State
of West Bengal Vs.
Dinesh Dalmia [2007] Insc 454 (25 April 2007)
A.K.MATHUR & TARUN CHATTERJEE
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 5124/06) A.K. MATHUR, J.
Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.9.2006 passed in A.S.T.
No.570 of 2006 by the Calcutta High Court whereby the learned single Judge of
the High Court has set aside the order dated 16.6.2006 passed by the learned
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and directed the 5th Court of
Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta to consider the matter afresh and pass
necessary order in the light of observation made by the Court.
Aggrieved against this order dated 27.9.2006 passed by learned Single Judge,
the present S.L.P. was preferred by the State of West Bengal.
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the Respondent, Dinesh
Dalmia filed a petition under Section 397/482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 in the High Court of Calcutta for setting aside the order of
27th May, 2006 and 16th June, 2006 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Calcutta and the learned 5th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate,
Calcutta respectively in connection with GDD 476 dated 24.9.2002 corresponding
to G.R.No. 2001 of 2002 being investigated by Detective Department (Special Cell)
Lalbazar pending before the 5th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
The Secretary of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited lodged a
written complaint with the Hare Street Police Station on 9th September, 2002 alleging a commission of offences under Sections 120B/4 20/409/467/468/471/477A
of the Indian Penal Code against Harish Chandra Biyani and others.
The complaint was treated as First Information Report and was registered at
Park Street P.S. case No. 476 dated 24.9.2002 under the aforesaid Sections of
the I.P.C.. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was taken up by the
Detective Department. During the course of the investigation, Investigating
Officer prayed for issuance of warrant of arrest against the respondent on 12th February, 2006. Prior to that the respondent was arrested in New Delhi by the Central
Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell, New Delhi in
connection with CBI Case No. RC 4(E)/200 3-BS &F C CBI. He was produced
before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tis Hazari. On transit
remand, the respondent was produced before the learned Court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai on 14th February, 2006. In the mean time, the Investigation Officer of the present case also prayed for issuance
of production warrant against the respondent before the Court of learned Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Calcutta, as the respondent was arrested and detained
in the aforesaid CBI case pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,
Chennai. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta by order dated 13th
February, 2006 allowed such prayer of the Investigating Officer and directed
that the accused-respondent be produced before the the Learned Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on or before 22nd February, 2006. A copy of
the said order was sent to the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. On 14th February, 2006, the order dated 13th February, 2006 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta was brought to
the notice of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai by
the CBI in their further remand application. The Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai observed that the matter of Calcutta Police would
be considered after the period of CBI custody was over. On 17th February, 2006
the Investigating Officer of the present case filed an application before the
learned Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta intimating that the
accused-respondent was in the custody of CBI till 24th February, 2006 in
connection with the aforesaid CBI cases and sought direction for production of
the accused- respondent in Calcutta on or by 8th March, 2006. The Court at Calcutta
by order dated 17th February, 2006 observed that looking to the gravity of the
offences complained against the accused-respondent in the cases pending in Calcutta,
he should not be released in the CBI cases at Chennai. On 23rd February, 2006, the Investigating Officer in the present case filed an application before the
Magistrate at Egmore, Chennai regarding production of the accused-respondent
being in the present case before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta.
By that time, the accused-respondent came to know that he was wanted in two
more cases pending against him in Calcutta. When the accused-respondent was in
custody on 27thFebruary, 2006 in connection with the CBI case pending before
the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, he voluntarily
surrendered before the learned Magistrate, Chennai as he was wanted in
connection with the two cases of Calcutta Police. i.e.
Case No. 300/2002 and 476/2002. The accused respondent surrendered on 27th February, 2006 and that was accepted by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai on the same date. But the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Egmore, Chennai remanded the accused respondent to the judicial
custody till 13th March, 2006. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Chennai further directed production of the accused before the Court
at Calcutta.
An intimation in this regard was also forwarded to the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Calcutta along with surrender papers of both the cases. An
intimation dated 28th February, 2006 was also forwarded to the Hare Street
Police Station and Park Street Police Station where those two cases were
pending.
The Investigation Officer requested the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for counter signature on the production warrant
issued by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The Addl. Chief
Metropolitan magistrate, Chennai counter signed the production warrant and
served upon the Jail Superintendent, Egmore, Chennai. On 3rd March, 2006 in
response to the prayer made by the CBI, the learned Magistrate at Chennai
directed for conducting of Polygraph, Brain Mapping and Nacro Analysis tests on
the accused-respondent. The learned Magistrate directed the Superintendent,
Central Jail, Chennai to hand over the accused for the aforesaid test to
Inspector, CBI and produce him before the Court on 9.3.2006. Thereafter on
11.3.2006 on the request of Calcutta Police accused was handed over to Calcutta
Police to be escorted to Calcutta for production before the Magistrate at Calcutta.
Therefore, on the request made by the CBI , the accused respondent was handed
over to the CBI team for the above tests. On 13th March, 2006 pursuant to the order of the learned Magistrate at Calcutta the accused respondent was
produced in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The
Investigating Officer of the instant case requested the Court of Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta to hand over the accused for 15 days for
police remand for investigation. An application was moved by the defence
praying for bail on behalf of the accused-respondent before the Court of Addl.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. It was contended that the
accused-respondent had surrendered on 27th February, 2006 before the Magistrate
at Chennai and the period of 15 days was over and Police had not filed the
challan, therefore accused be enlarged on bail. As against this, it was
submitted that he was arrested by CBI and the accused was produced before the
Calcutta Court in this case on 13th March, 2006 so the period of 15 days was
not over. The case was fixed for 16th March, 2006 for further hearing and on
that date the bail application was rejected and the accused was remanded to
police custody up to 24.3.2006 and the Court directed to produce the accused on
the fixed date.
The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta after considering the
submission took the view that the custody of the petitioner cannot be
considered unless and until he is physically produced before the Court and
since in the present case it was done on March 13, 2006 on the strength of the
production warrant issued by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Calcutta, the period of police custody was to be considered from the date of
his physical production. The accused-respondent was remanded to the police
custody till 28th March, 2006. Hence aggrieved against this order the
respondent approached the Calcutta High Court in revision. The learned Single
Judge has taken the view that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has not
correctly approached the matter and has wrongly taken the view that the accused
did not surrender before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai on
24.2.2006. However, the accused was given liberty to file application before
the said Court afresh and the Magistrate was directed to consider the same in
the light of the aforesaid judgment. It was also mentioned that still 8 more
days from 19.5.2005 to 27.5.2006 were left to the Police to file final report.
The Police still did not file the final report.
Then again accused moved the bail application before the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Calcutta. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta rejected the
bail application holding that statutory period of 90 days has not expired by
his order dated 27.5.2006.
The final report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was
submitted before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and the case was
transferred to Vth Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. Then again on
12.6.2006 a bail application was filed before the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate,
Calcutta. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the bail application holding
that this bail application amounted to review of the order and he has no power
of review, therefore, the same was rejected by order dated 16.6.2006.
Aggrieved against that order the present revision petition was filed before
the High Court.
The Calcutta High Court took the view that the detention of the accused
should be counted w.e.f. 27th February, 2006 when the accused alleged to have
surrendered himself in the case of 476/2002 before the Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and accordingly held that more than 90
days period has expired. Therefore, the matter should be considered by the
Metropolitan Magistrate again in the light of observation made by the Court, by
order dated 27.9.2006.
The revision petition of the accused was allowed.
Aggrieved against the order of the Calcutta High Court, dated 27.9.2006 the
present appeal was filed.
We heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. The
crucial question before us is whether the detention period should be counted
from 13th March, 2006 when the police took the accused in custody or the period
should be counted from 27th February, 2006 when the accused surrendered in the
case of 476/2002 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Learned
counsel for the State submitted that under Sub-Section 2 of Section 167 of
Criminal Procedure Code the period should only be counted when he is arrested/
taken in custody by the police not before the date when he surrendered before
the Magistrate on 27th February, 2006. Learned counsel submitted that in fact
the accused was taken in custody by the police on 13th March, 2006 and was produced
before the Magistrate on 13th March, 2006 and on that date the police sought
the custody of accused for completion of the investigation. Therefore, the
period commences from 13th March, 2006. In respect thereof, learned counsel
invited our attention to a case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of
Maharashtra reported in (2001) 5 SCC 453 as against this Learned counsel for
the respondent submitted that the period should be counted from the date when
the accused-respondent surrendered in case No.
476/2002 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The challan
has not been filed within the period of 90 days. Therefore, the
accused-respondent is entitled to bail as per sub-section (2) of Section 167 of
the Cr.P.C. In respect thereof, learned counsel invited our attention to cases
of Niranjan Singh & Another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote &
Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 559, Central Bureau of Investigation, Special
Investigation Cell, New Delhi v. Anupam J. Kulkarni reported in (1992) 3 SCC
141 and learned counsel also invited our attention to the case Directorate of
Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan and Another reported in (1994)3 SCC 440 (para
44).
We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the
record.
The admitted position is that there were two cases pending in the Calcutta
Court against the accused and the accused-respondent was arrested at Delhi in
CBI case and he was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Egmore, Chennai under the investigation of CBI.
The accused was remanded for the investigation before the CBI after that the
accused was sent for judicial custody in the CBI case. The Calcutta Court
directed the production of the accused-respondent and a request was made before
the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for the custody
of the accused in the cases pending before the Calcutta. In fact the accused
was detained in CBI case pending in Egmore, Chennai. The CBI sought the police
remand of accused for some scientific test and the accused was sent for the
test and after that the accused was sent back by the CBI to the Egmore, Court.
Then an order dated 11th March, 2006 was passed for handing over of the accused
to the Calcutta Police for being produced before the Magistrate on 13th March,
2006 and on 11th March, 2006 Police took physical custody of the accused under
the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and on the basis of
the transit warrant, the accused was taken over on 11th March, 2006 and was
produced before the Calcutta court on 13th March, 2006 and from there the
accused was sent to the custody of the police for investigation. Therefore, in
the sequence of event, physical custody of the accused was taken over for
investigation by the Calcutta Police on 13.3.2006.
The accused was very well aware that there were two cases registered against
him in Calcutta for which he was required by the Police, so he voluntarily
surrendered before the Magistrate on 27th February, 2006 when he was already in
custody in relation to the CBI case. Therefore, this voluntary surrender cannot
be conceived to be detention under a case registered at Calcutta i.e.476/2002.
Though knowing well that a requisition was sent by the Metropolitan Magistrate,
Calcutta but in fact the physical custody of the accused was given by the
Calcutta Police for investigation by the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate
on 13th March, 2006. Therefore, so called notional surrender of the accused in
the case No.
476/02 of Calcutta cannot be deemed to be a custody of the police for
investigation for a case registered against the accused at Calcutta.. In fact
the accused continued to be under the judicial custody in relation to the CBI
case. It may be relevant to mention here that the CBI again took the accused in
custody for scientific test and he was surrendered back on 10th of March, 2006
and on 11th March, the Calcutta police was given a custody of the accused by
the Egmore Court, Chennai to be produced before the Magistrate in Calcutta on
13th March, 2006 and he was produced before the Calcutta Court on 13th March,
2006 and the Court directed the custody of the accused to the police on 13th
March, 2006 for investigation in the criminal case registered against him in
Calcutta. Therefore, the police custody will be treated from 13th March, 2006
and not from 27th February, 2006. In this back-ground, the view taken by the
learned single Judge that since he voluntarily surrendered on 27th February,
2006, therefore, he shall be deemed to be under the police custody w.e.f. 27th
February, 2006 is far from correct and 90 days shall be counted from that date
only i.e. 13.3.2006.
Section 167 of the CR.P.C. clearly lays down that where investigation cannot
be completed within twenty four hours and accused is under arrest with Police,
he has to be produced before Magistrate for further detention if necessary.
This is a salutary provision to safeguard the citizen's liberty so that Police
cannot illegally detain any citizen. Sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 167
which are relevant for our purposes read as under:
"167 Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four
hours.
(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears
that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty four
hours fixed by Section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the
accusation or information is well- founded, the officer in charge of the police
station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the
rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial
Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating
to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section
may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time,
authorize the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate
thinks fit, a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no
jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further
detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate
having such jurisdiction:
Provided that {(a) the Magistrate may authorize the detention of the
accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period
of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so,
but no Magistrate shall authorize the detention of the accused person in custody
under this paragraph for a total period exceeding- (i) ninety days, where the
investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for
life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and,
on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may
be, the accused person shall be released on bail, if he is prepared to and does
furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be
deemed to be released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes
of that Chapter;
(b) no Magistrate shall authorize detention in any custody under this
section unless the accused is produced before him;
) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf
by the High Court, shall authorize detention in the custody of the
police."
Sub-section (1) says that when a person is arrested and detained in custody
and it appears that investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours fixed
under Section 57 and there are grounds of believing that accusation or
information is well-founded, the officer in charge of the Police Station or the
Police Officer making the investigation not below the rank of sub-inspector
shall produce the accused before the nearest judicial magistrate.
The mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 167, Cr.P.C. is that when it is
not possible to complete investigation within 24 hours then it is the duty of
the Police to produce the accused before the Magistrate. Police cannot detain
any person in their custody beyond that period. Therefore, Sub-Section (1)
pre-supposes that the police should have custody of an accused in relation to
certain accusation for which the cognizance has been taken and the matter is
under investigation. This check is on police for detention of any citizen .
Sub-Section (2) says that if the accused is produced before the Magistrate and
if the Magistrate is satisfied looking to accusation then he can give a remand
to the police for investigation not exceeding 15 days in the whole. But the
proviso further gives a discretion to the Magistrate that he can authorize
detention of the accused otherwise then the police custody beyond the period of
15 days but no Magistrate shall authorize detention of the accused in police
custody for a total period of 90 days for the offences punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years and
no magistrate shall authorize the detention of the accused person in custody
for a total period of 60 days when the investigation relates to any other
offence and on expiry of the period of 90 days or 60 days as the case may be.
He shall be released if he is willing to furnish bail. Therefore, the reading
of sub-Sections (1) & (2) with proviso clearly transpires that the
incumbent should be in fact under the detention of police for investigation. In
the present case, the accused was not arrested by the police nor was he in the
police custody before 13.3.2006. He voluntarily surrendered before a Magistrate
and no physical custody of the accused was given to the police for
investigation. The whole purpose is that the accused should not be detained
more than 24 hours and subject to 15 days police remand and it can further be
extended up to 90/60 as the case may be. But the custody of police for
investigation purpose cannot be treated judicial custody/ detention in another
case. The police custody here means the Police custody in a particular case for
investigation and not judicial custody in another case. This notional surrender
cannot be treated as Police custody so as to count 90 days from that notional
surrender.
A notorious criminal may have number of cases pending in various police
station in city or outside city, a notional surrender in pending case for
another FIR outside city or of another police-station in same city, if the
notional surrender is counted then the police will not get the opportunity to
get custodial investigation. The period of detention before a Magistrate can be
treated as device to avoid physical custody of the police and claim the benefit
of proviso to Sub-Section 1 and can be released on bail. This kind of device
cannot be permitted under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. The condition is that the
accused must be in the custody of the police and so called deemed surrender in
another criminal case cannot be taken as starting point for counting 15 days
police remand or 90 days or 60 days as the case may be. Therefore, this kind of
surrender by the accused cannot be deemed to be in the Police custody in the
case of 476/02 in Calcutta. The Magistrate at Egmore, Chennai could not have
released the accused on bail as there was already cases pending against him in
Calcutta for which a production warrant had already been issued by the Calcutta
Court. In this connection in Varma (Mrs.) reported in (2002)2 SCC 121 their
Lordships has very clearly mentioned that:
"For the application of the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code,
there is no necessity to consider when the investigation could legally have
commenced.
That proviso is intended only for keeping an arrested person under detention
for the purpose of investigation and the legislature has provided a maximum
period for such detention.. On the expiry of the said period the further
custody becomes unauthorized and hence it is mandated that the arrested person
shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail. It may be
a different position if the same accused was found to have been involved in
some other offence disconnected from the offence for which he is arrested. In
such an eventuality the officer investigating such second offence can exercise
the power of arresting him in connection with the second case. But if the
investigation into the offence for which he was arrested initially had revealed
other ramifications associated therewith, any further investigation would
continue to relate to the same arrest and hence the period envisaged in the
proviso to Section 167(2) would remain unextendable."
Therefore, it is very clearly mentioned that the accused must be in custody
of the police for the investigation.
But if the investigation into the offence for which he is arrested initially
revealed other ramifications associated therewith, any further investigation
would continue to relate to the same arrest and hence the period envisaged in
the proviso to Section 167(2) would remain unextendable.
Meaning thereby that during the course of the investigation any further
ramification comes to the notice of the Police then the period will not be
extendable. But it clearly lays down that the accused must be in custody of
police. In the case of Directoate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan and Another
reported in (1994)3 SCC 440 their Lordships observed that Section 167 is one of
the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code commencing from Section
154 and ending with Section 176 under the caption "Information to the
police and other powers to investigate". Their Lordships also observed that
main object of Section 167 is the production of an arrestee before a Magistrate
within twenty four hours as fixed by Section 57 when investigation cannot be
completed within that period so that the Magistrate can take further course of
action as contemplated under sub-Section (2) of section 167. In para 54 their
Lordships have also observed with regard to the pre-requisite condition which
reads as under:
"54. The above deliberation leads to a derivation that to invoke
Section 167(1), it is not an indispensable pre-requisite condition that in all
circumstances, the arrest should have been effected only by a police officer
and none else and that there must necessarily be records of entries of a case
diary. Therefore, it necessarily follows that a mere production of an arrestee
before a competent Magistrate by an authorized officer or an officer empowered
to arrest (notwithstanding the fact that he is not a police officer in its
stricto sensu)on a reasonable belief that the arrestee " has been guilty
of an offence punishable" under the provisions of the Special Act is
sufficient for the Magistrate to take that person into his custody on his being
satisfied of the three preliminary conditions, namely (1) the arresting officer
is legally competent to make the arrest; (2) that the particulars of the
offence or the accusation for which the person is arrested or other grounds for
such arrest do exist and are well-founded; and (3) that the provisions of the
special Act in regard to the arrest of the persons and the productions of the
arrestee serve the purpose of Section 167(1) of the Code."
As against this learned counsel for the accused respondent has invited our
attention to the case of Niranjan Singh & Anr. v.
Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors. [ (1980) 2 SCC 359]. This case only
relates to 'custody' under section 439 Cr.P.C.
Therefore, this case does not provide us any assistance whatsoever. In
another case, Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I,
New Delhi v. Anupam J. Kulkarni [(1992) 3 SCC 141] their Lordships observed in
paragraph 11 as follows :
"In one occurrence it might so happen that the accused might have
committed several offences and the police may arrest him in connection with one
or two offences on the basis of the available information and obtain police
custody. If during the investigation his complicity in more serious offences
during the same occurrence is disclosed that does not authorize the police to
ask for police custody for a further period after the expiry of the first
fifteen days. If that is permitted then the police can go on adding some
offence or the other of a serious nature at various stages and seek further
detention in police custody repeatedly, this would defeat the very object
underlying Section 167. But their Lordships put an occasion and added that
limitation shall not apply to a different occurrence in which complicity of the
arrested accused is disclosed. That would be a different transaction and if an
accused is in judicial custody in connection with one case and to enable the
police to complete their investigation of the other case they can require his
detention in police custody for the purpose of associating him with the
investigation in other case. In such a situation he must be formally arrested in
connection with other case and then obtain the order of the Magistrate for
detention in police custody."
Their Lordships have clarified that if one case is registered against the
accused in which during the course of investigation it is found that he has
committed more than one offence then it will be treated to be one investigation
and for each offence a separate police remand cannot be sought. But in case it
is a different offence which has been committed by him then it will be a
separate case registered and separate investigation will be taken up and for
that the detention by the accused in the previous case cannot be counted
towards a new case or different case registered against the accused. In fact,
the observation in this case answers the question raised in this petition.
Therefore, their Lordships observed;
"the occurrence constituting to different transactions give rise to two
different cases and the exercise of power under Sections 167(1) and (2) should
be in consonance with the object underlying the said provision in respect of
each of those occurrences which constitute two difference cases. Arrest and
detention in custody in the context of Section 167(1) &(2) of the Code has
to be truly viewed with regard to the investigation of that specific case in
which the accused person has been taken into custody.
Therefore, for the separate offence the accused has to be tried separately
and for that the proceedings will be initiated separately and independent
remand can be sought by the accused.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the view taken
by the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court is not correct and we
accordingly set side the order of the Calcutta High Court dated 27.9.2006 and
allow the appeal filed by the State of West Bengal and direct the Metropolitan
Magistrate to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
Back
Pages: 1 2