhinder Singh  

8

was found guilty under Section 302 IPC and Avtar Singh was found guilty  

under Section 302/34 IPC.  They were also found guilty under Section  

450 IPC. Whereas Harbhinder Singh was also found guilty under Section  

27  of  the  Arms  Act,  Avtar  Singh  was  found  guilty  under  Section  25  

thereof.   

It is, however, of some significance to notice that Avtar Singh and  

Harbhinder  Singh  were  not  charged  for  commission  of  offence  under  

Section 120B IPC.  The legal position in this regard will be adverted to a  

little later.  At this stage, we may also notice that both the courts below  

have passed the aforementioned judgment of conviction and sentence as  

against  the appellant  relying inter  alia  on the evidence of Lalit  Kumar  

(PW-26),  who  was  a  taxi  driver  and  is  said  to  have  overheard  the  

conversation amongst the accused in regard to hatching of a purported  

conspiracy as also on the basis of an extra judicial confession purported to  

have been made by Avtar Singh before Sukhdev Singh (P.W.22).  It now  

stands  admitted  that  apart  from  the  aforementioned  two  pieces  of  

evidence, no other evidence was brought on record against the appellant.  

7. P.W. 26 – Lalit  Kumar – was a taxi  driver.   His  statement was  

recorded in the court  on 15.1.2002.  Accused persons are said to have  

hired  his  taxi  from Goraya  for  going  to  Paragpur.   On the  way,  they  

stopped at a ‘Dhaba’.  According to him, although he was a taxi driver he  

9

shared food and drinks with the accused.  A plan to cause the death of  

Pritam Singh was said to have been discussed by them only at the said  

Dhaba.   On  the  one  hand,  he  stated  that  he  overheard  the  accused  

discussing the said subject, but on the other, as noticed hereinbefore, he  

shared meals and drinks with them.  In his cross-examination he admitted  

that  he  did  not  know  the  accused  persons  from  before;  he  did  not  

remember the number of his taxi; he was not an owner of the taxi; he had  

plied taxi only for five days.  It is borne out from records that he came to  

court with Rana, who had shown active interest in the case.  

He,  when  confronted  with  his  statements  made  before  the  

Investigating Officer, stated:

“Out  of  my  two  statements  made  above  my  statement  with  regard  to  accused  having  consumed the liquor in the ahata is correct and  my  other  statement  of  consuming  liquor  by  accused  in  dhaba  is  wrong.   3-4  more  people  were there in the said ahata.”

Indisputably, he did not reveal the said fact to any other person.  He  

made  his  statement  for  the  first  time  before  the  police.  He  made  a  

statement thereafter only in the court.   

8. Although  he  did  not  have  any  acquaintance  with  the  accused  

persons; he not only could identify the accused in court but appears to  

10

have  been  knowing  their  nick  names  as  also  their  avocation  of  life.  

Admittedly, Rana is his partner in a business concern known as Saraswati  

Mill Store, the office of which is located in the building of Rana.  His  

evidence, in our opinion, does not inspire confidence.

9. Conspiracy is defined in Section 120A of the IPC to mean:

“120A.  Definition  of  criminal  conspiracy.-  When two or more persons agree to do, or cause  to be done,--

(1) an illegal act, or

(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal  means,  such  an  agreement  is  designated a criminal conspiracy:

Provided that no agreement except  an agreement to commit an offence  shall  amount  to  a  criminal  conspiracy unless some act besides  the  agreement  is  done  by  one  or  more  parties to  such  agreement  in  pursuance thereof.

Explanation.--It is immaterial whether the  illegal  act  is  the  ultimate  object  of  such  agreement, or is merely incidental to that  object.”

An offence of conspiracy which is a separate and distinct offence,  

thus, would require involvement of more than one person.   

Criminal  conspiracy  is  an independent  offence.   It  is  punishable  

separately; its ingredients being:-

(i) an agreement between two or more persons.  

11

(ii) the  agreement  must  relate  to  doing or  causing to  be done  

either (a) an illegal act; (b) an act which is not illegal in itself  

but is done by illegal means.   

It  is  now,  however,  well  settled  that  a  conspiracy  ordinarily  is  

hatched in secrecy.  The court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to  

whether  the  said  offence  has  been  committed  or  not  may  take  into  

consideration the circumstantial  evidence.   While however doing so,  it  

must  be  borne  in  mind  that  meeting  of  the  mind  is  essential;  mere  

knowledge or discussion would not be.   

Adverting to the said question once again, we may, however, notice  

that recently in  Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v.  State of Maharashtra  

[(2008) 6 SCALE 469], a Division Bench of this Court held:

“23.  Thus,  it  is  manifest  that  the  meeting  of  minds  of  two  or  more  persons  for  doing  an  illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua  non of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be  possible to prove the agreement between them  by direct  proof.  Nevertheless,  existence  of  the  conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from  the surrounding circumstances and the conduct  of  the  accused.  But  the  incriminating  circumstances must form a chain of events from  which  a  conclusion  about  the  guilt  of  the  accused could be drawn. It is well settled that an  offence  of  conspiracy  is  a  substantive  offence  and renders the mere agreement to commit  an  offence punishable even if an offence does not  take place pursuant to the illegal agreement.”

12

Yet  again  in  Nirmal  Singh  Kahlon  vs.  State  of  Punjab  &  Ors.  

[(2008) 14 SCALE 639], this Court following Ram Lal Narang vs. State  

(Delhi Administration [(1979) 2 SCC 322] held that a conspiracy may be  

a general one and a separate one meaning thereby a larger conspiracy and  

a  smaller  which  may  develop  in  successive  stages.   For  the  

aforementioned purpose,  the  conduct  of  the parties  also assumes  some  

relevance.   

In  K.R. Purushothaman  vs.  State of Kerala  [(2005) 12 SCC 631],  

this Court held:

“11. Section 120A of  I.P.C.  defines  'criminal  conspiracy.' According to this Section when two  or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done  (i)  an  illegal  act,  or  (ii)  an  act  which  is  not  illegal  by  illegal  means,  such an agreement  is  designed a criminal  conspiracy.  In  Major E.G.  Barsay v.  State of Bombay, (1962) 2 SCR 195,  Subba Rao J., speaking for the Court has said:  

“The  gist  of  the  offence  is  an  agreement  to  break  the  law.  The  parties to such an agreement will be  guilty  of  criminal  conspiracy,  though the illegal act agreed to be  done has not been done. So too, it is  not an ingredient of the offence that  all the parties should agree to do a  single illegal  act,  It  may comprise  the  commission  of  a  number  of  acts."

xxx xxx xxx

13

13. To  constitute  a  conspiracy,  meeting  of  mind of two or more persons for doing an illegal  act  or  an act  by illegal  means  is  the first  and  primary condition and it is not necessary that all  the  conspirators  must  know  each  and  every  detail of conspiracy. Neither it is necessary that  every one of the conspirators takes active part in  the commission of each and every conspiratorial  acts.  The  agreement  amongst  the  conspirators  can  be  inferred  by  necessary  implications.  In  most of the cases, the conspiracies are proved by  the circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is  seldom  an  open  affair,  The  existence  of  conspiracy and its objects are usually deducted  from  the  circumstances  of  the  case  and  the  conduct  of  the  accused  involved  in  the  conspiracy. While appreciating the evidence of  the conspiracy, it is incumbent on the Court to  keep  in  mind  the  well-known  rule  governing  circumstantial  evidence  viz.,  each  and  every  incriminating  circumstance  must  be  clearly  established  by  reliable  evidence  and  the  circumstances  proved  must  form  a  chain  of  events  from  which  the  only  irresistible  conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be  safely  drawn,  and  no  other  hypothesis  against  the guilt is possible. The criminal conspiracy is  an  independent  offence  in  Indian  Penal  Code.  The  unlawful  agreement  is  sine  quo  non  for  constituting  offence  under  Indian  Penal  Code  and not an accomplishment. Conspiracy consists  of  the  scheme  or  adjustment  between  two  or  more persons which may be express or implied  or  partly  express  and  partly  implied.  Mere  knowledge, even discussion, of the Plan would  not per se constitute conspiracy. The offence of  conspiracy shall continue till the termination of  agreement.”

As noticed hereinbefore, neither Avtar Singh nor Harbhinder Singh  

were charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 120B  

14

IPC.   In  our  opinion,  therefore,  appellant  alone  could  not  have  been  

convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC.  

In  Darshan Singh @ Bhasuri  Ors  . vs.  State of Punjab [(1983) 2  

SCR  605],  this  Court  cautioned  that  the  court  ordinarily  should  not  

convict a person for commission of offence of conspiracy on the basis of a  

weak evidence, stating:  

“The evidence regarding conspiracy is as weak  as the evidence about the dying declaration of  Sohan Singh, Surat Singh (P.W. 27) speaks of a  meeting  between  the  co-conspirators  in  the  house  of  accused  No.  1,  Darshan  Singh  alias  Bhasuri. We cannot believe that in the presence  of  an  utter  stranger  like  Surat  Singh,  the  conspirators would discuss their plans to commit  these murders, throwing all caution to the winds.  The  answer  of  the  High  Court  is  that  the  conspirators were taking liquor while discussing  the conspiracy and,

‘When liquor is  taken, then under its  influence sometimes most secret things  are  divulged  in  the  presence  of  a  person  who  is  not  so  intimately  connected. It is often said, when liquor  goes in, truth comes out.’

This is somewhat artless. Liquor is no lie- detector  and  we  cannot  assume  that  accused  Nos. 1 and 2 were so drunk as to overlook the  presence of a stranger in their midst yet not so  drunk so as to be unable to discuss the execution  of  their  criminal  design.  Besides,  Surat  Singh  forgot all about the incident and was contacted  by  the  police  a  few  days  later.  The  learned  Sessions Judge was right in holding that Surat  Singh's evidence suffers from certain infirmities,  

15

because of which one could not place implicit  reliance upon him. We would go further and say  that  his  evidence  is  too  unnatural  to  merit  serious  attention.  Apart  from  the  evidence  of  motive, Surat Singh's evidence in regard to the  conspiracy is the only evidence against accused  No. 1 Bhasuri and accused No. 2 Joga Singh. It  is on that evidence that these two accused have  been convicted under Section 120-B read with  Section 302 of the Penal Code, the former being  sentenced to death and the latter, because of his  young age, to life imprisonment,”

10. We  are  now  left  with  the  question  of  purported  extra  judicial  

confession  by  the  co-accused  Avtar  Singh.   Such  a  purported  extra  

judicial  confession  was  made  by  Avtar  Singh  before  Sukhdev  Singh  

(P.W.22).  The distance between the village wherein Avtar Singh was a  

resident and that of the said Sukhdev Singh was said to be 100 kms.  He  

allegedly visited Sukhdev Singh on 18.2.2001 at about 9.00 a.m.  For no  

apparent reason, he had disclosed that he along with Bhinda (Harbhinder  

Singh) had committed the murder of Pritam Singh.  No details thereof had  

been furnished.  A purported disclosure was also made that the murder  

was committed at the instance of the appellant herein.  He was asked to  

come on  the  next  day.   He  neither  visited  him thereafter  nor  was  he  

produced before the police by P.W.22.   There is  nothing on record to  

show that such a purported extra judicial confession by Avtar Singh was  

conveyed  to  the  police  authorities;  P.W.  22’s  statement  having  been  

recorded on 19.2.2001.  

16

If  he was so familiar  with the family of Avtar  Singh,  there was  

absolutely no reason whey he was not in a position to state as to what was  

the composition of his family.  He admitted that he had never visited the  

village of Avtar Singh.   

Evidence of extra judicial confession is generally of a weak nature.  

No conviction ordinarily can be based solely thereupon unless the same is  

corroborated in material particulars.  

11. Extra judicial confession must be found to be reliable.  P.W. 22 was  

examined by the police authorities also in some other cases.  A suggestion  

was put to him that he was a police tout.  His evidence, therefore, in our  

opinion, cannot be relied upon.  If his evidence cannot be relied upon, the  

same  could  not  have  formed  foundation  of  recording  a  judgment  of  

conviction and sentence and that too in a case of conspiracy.  We must  

also  notice  that  the  evidence  of  purported  extra  judicial  confession by  

itself  cannot  be  held  to  be  sufficient  for  recording  a  judgment  of  

conviction against a co-accused in terms of Section 30 of the Evidence  

Act.   

In Jaspal Singh alias Pali  vs.  State of Punjab [(1997) 1 SCC 510],  

this Court held:

“15. The  third  contention  of  Mr.  Sodhi  viz.,  that it is highly improbable that Jaspal Singh (A-

17

1) would have gone to this witness alongwith his  co-accused  to  confess  the  guilt,  is  equally  formidable. Chhota Singh (PW 7) has not given  any reason as to why and how Jaspal Singh (A- 1)  and  other  co-accused  have  reposed  such  a  confidence  in  him  and  confessed  their  guilt.  After  going  through  the  evidence  of  Chhota  Singh (PW 7), we do not find it safe to hold any  of the appellants guilty in the present crime.”

12. For  the  aforementioned  reasons,  the  impugned  judgment  being  

unsustainable is set aside.  The appeal is allowed.  The appellant is in  

custody; he is directed to be set at  liberty unless wanted in connection  

with any other case.  

.……………………………….J. [S.B. Sinha]

...…………………………..…J.    [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

New Delhi; May 06, 2009

18