SUPREME COURT : NO DIRECT ARREST IN 498-A IPC

SHEORAN & TANWAR ASSOCIATES (Law Firm) 111, SHIV NAGAR - II, MURLIPURA SIKAR ROAD, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN) Website:- www.stlegal.in Email: stlegaljaipur@gmail.com Contact Us : 0141-2262495/ Mob: +91-9001612660 (Office) Practicing at : RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT , JAIPUR / JODHPUR The Hon'ble Supereme Court given a landmark judgment on arrest in 498-A IPC cases The Hon'ble Supreme Court has been giving judgments on misuse of IPC 498a for many number of years, and they had even asked the law ministry to consider amending it. Many states have police circulars already on doing investigation or taking permission of higher police like DCP before arresting under 498a, but there is no guarantee that these rules are followed. The advisory/letter/circular issued by home ministry in government of India is given here. According to latest on the ground information, Punjab police has refused to arrest in a 498a case filed in Jun 2014 citing this SC judgment. Which means that threat of contempt of court and departmental action has got some sense into police that they have to follow CrPC 41 and 41a and not merely act like zombies and arrest everyone and their dog upon filing 498a complaint. People are advised to file contempt of court in High court against police if they arrest you without following CrPC 41 and 41a guidelines. If your advocate doesn’t want to do it, find someone who can.full judgment text is given at end of the post now along with summary of important points on how to fight back both police and judiciary for those facing threat of arbitrary and unjustified arrests. You can skip to that unless you are also interested in reading my rants against judiciary below! I don’t think this ONE MORE JUDGMENT will bring an immediate change on the ground, but it is one more step towards abolishing of 498a, maybe within next 10-15 years. That is the only solution for such laws, not passing an order every 2 years and exhorting police to do their duty. I am quite amused by this ‘judicially examined’ part. As I posted earlier about a Tamilnadu false rape case, the innocent man’s plea to prosecute the police was dismissed by lower court as well as high court of Tamilnadu and only after reaching Supreme Court could he get the order to prosecute the police for proceeding with a patently false case. So by all evidence on the ground, courts are not really interested in prosecuting police for blatant violations of human rights, but they do give some lectures to police from time to time just like in this judgment. The apex court said the attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is “despicable” which must be curbed and directed all state governments to ensure that police do not resort to arresting in all offences punishable up to seven- year jail term including dowry harassment cases. “We direct all the state governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC (dowry harassment) is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down flowing from Section 41 CrPC,” a bench headed by Justice C K Prasad said. Section 41a of CrPC has been put in place since 2010 but by all evidence from 498a cases, police doesn’t bother to record reasons for arrest or no arrest as is required under that section. “No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent and wise for a police officer that no arrest is made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness of the allegation,” the bench said. Referring to crime statistics, the apex court said 1,97,762 persons were arrested in 2012 for offence under Section 498-A and nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision were women depicting that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. “Its share is 6 per cent out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5 per cent of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes except theft and hurt,” it said. It said the rate of charge-sheeting in cases is as high as 93.6 per cent, while the conviction rate is only 15 per cent, which is lowest across all heads and as many as 3,72,706 cases are pending at trial stage. Actually the conviction rate according to NCRB data is 7% only, and much lesser if dowry death convictions under IPC 304B are excluded. The conviction to arrest rate is 1 in 25, so 25 people are arrested to convict 1 person. Long live 498a and women empowerment! “Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive,” it said. Every one wants to beat on the police! But let’s ask if judiciary has its shirt clean and white. 1. What about the magistrates who ask the accused husband in 498a cases: “Do you have a compromise?”. Who created this precedent of asking accused for compromise in a criminal case? Is it police? No, it is judiciary. 2. Who was the person who said rape ‘victim’ should have the choice to marry the accused. Some police chief ? No, it was ex-CJI Balakrishnan while he still was acting chief justice of supreme court. The whole culture of subversion of criminal law by asking for compromise in 498a and compromise in ‘rape’ is mainly a creation of judiciary, so they shouldn’t blame the police for everything. Having given my rants against judiciary, I have now got a copy of the full judgment and below are some vital points in this judgment followed by full text. Lot of hopes have been raised that now arrests under 498a will stop somehow, but that may happen only after the message percolates down to police stations all over India, AND the citizens demands its enforcement. NCW (National confusion (commission) for women), Women’s NGOs and domestic violence industry who hide in the background and whose business is threatened may ask for a review for this judgment and it will be an interesting battle unlike the easily reversed judgment on mother in law kicking daughter in law not cruelty under IPC 498a Last but not the least, I don’t expect lawyers to take any initiative in its enforcement (they tend to follow the tested and beaten path and always advise husbands the C word), so the people affected will have to take the initiative and force their lawyers to ask for its enforcement in courts. FULL JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & ANR. [Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2014 @Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No.9127 of 2013] Chandramauli Kr. Prasad The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The maximum sentence provided under Section 498-A IPC is imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and fine whereas the maximum sentence provided under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is two years and with fine. Petitioner happens to be the husband of respondent no.2 Sweta Kiran. The marriage between them was solemnized on 1st July, 2007. His attempt to secure anticipatory bail has failed and hence he has knocked the door of this Court by way of this Special Leave Petition. Leave granted. In sum and substance, allegation levelled by the wife against the appellant is that demand of Rupees eight lacs, a maruti car, an air-conditioner, television set etc. was made by her mother-in-law and father-in-law and when this fact was brought to the appellant's notice, he supported his mother and threatened to marry another woman. It has been alleged that she was driven out of the matrimonial home due to non- fulfilment of the demand of dowry. Denying these allegations, the appellant preferred an application for anticipatory bail which was earlier rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter by the High Court. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. "Crime in India 2012 Statistics" published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is a battle between the law makers and the police and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the Cr.PC. It has not come out of its colonial image despite six decades of independence, it is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of public. The need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been emphasized time and again by Courts but has not yielded desired result. Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive. Law Commissions, Police Commissions and this Court in a large number of judgments emphasized the need to maintain a balance between individual liberty and societal order while exercising the power of arrest. Police officers make arrest as they believe that they possess the power to do so. As the arrest curtails freedom, brings humiliation and casts scars forever, we feel differently. We believe that no arrest should be made only because the offence is non-bailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for the police officers to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing, the justification for the exercise of it is quite another. Apart from power to arrest, the police officers must be able to justify the reasons thereof. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent and wise for a police officer that no arrest is made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness of the allegation. Despite this legal position, the Legislature did not find any improvement. Numbers of arrest have not decreased. Ultimately, the Parliament had to intervene and on the recommendation of the 177th Report of the Law Commission submitted in the year 2001, Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.PC), in the present form came to be enacted. It is interesting to note that such a recommendation was made by the Law Commission in its 152nd and 154th Report submitted as back in the year 1994. The value of the proportionality permeates the amendment relating to arrest. As the offence with which we are concerned in the present appeal, provides for a maximum punishment of imprisonment which may extend to seven years and fine, Section 41(1)(b), Cr.PC which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows: "41. When police may arrest without warrant.-(1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person - (a)x x x x x x (b)against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine, if the following conditions are satisfied, namely :- (i) x x x x x (ii) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary - to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the offence; or to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer; or as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured, and the police officer shall record while making such arrest, his reasons in writing: Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of this sub-section, record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest. X x x x x x From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that a person accused of offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on its satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. Police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts. Law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. Law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest. In pith and core, the police office before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.PC. An accused arrested without warrant by the police has the constitutional right under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57, Cr.PC to be produced before the Magistrate without unnecessary delay and in no circumstances beyond 24 hours excluding the time necessary for the journey. During the course of investigation of a case, an accused can be kept in detention beyond a period of 24 hours only when it is authorised by the Magistrate in exercise of power under Section 167 Cr.PC. The power to authorise detention is a very solemn function. It affects the liberty and freedom of citizens and needs to be exercised with great care and caution. Our experience tells us that it is not exercised with the seriousness it deserves. In many of the cases, detention is authorised in a routine, casual and cavalier manner. Before a Magistrate authorises detention under Section 167, Cr.PC, he has to be first satisfied that the arrest made is legal and in accordance with law and all the constitutional rights of the person arrested is satisfied. If the arrest effected by the police officer does not satisfy the requirements of Section 41 of the Code, Magistrate is duty bound not to authorise his further detention and release the accused. In other words, when an accused is produced before the Magistrate, the police officer effecting the arrest is required to furnish to the Magistrate, the facts, reasons and its conclusions for arrest and the Magistrate in turn is to be satisfied that condition precedent for arrest under Section 41 Cr.PC has been satisfied and it is only thereafter that he will authorise the detention of an accused. The Magistrate before authorising detention will record its own satisfaction, may be in brief but the said satisfaction must reflect from its order. It shall never be based upon the ipse dixit of the police officer, for example, in case the police officer considers the arrest necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence or for proper investigation of the case or for preventing an accused from tampering with evidence or making inducement etc., the police officer shall furnish to the Magistrate the facts, the reasons and materials on the basis of which the police officer had reached its conclusion. Those shall be perused by the Magistrate while authorising the detention and only after recording its satisfaction in writing that the Magistrate will authorise the detention of the accused. In fine, when a suspect is arrested and produced before a Magistrate for authorising detention, the Magistrate has to address the question whether specific reasons have been recorded for arrest and if so, prima facie those reasons are relevant and secondly a reasonable conclusion could at all be reached by the police officer that one or the other conditions stated above are attracted. To this limited extent the Magistrate will make judicial scrutiny. Another provision i.e. Section 41A Cr.PC aimed to avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest looming large on accused requires to be vitalised. Section 41A as inserted by Section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008(Act 5 of 2009), which is relevant in the context reads as follows: "41A. Notice of appearance before police officer.- (1) The police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice. (2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice. (3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested. (4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice." Aforesaid provision makes it clear that in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1), Cr.PC, the police officer is required to issue notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and time. Law obliges such an accused to appear before the police officer and it further mandates that if such an accused complies with the terms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons to be recorded, the police office is of the opinion that the arrest is necessary. At this stage also, the condition precedent for arrest as envisaged under Section 41 Cr.PC has to be complied and shall be subject to the same scrutiny by the Magistrate as aforesaid. We are of the opinion that if the provisions of Section 41, Cr.PC which authorises the police officer to arrest an accused without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant are scrupulously enforced, the wrong committed by the police officers intentionally or unwittingly would be reversed and the number of cases which come to the Court for grant of anticipatory bail will substantially reduce. We would like to emphasise that the practice of mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or most of the reasons contained in Section 41 Cr.PC for effecting arrest be discouraged and discontinued. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction: All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC; All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii); The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention; The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention; The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing; Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing; Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction. Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine. We direct that a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Chief Secretaries as also the Director Generals of Police of all the State Governments and the Union Territories and the Registrar General of all the High Courts for onward transmission and ensuring its compliance. By order dated 31st of October, 2013, this Court had granted provisional bail to the appellant on certain conditions. We make this order absolute. In the result, we allow this appeal, making our aforesaid order dated 31st October, 2013 absolute; with the directions aforesaid. .........................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD) .........................J. (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE) NEW DELHI, July 2, 2014 FOR MORE DETAIL VISIT AT http://www.stlegal.in/index.php/other-updates

CRIMINAL ADVOCATE OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT JAIPUR

SHEORAN & TANWAR ASSOCIATES (Law Firm) 111, SHIV NAGAR - II, MURLIPURA SIKAR ROAD, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN) Website:- www.stlegal.in Email: stlegaljaipur@gmail.com Contact Us : 0141-2262495/ Mob: +91-9001612660 (Office) Practicing at : RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT , JAIPUR / JODHPUR CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 302 IPC WAS WRONG Supreme Court Order.. Raju @ Raj Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan [2007] Insc 507 (3 May 2007) S. H. Kapadia & B. Sudershan Reddy CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 664 OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No.4446 of 2006) KAPADIA, J. (1) Leave granted. (2) This criminal appeal by grant of special leave is directed against impugned judgment dated 13.1.06 delivered by Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.660/04 confirming the conviction under Section 148 IPC imposed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur, in Session Case No.49/2001. (3) On 1.9.1989 at 9.20 pm Uttam Prakash (pw.4) lodged an FIR at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, in which he claimed that he and his father Ram Kishan Khandelwal (since deceased) had left their house, situated at A-10, Sikar House Area, for his uncle's house at C-10, Madan Kunj, Prithvi Raj Road, Jaipur, when at 9 pm while the deceased was sitting on the bed talking with PW.4's aunt and uncle, 10 to 12 persons entered the room and surrounded the deceased. These 10 to 12 persons were armed with knives, swords and pick-axes. PW.4 was threatened and told not to shout. PW.4 in his FIR stated that in his presence the accused (appellant herein) stabbed his father, Ram Kishan Khandelwal. According to the FIR, when PW.4's uncle raised an alarm the appellant herein along with others fled. Ram Kishan Khandelwal died. According to the FIR, there was enmity between Ram Kishan Khandelwal on one hand and Hanuman, Hanif, Chhitar and Ramesh Shanker on the other hand. On the basis of the said report investigation commenced. The case was registered for offences under Sections 147, 149 and 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'). On the basis of the information given by the appellant herein, weapons of offence and blood soaked clothes were recovered. PW. 25, a Judicial Magistrate, conducted identification parade of the appellant herein and others. The police thereafter submitted their charge- sheet, inter alia, against the appellant herein. 31 witnesses were examined. 74 documents were produced by the prosecution. During the course of the trial it was revealed that Ram Kishan Khandelwal and his family used to live at Sikar House Area in Jaipur. Hanuman and Chhitar were his neighbours. They were on inimical terms. There was property dispute. The bathroom of Hanuman and Chhitar was demolished by Jaipur Development Authority. Hanuman and Chhitar were under the impression that the bathroom was demolished on the complaint of Ram Kishan Khandelwal. Hanuman and Chhitar sold their house to Hanif (one of the co- accused). Prior to his death, Ram Kishan Khandelwal had lodged an FIR with Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, in which he had asked for police protection. Ram Kishan Khandelwal was also an accused in many criminal cases. These cases were pending. According to the prosecution, Hanuman, Chhitar and Hanif entered into a criminal conspiracy for the murder of Ram Kishan Khandelwal. According to the prosecution, however, the appellant herein along with Aziz, Iqbal, Mahendra Singh, Hamid and Firoz committed the actual murder. Therefore, according to the prosecution there were two groups of persons, the first set/group of persons entered a criminal conspiracy but the actual murder was done by Iqbal, Aziz, Raju Naik (appellant herein), Mahendra Singh, Hamid and Firoz. (4) In this case, we are concerned with the conviction of Raju Naik (appellant herein). He was charged for offences under Sections 302, 120B, 148, 149 and 460 IPC. (5) Two issues arise for determination in this criminal appeal. The first concerns the merits of the case and the second concerns an argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has completed the sentence of three years on 8.3.2007 as he was convicted for offence under Section 148 IPC which has been disputed by the State on the ground that the appellant stood convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. (6) On the merits of the case, we find that there is no reason to disbelieve Uttam Prakash (pw.4), the son of Ram Kishan Khandelwal (deceased). The incident took place on 1.9.89 around 9 pm when the deceased was sitting on the bed. Uttam Prakash (pw.4) and his father, Ram Kishan Khandelwal, had gone for dinner at his uncle's place at C-10, Madan Kunj, Prithvi Raj Road, Jaipur. When the deceased was sitting on the bed Uttam Prakash (pw.4) saw 10 to 12 persons entering the room and surrendering Ram Kishan Khandelwal. They were armed with knives, swords and pick-axes. Uttam Prakash (pw.4) saw the deceased being stabbed. Uttam Prakash (pw.4) has deposed that it was dinner time, that the deceased was sitting on the bed whereas he was in conversation with his aunt. Both the courts below have come to the conclusion, placing reliance on the post- mortem report, that there was an injury on the chest of the deceased and that the knife and the clothes recovered vide Ex.P.32 had human blood. The cause of the death, as given in the post-mortem report, was syncope. There was one more witness Rattan Devi (pw.20) but she could not identify the appellant in the identification parade. However, both the courts below have come to the conclusion, on the basis of the evidence of pw.4 that the appellant herein (Raju @ Raju Kumar) was a member of the unlawful assembly; that he carried the knife; that he had entered the room where the deceased was sitting on the bed and that Ram Kishan Khandelwal (deceased) was stabbed to death by the appellant herein. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity to the extent of the conviction of the appellant herein under Section 148 IPC. (7) The question is : whether this Court in special leave petition could convict the appellant under Section 302 IPC without any appeal from the State. (8) Now coming to the second issue, we find that in this case seven out of ten accused were convicted by Additional District and Sessions Judge, No.1, (Fast Track) Jaipur City, Jaipur, for different offences. Appellant herein was charged under Section 148, 302, 120B and 460 IPC. However, he has been convicted under Section 148 IPC. According to the trial court the cause of death is syncope. According to Butterworth's Medical Dictionary, 'Syncope' is a temporary loss of consciousness caused by a fall in blood pressure. (9) We also quote hereinbelow paras '65' and '66' of the said judgment which read as follow: "65. From the above decision I have reached the conclusion that out of all the accused, the accused No.(1) Abdul Aziz s/o Salamuddin, accused No.2 Raju @ Raj Kumar s/o Mali Ram, accused No.3, Durga Das @ Bhaya s/o Bhanwar Lal have committed punishable crime u/s 460, 148 and 302 of Indian Penal Code for which their crime is hereby proved and the accused No.4, Feroz @ Shreya s/o babu Khan has committed punishable crime under the Indian Penal Code Section 148, 302/149, 460 for which their crime is hereby proved and the accused No.5 Hanuman Sahai s/o Mahadev Prasad, accused No.6 Chhitar Mal s/o Mahadev Prasad, accused No.7 Mohd. Haneef s/o Abdul Hakim have committed punishable crime u/s 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code for which their crime is hereby proved and the accused No.8 Sayeed s/o Abdul Rasheed is acquitted from the allegations of punishable crime under Section 302 read with Section 149, 148, 120B and 460 of Indian Penal Code. 66. This case is a matter of murder, conspiracy to murder and co-operation in murder for which it would be justified to punish the accused with the minimum punishment and for rest of the crime the accused were heard, for which they are punished with rigorous imprisonment as mentioned below: SENTENCE Therefore, the accused mentioned below on being found guilty under Section as mentioned against each under Indian Penal Code are punished as below: Sl. NO. Name of the Accused Section Punishment Penalty Illegible (sic) 1. Abdul Aziz 460 Ten years 500/- 3months 2. Raju @ Raj Kumar 148 Three years 200/- 1 month 3. Durga Das @ Bhaya 302 Life Imprisonment 1000/- 6months 4. Feroz @ Sherya 460 Ten years 500/- 3months 148 Three years 200/- 1 month 302/149 Life Imprisonment 1000/- 6months 5. Hanuman Sahai 302/120B Life Imprisonment 1000/- 6months 6. Chhitar Mal - do - - do - - do - - do - 7. Mohd. Haneef - do - - do - - do - - do - The accused in this case are on bail, hence for getting the punishment they are being taken in the judicial custody. The punishment warrant of the accused may be prepared as per above and sent to the Central Jail, Jaipur. Punishment of all the crime will be simultaneous. In this case, the seized item of proof will be destroyed after expiry of six months of the appeal period. The file after recording of the decision may be admitted in the office. The accused with the proven crime may be provided with a copy of the decision without any cost." (10) If one reads para '65' with para '66', we find that Abdul Aziz has been accused No.1 and he is convicted under Section 460 IPC. This is clear from para '65'. It is in consonance with the chart in para '66'. Similarly, the appellant (Raju @ Raj Kumar) was accused No.2 and he has been convicted under Section 148 IPC. This is clear from para '65'. To this extent, para '65' is in consonance with para '66' (chart annexed thereto). Durga Das was accused No.3 and he has been convicted under Section 302 IPC both under paras '65' and '66'. It appears from the reading of para '65' that accused No.1 was convicted under Section 460 IPC, accused No.2 was convicted under Section 148 IPC and accused No.3 was convicted under Section 302 IPC respectively. The word "respectively" is omitted. Be that as it may, the State did not go in appeal against the order of the trial court convicting Raju @ Raj Kumar (appellant herein) for convicting him under Section 302 IPC in addition to his conviction by the trial court under Section 148. Even the High Court, by the impugned judgment, has merely dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein upholding the conviction of Raju @ Raj Kumar under Section 148 IPC. It is argued before us, on behalf of the State, that we should convict the appellant herein under Section 302 IPC, particularly, when the reasoning given in the concurrent findings indicate that the appellant herein had stabbed the deceased in the chest with the knife. In our view, such a request cannot be granted. Offence under Section 148 IPC is distinct and separate from the offence under Section 302 IPC. The State should have filed an appeal seeking conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC apart from his conviction under Section 148 IPC. This has not been done in the present case. The offence of rioting with deadly weapon under Section 148 IPC is separate and distinct from the offence under Section 302 IPC. Moreover, according to the trial court, the cause of death is syncope. (11) In the case of Satbir v. Surat Singh and others AIR 1997 SC 1160, the accused was sentenced under Section 302/148 IPC and, therefore, this Court took the view that separate sentence under Section 148 was not necessary. (12) In the case of Nanda Kishore Mohanty v. The State of Orissa AIR 1961 Orissa 29, it has been held that once a charge under Section 148 IPC was framed the Magistrate must say whether the person charged is convicted or acquitted. In that case, though the petitioner was charged under Section 148 IPC, the judgment of the Magistrate was silent as to whether petitioner was guilty or not. The Additional Sessions Judge assumed that the petitioner stood convicted under Section 148 IPC altered the conviction to Section 147 IPC. In that case, the petitioner was also charged under Section 455/149 IPC and under Section 323/149 IPC. In that connection, it was held as under :- "(6) Another serious mistake committed by the Magistrate was his omission to mention expressly in his judgment as to whether he convicted the petitioner under Section 148, I. P. C., or not. Once a specific charge under that section was framed, the Magistrate must expressly say whether he convicts the accused of that offence or whether he acquits him of that offence. Though the petitioner was charged under Section 148, the judgment of the Magistrate is silent as to whether that charge was proved or not. The learned Sessions Judge also committed an error by overlooking this mistake on the part of the trying Magistrate and assuming that there was a conviction under that section by the Magistrate and that he would be justified in altering it to a conviction under Section 147, I. P.C. It is indeed unfortunate that in cases of this type where sentences of imprisonment have been passed the two lower courts should have committed such obvious mistake, presumably through negligence. (7) The net result therefore is that though the petitioner was charged under Section 148, I. P. C., the trying Magistrate has not passed any order, either of conviction or acquittal in respect of that charge and the Sessions Judge has convicted him under Section 147, I. P. C. The omission of the trying Magistrate to convict the petitioner under Section 148, I. P. C., must in the circumstances be held to mean that he was acquitted of that charge. It is immaterial whether this omission was due to oversight or any other reason. Once there is, thus, an acquittal of the petitioner of the charge under Section 148, I. P. C., the Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to alter the conviction to one under Section 147, I. P. C. The State should have moved the High Court for setting aside the order of acquittal in respect of the charge under Section 148. But this they did not do. (8) The acquittal of the petitioner in respect of the offence under Section 148, I. P. C., will also affect his conviction under Section 455/149, I. P. C., and 323/149, I. P. C. The conviction for these two offences is based on the assumption that the petitioner was a member of the unlawful assembly but his acquittal in respect of the charge under Section 148, I. P. C., must necessarily lead to the inference that he was not a member of such an assembly. Hence, his conviction under Sections 455 and 323, I. P. C., read with Section 149, I. P. C., must be set aside. (9) There seems some force in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the State of Orissa, that the initial mistake was committed by the trying Magistrate through oversight, and he suggested that the case might be remanded to the trying Magistrate for recording a proper order either of conviction or of acquittal in respect of the charge against the petitioner under Section 148, I. P. C. But I am not satisfied that at this stage it will be proper to remand the case for the aforesaid purpose. The incident took place more than four years ago, i.e., on 6-10-1955, and the petitioner has been sufficiently harassed because the appeal was first heard by the Addl. Sessions Judge but the judgment was set aside by the High Court in Criminal Revision and the appeal was reheard by the Sessions Judge of Cuttack. It will not be proper at this belated stage to revive the whole proceeding and subject the petitioner to further harassment of a conviction by the trying Magistrate and also possibly of an appeal before the Sessions Judge. The mistake was partly that of the trying Magistrate and partly that of the prosecuting officers. The latter should have noticed the omission in the judgment of the trying Magistrate and then taken steps either by way of revision to this Court or by means of an appeal against acquittal, to get the mistake rectified. (10) For the aforesaid reasons, I would allow this revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge, and acquit him. He should be set at liberty forthwith." (13) Before concluding we may state that one of the arguments advanced on behalf of the State was that no prejudice would be caused to the appellant if he was to be convicted under Section 302 IPC. It was contended on behalf of the State that if one goes through the entire judgment of the trial court it is clear from the reasoning that the trial court had found the appellant guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC and that the appellant has never made any grievance against the said finding. It is submitted on behalf of the State that even in the special leave petition, before this Court, this particular ground has not been taken by the appellant. We find no merit in this contention. We cannot convict the appellant under Section 302 IPC in the appeal preferred by the appellant herein. If we were to do so it would amount to travesty of justice. We cannot convict the accused under Section 302 without the State filing an appeal in that regard. In the present case, the State did not move the High Court in appeal against the conviction under Section 148 and nor did the State seek enhancement of punishment before the High Court in appeal. (14) For the above reasons, we find that the appellant herein was convicted under Section 148 IPC; that, he was not convicted under Section 302 IPC; that he was sentenced for three years with fine in addition, one month sentence in default of fine; and that Raju @ Raj Kumar (appellant herein) has served sentence for three years commencing from 9.3.2004 ending on 8.3.2007. We are not sure as to whether he has paid the fine of Rs.200/-, if not, he shall pay the fine forthwith. On payment of fine he should be set at liberty forthwith. If he fails to pay Rs.200/- as fine then he will have to serve the sentence of one month in default. (15) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

SUPREME COURT MATTER LAWYER ADVOCATE IN JAIPUR

SHEORAN & TANWAR ASSOCIATES (LAW FIRM) 111, SHIV NAGAR - II, SIKAR ROAD MURLIPURA, JAIPUR -302013 Email: stlegaljaipur@gmail.com website: www.stlegal.in Contact no. +91-9001612660, +91-141-2262495 brings for you SUPREME COURT OF INDIA LIST OF SENIOR ADVOCATES DESIGNATED BY SUPREME COURT ( as on 21.1.2013 ) Name Address Date of designation as Sr.Advocate Remarks 1. Mr. Ramachandra Martand Hajarmain 89, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. 28-3-1966 Retd Judge Bombay H/C 2. Mr. Hari Ramchandra Gokhle Rocky Hill Flats, N. Dabholkar Road, Bombay-6 23-7-1966 Advocate 3. Mr. G. R. Rajagopaul C-53, South Extn. Part-1, New Delhi 03-10-1966 Advocate 4. Dr. V. A. Sayed Muhammad Address not available 07-11-1966 Adv. General 5. Mr. N. D. Khar Khanis 122, Golf Links, N.D. 7-10-1967 Advocate 6. Mr. P. Govinda Menon 2, Hastings Road, New Delhi 06-3-1968 Adv. 7. Dr. Haji N. A. Noor Mohammed P.O. Box 24, MOGADISCIO 02-1-1969 Adv 8. Mr. O. P. Malhotra 17, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. 03-12-1969 Adv 9. Mr. Moinul Hague Chaudhry Dr. S. K. Bhuniya Road, Gauhati-I, Assam 12-12-1969 Adv 10. Mr. B. K. P. Sinha 206, Vithalbhai Patel House, Rafi Marg, N. Delhi. 16-3-1970 Adv 11. Mr. P. Ramachandra Reddy Srinivas, Hardikar Bagh, Himatat Nagar, Hyderabad 19-8-1970 Adv. Genl 12. Mr. Brijbans Kishore “The River Side” 10 Ram Kishore Marg, Delhi-6 02-4-1970 Adv 13. Mr. B. V. Subrahmanyam 106, Golf Links, New Delhi 27-4-1970 Adv. General 14. Mr. Jaisukh Lal Hathi 11, Ashoka Road,New Delhi 10-9-1970 Adv * Names of those Sr. Advocates have been deleted whose death has been intimated to the Registry. Concerned Bar Associations/Sr. Advocates are requested to intimate their present Contact No. and Address to the Registrar (Record Room), Supreme Court, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. Tel.011-23381526, Fax 011-23381584; supremecourt@nic.in for updation of record and contact. -2- Name Address Date of designation as Senior Advocate Remarks 15. Mr. G. N. Dixit Off:- 32, Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi Res: - K-22, Green Park, New Delhi-16 15-12-1970 Adv-onRecord 16. Mr. Ram Nath Sharma 682/Sector-15, Gurgaon (Haryana) 26-2-1971 Retd. Judge, Allahabad H/C. 17. Mr. K. K. Venugopal 35A, Harrington Road, Madras- 30 05-3-1972 Advocate 18. Mr. Bhimaji Narayan Rao Lokur D-121, Defence Colony, New Delhi 29-3-1972 Retd. Judge, Allahabad H/C. 19. Mr. D. P. Singh A-39, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi-13 08-5-1972 Advocate 20. Mr. K. T. Harinhanath 11, Munirka Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. 08-5-1972 Advocate 21. Mr. Lakshmi Narain Chhangam C/o. B. N. Purohit, 4/19, Kalkaji Extn. New Delhi 5-10-1972 Retd. Judge Rajasthan H/C 22. Mr. T. P. Naik Civil Lines, Pachpedi, Jabalpur 16-12-1972 Retd. Judge M.P. H/C. 23. Mr. K. S. Ramamurthi D-17, Greater Kailash Enclave-I, New Delhi-48 30-1-1973 Retd. Judge, Madras H/C. 24. Mr. S. B. Sen Pili Kothi, Indore 19-4-1973 Retd. Judge M.P. H/C. ......3/- - 3 - Name Address Date of designation as Senior Advocate Remarks 25. Mr. R. S. Gae 37, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi 24-4-1973 Adv 26. Mr. Janki Nath Bhatt 100, Wazir Bagh, Sri Nagar, J & K 18-9-1973 Retd. Judge J & K H/C. 27. Mr. Prem Nath Khanna 13-14, Iswar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi-65 22-7-1974 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C. 28. Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Beri A-2/29, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 16-7-75 Retired Chief Justice Rajasthan H/C 29. Mr Dwijendra Lal Sen Gupta 19, Gurdawara Road, Rakabganj Road, New Delhi 20-8-1975 Adv 30. Mr. Kan Singh Near Public Park Udai Mandir Jodhpur 18-9-1975 Retd. Judge Rajasthan H/C. 31. Mr J. N. Takru A/ 31 N. D. S. E Part-I, New Delhi- 49 06-1-1976 Retd. Judge Allahabad H/C. 32. Mr. R. P. Bhatt N-4/28 D.L.F. City, Phase II, Gurgaon, Haryana Chamber No. 51, Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India, Bhagwan Das Road, N.D.-21 28-1-1976 Retd. Judge Bombay H/C. 33. Mr. Jagjit Singh 236, Sector-9C, Chandigarh 28-1-1976 Retired Judge Delhi H/C 34. Mr. U.R. Lalit B-75, Sector 14, NOIDA – 201 301. 06-2-1976 Retd. Judge Bombay H/C. ..........4/- ' - 4- 35. Mr. R. W. Adik Address not available 01-3-1976 Adv. Genl 36. Mr. N. P. Nathwani 3, Firozshah Road, N. Delhi – 110 001. 03-3-1976 Retd. Judge Bombay H/C. 36. Mr. P. P. Rao 34/22, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-5 15-8-1976 Adv-on- Record 37. Mr. Vepa P. Sarathi D/1/59/1, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi-49 03-1-1976 Advocate 38. Mr. Vikram Chand Mahajan 9, Vithal Patel House Rafi Marg, New Delhi-1. 16-12-1976 Advocate 39. Mrs. Leila Seth 17, Golf Links, New Delhi 10-1-1977 Advocate 40. Mr. Raj Bhadur 19, Akbar Road, New Delhi-11 12-1-1977 Advocate 41. Mr. M. R. Vasudev Pillai C-230, Defence Colony, New Delhi 18-3-1977 Advocate 42. Mr. S.P. Bhargava 101, Darya Ganj, New Delhi 05-5-1977 Retired Judge Madhya PradeshH/C 43. Mr. K. B. Asthana 71, Western Court New Delhi 22-7-1977 Retired Judge high Court of Allahabad High Court 44. Mr. Bhubneshwar Dhuri N-2, M Road, Patna-80001 08-12-1977 Retd Judge Patna H/C 45. Mr. P. Shivshankar Sree Sadan, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad-500029 08-02-1978 Retd Addl Judge A.P. H/C 46. Mr. P. A. Chaudhary 1-10-1/16, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad 08-02-1978 Advocate -5- Name Address Date of designation as Senior Advocate Remarks 47. Mr. S. B. Bhasme 88, Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court, N.D. 18-7-1978 Advocate 48. Mr. T. V. R. Tatachari AB/6, Purana Quila Road, New Delhi. 08-1-1979 Retd Chief Justice Delhi H/C 49. Mr. Rajni Patel K-2, Cuffe Parade Colaba, Bombay – 400 005 18-4-1979 Advocate 50. Mr M. M. Abdul Khader C-75, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi 18-7-1979 Advocate 51. Mr. J. P. Goyal 4, Lawyers Chambers Supreme Court of India, N. D. 03-8-1979 AOR 52. Mr. A. N. Sinha 7/A-73, Western Extn. Area, New Delhi 25-9-1979 Advocate 53. Mr. T. V. Mehta Siddhartha, 3rd Dada Rokadnath Societ, near Narayan Nagar, Bus Terminal Paldi, Ahmedabad 13-12-1979 Retd Chief Justice H/C of H. P 54. Mr. C.M. Lodha B-Road, Paote, Jodhpur-342010 23-7-1980 Retd Chief Justice Rajasthan H/C 55. Mr. S. N. Sankar B, Bela Road Civil Lines, Delhi 09-9-1980 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C. 56. Mr. Prithvi Raj 13, Tughlak Road, New Dehi 17-9-1980 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C. 57. Mr. K. Sudhakaran Address not available 07-10-1980 Adv Gen. 58. Mr. M. S. Joshi B-12, Derababa Jaimal Singh, Beas, Amritsar. 30-10-1980 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C. 59. Mr. Harbans Lal 68,Sector 8, Chandigarh 12-11-1980 Retd. Judge P & H H/C-6- Name Address Date of designation as Senior Advocate Remarks 60. Mr Pritam Singh Safeer A-28, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi 30-1-1981 Retd Judge Delhi H/C 61. Mr. M. R. A. Ansari 4, Janpath, New Delhi - 11 04-5-1981 Retd Chief Justice J&K H/C 62. Mr G. Vishwanathan Iyer B2-506, White House, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore -32 11-2-1982 Retd. Judge Kerala H/C 63. Mr. Alladi Kappuswami 3-6-226/1, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad - 5000 29 (AP) 30-3-1982 Retd. Judge A.P. H/C. 64. Mr Manmohan Singh Gujral S-152, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi 14-4-1983 Retd Chief Justice P&H H/C 65. Mr B. Datta 60, Lawyers Chambers Supreme Court of India, N.D 14-4-1983 Advocate 66. Mr. R. D. Tulpule “Deepak”, 1143 Shukrawar Peth, Pune – 411 002. 28-7-1983 Retd. Judge Bombay H/C. 67. Mr. B. G. Murdeshwar P-6, South Extn. Part-II, New Delhi – 49 10-8-1983 Advocate 68. Mr. T.A. Ramachandran L-1/2, South Extn. II, New Delhi 05-10-1983 AOR 69. Mr. Mela Ram Sharma 556, Sector 8B, Chandigarh 10-8-1984 Retd. Judge P&H H/C. 70. Mr. M.L. Jain B-13, Vijay Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur-04. 26-9-1984 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C. 71. Mr. Mahavir Singh C-802, Multistory, Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, N. Delhi 28-9-1984 Retd. Judge Allahabad H/C. 72. Mr. Avadh Behari Rohtagi N-214, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048 25-2-1985 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C 73. Mr. G. A. Shah 101, Jor Bagh, New Delhi 04-4-1985 Adv. 74. Mr. Prakash Narain G-12/7, DLF Qutub Enclave, Gurgaon, Haryana. 03-10-1985 Retd. Chief Justice Delhi H/C -7- Name Address Date of designation as Senior Advocate Remarks 75. Mr. Prodyot K. Banerjee B-357, New Friends Colony, New Delhi - 65 17-10-1985 Retd. Chief Justice Rajasthan H/C 76. Mr. K. Subhramanya Reddy “SHILPA”, 6-3-347/11, Dwarkapuri Colony, Panjagutta, Hyderabad 11-12-1985 Advl Genl 77. Mr. Rajinder Sachar A-19, New Friends Colony, New Delhi - 110065 07-1-1986 Retd. Chief Justice Delhi H/C 78. Mr. Dev Raj Khanna 11AB, Mathura Road, New Delhi 22-1-1986 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C 79. Mr. K. N. Bhat #9, Sector 15-A, NOIDA- 201 301 NCR Delhi 30-4-1986 AOR 80. Mr. Ashwani Kumar C-9, Friends Colony, New Delhi 15-7-1986 Adv. 81. Mr. H. L. Anand 8, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi 10-8-1986 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C. 82. Mr. Vinod Arvind Bobde 48, Anand Lok, New Delhi 01-10-1986 Advocate 83. Mr. Altaf Ahmed E-24, Defence Colony, New Delhi 27-10-1986 Advocate 84. Mr. A S. Nambiar 222, North Avenue, New Delhi 04-11-1986 AOR 85. Mr. Rameshwar Nath A-21, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi 17-12-1986 Retd. Chief Justice Delhi H/C 86. Mr. Swaraj Kaushal I- 87 Lajpat Nagar New Delhi 20-12-1986 AOR 87. Mr. Ravindra Nath 3321, Kucha Kasgari, Bazar Sitaram, Delhi 05-4-1987 AOR 88. Mr. K S. Sidhu 45, Madhuban, Delhi - 92 05-4-1987 Retd. Judge Rajasthan H/C 89. Mr. Sultan Singh B-33, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi - 110017 05-4-1987 Retd. Chief Justice Delhi H/C 90. Mr. Purushottam Das Kudal 117-B, Vidyut Nagar, Queens Road, Jaipur 08-5-1987 Retd. Judge Rajasthan H/C .......8/- -8- Name Address Date of designation as Senior Advocate Remarks 91. Mr. K. Shanmukham 36, 5th Trust Cross Street,Mandavelipakkam Chennai-28 20-1-1988 Retd. Judge Madras H/C 92. Mr. Dwarka Pd. Gupta E-15, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-48 20-1-1988 Retd. Chief Justice Rajasthan H/C 93. Mr. T. P. S. Chawla E-338, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065 06-5-1988 Retd. Chief Justice Delhi H/C 94. Mr. P. N. Duda 95, Zakirbagh, New Friends Colony, New Delhi- 25 06-5-1988 Advocate 95. Mr. D. S. Tewatia A-27/15, D.L.F. Kutub Enclave, Phase-I (behind Gym Khana, Gurdwara, Haryana) 9810123170 06-5-1988 Retd. Chief Justice Calcutta H/C. 96. Mr. G. Ramanujam New No. 27, Old No. 15, 4th, Main Road, Kasturba Nagar, Chennai – 20. 17-3-1989 Retd. Judge Madras H/C. 97. Mr. Bal Krishna Behera Plot No. 93, Unit- III, Kharavela Nagar near RamMandir,Bhubaneswar 17-3-1989 Retd. Judge Orissa H/C. 98. Mr. S. P. Goyal Kothi No. 22, Sector 16, Panchkula 17-3-1989 Retd. Judge Punjab & Haryana H/C. 99. Mr. Y. V. Anjaneyulu H. No. 3-45/1,“Sri Nilayam” Dr. Boomanna Marg, Kachiguda, Hyderabad 17-3-1989 Retd. Judge A.P. H/C. 100. Dr. N. M. Ghatate 901, Asha Deep, 9 Hailey Road, New Delhi 17-3-1989 Advocate 101. Mr. S. S. Javali 85, Law Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi 17-3-1989 Advocate 102. Mr. S. S. Chadha 99, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi- 110065 03-8-1989 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C. .........9/--9- Name Address Date of designation as Senior Advocate Remarks 103.. Mr. P. P. Bopanna 9, Hayes Road, Bangalore-25 Ph No. 080 2221 1949 03-8-1989 Retd. Judge Karnataka H/C. 104. Mr. Koka Ramachandra Rao Plot No. 266 A, Road No. 10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 03-8-1989 Retd Chief Justice A. P H/C 105. Mr U. N. Bhachawat K-60 , Jungpura Extn., New Delhi 03-8-1989 Retd. Judge M.P. H/C. 106. Mr. H. L. Agarwal B/3, 125, Manu Apartments, Mayur Vihar, Delhi -110 091. 03-8-1989 Retd. Chief Justice Orissa H/C. 107. Mr. C. P. Sen 205, Congress Nagar, Nagpur(M.S.) 21-12-1989 Retd. Judge M.P. H/C. 108. Mr R. N. Mittal B-5/3, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 21-12-1989 Retd. Judge Punjab & Haryana H/C. 109. Mr. S. N. Chowdhury G-70, Masjid Moth, G.K.II New Delhi 21-12-1989 Advocate 110. Mr. S A. Kader H-33, Parvathi Street, Kalashetra Colony,Besant Nagar (Extn). Chennai – 90. 21-12-1989 Retd. Judge Madras H/C. 111. Dr. Sushil Kumar Tewari Station Road, Jaipur 20-4-1990 Advocate 112. Mr Charanjit Talwar E-14, Sector-30, Noida 04-5-1990 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C. 113. Mr. Mian Jalal-ud-Din Chinar Colony Lane,Baghat Barzulla ,Srinagar 11-10-1990 Retd. Chief Justice J & K H/C. 114. Mr. Krishna Prasad Mohapatra 61, Forest Park , Bhubaneswar 11-10-1990 Retd. Judge Orissa H/C. 115. Mr. Ram Krishna Shukla 21, Hamiliton Road, Allahabad 11-10-1990 Retd. Judge Allahabad H/C. 116. Mr. U. C. Srivastava 5-D, A.P. Sen Road, Charbagh,Lucknow 11-10-1990 Retd. Judge AllahabadH/C. 117. Mr. Kolse Patil Baban Gangadhar C/48, Abhimanshree Housing Society, Pashan Road, Pune – 411 008. 01-01-1991 Retd. Judge Bombay H/C. 118. Mr. V. N. Ganpule B-82, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi 01-01-1991 AOR119. Mr. Udai Sinha 308, Patliputra Colony, Patna 08-03-1991 Retd. Judge Patna H/C 120. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh C-47, Anand Vihar, Delhi 08-03-1991 Retd. Judge Allahabad H/C 121. Mr. S. K. Kader Srambickal House, S.R.M. Road, (Siva Rama Menon Road, Cochin 07-05-1991 Retd. Judge Kerala H/C 122. Mr. K. N. Shukla 35-A, Nayagaon, Jabalpur 07-05-1991 Retd. Judge M.P. H/C 123. Mr. M. K. Chawla 464, Sector-15A, Noida 201301 07-05-1991 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C 124. Mr. Sushil Kumar 95, Lawyers Chambers Supreme Court of India, New Delhi Res: 2152, Dakni Rai Street, Darya Ganj, Delhi 07-05-1991 AOR 125. Mr. B. B. Ahuja B-1/7, Safdarjung Enclave, Africa Avenue, New Delhi 19-12-1991 AOR 126. Mr. G. K. Mathur G-103, Shahstri Nagar, Meerut. 19-12-1991 Retd. Judge Allahabad H/C 127. Mr. Suraj Narain Sapra 13-64, Sector-14, Noida - 201301 24-3-1992 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C 128. Mr. R. P. Mankad C-104, Vraj Vihar – 7, near Prehladnagar Cross Roads opp AUDA Garden, Anandagar, Ahmedabad – 380051. 15-5-1992 Retd. Judge Gujarat H/C 129. Mr. S. B. Wad D-88, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi-110017 08-9-1992 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C 130. Mr. Satyeshwar Roy Line Lank(West) Ranchi 08-9-1992 Retd. Judge Patna H/C -11- Name Address Date of designation as Senior Advocate Remarks 131. . Mr. M. Rama Jois Srisaila No. 870/C, V Block Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore 17-11-1992 Retd. Chief Justice Punjab & Haryana H/C 132. Mr. Navin Chandra Sharma A-12, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 9-12-1992 Retd. Judge Rajasthan H/C 133. Mr. Sardar Ali Khan 302, H.No.16-4- 777/1,“Sardar Bagh” New Malakpat, Hyderabad, A.P. 9-12-1992 Retd. Judge A.P. H/C 134. Mr. K. Sukumaran “Jyotis” Market Road Ernakulam, Kochi – 682018, Kerala. 9-12-1992 Retd. Judge Bombay H/C 135. Mr Gian Chand Jain 157, Madhuban, Patpar Ganj Road, Delhi – 110 092 22-4-1993 Retired Judge Delhi H/C 136. Mr. B.C. Verma New Adarash Colony, Jabalpur 6-9-1993 Retired Judge Patna H/C. 137. Mr. Syed Haider Shauket Abidi B. 7/1 Extension Safdarjung Enclave. New Delhi 110029 1-11-1993 Retd. Chief Justice J & K H/C. 138. Mr. V.P. Bhatnagar (i) Block- A, Set No. 5, Regent House, Apartments, The Mall, Shimla. (ii) 534, Mount Kailash Tower III, East of Kailash, New Delhi-65. 1-11-1993 Retired Judge H.P. H/C. 139. Mr. Gopal Subramanium B-5/7, Safdarjung Enclave, Africa Avenue, New Delhi. 15-12-1993 Advocate -12- Name Address Date of designation as Senior Advocate Remarks 140. Mr. Rohinton F. Nariman M-18, Green Park, New Delhi. 15-12-1993 Advocate 141. Mr. R.R. Mishra 182, Old Mumfordgunj, Allahabad (U.P.) 11-5-1994 Retired Judge Allahabad H/C. 142. Mr. Jitendra Sharma 17, Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court Compound New Delhi 11- 5- 1994 AOR 143. Mr. Rajeev Dhawan A-131, New Friends Colony, New Delhi 11- 5- 1994 Advocate 144. Mr. Jai Singh Sekhon 2536, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh 21-10-1994 Retired Judge P &H H/C. 145. Mr. I.G. Shah 401-A, Prachi, Juhu Versova Link Road, behind HDFC Bank, Andheri (W), Mumbai. Gulabchand House, Malegaon Road, Dhule – 424 001 (Nasik) 21-10-1994 Retired Judge Bombay H/C. 146. Mr. T.L. Vishwanatha Iyer Balananda Bhavan, Chittoor Road, Near Krishna Hospital,Ernakulam, Kochi - 682011 8-12-1994 Retired Judge Kerala H/C. 147. Mr. Varghese Kalliath Trinity Woods, 102, East Surjapur Road, Bangalore – 560 034. 5-1-1995 Retired Judge Kerela H/C. 148. Mr. Gulab Chandra Gupta Opposite Gate No. 2, Wright Town, Jabbalpur – 482 002 (M.P.) 28-3-1995 Retired Chief Justice Himachal Pradesh H/C. 149. Mr. K. Swamidurai New No. 22/1, (old No. 14), VI Street, Sowrashtra Nagar, Choolaimedn , Chennai – 94. 28-3-1995 Retired Judge Madras H/C. 150. Mr. S. K. Dhoon C-1/15 Humayun Road, New Delhi 28-3-1995 Retired Judge Allahabad H/C. 151. Mr. Padam Nabh Nag A-64, Sector-39, Noida (U.P.) 28-3-1995 Retired Judge Allahabad H.C. 152. Mr. R.S. Verma SUBRAJ 20/39, Renu Path Mansarover Jaipur (Rajasthan) 28-3-1995 Retired Judge Rajasthan H/C. -13- Name Address Date of designation as Senior Advocate Remarks 153. Mr. V.A. Mohta A-207, “Priyadarshni”. Delhi. Govt. Officers G.G. H.S. Ltd. 17, I.P. Extn . (Patpar Ganj) Delhi – 110092 2-8-1995 Retired Chief Justice Of Orissa H/C. 154. Mr. S.K. Mookerji 1, G.T. Road, Lookerganj Aallahabad, (U.P.) 2-8-1995 Retired Judge Patna H/C. 155. Mr. H. W. Dhabe H. No. 81, Rahate Colony, Wardha Road, Nagpur- 440 001. 2-8-1995 Retired Judge Bombay H/C. 156. Mr. Raju Ramachandran 97, Lawyers Chambers. Supreme Court. New Delhi. 26-9-1996 AOR 157. Mr. A.K. Srivastava 90, Lawyers Chambers Supreme Court of India 26-9-1996 AOR 158. Mr. K. John Mathew Kattapurath House, Veekshanam Raad, Ernakulam Cochin - 682018 10-1-1997 Retd Judge Kerala H/C 159. Mr. Prakash Chandra Pathak 630, Beoharbag, Jabalpur (M.P.) 10-1-1997 Retd. Judge M.P. H/C 160. Mr. K. Narayan Shastri Nagar Block I, House No.1, Ghaziabad 10-1-1997 Retd. Judge Allahabad H/C 161. Mr. Upendralal Waghray Plot No. 130, Road No. 10, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad-33 10-1-1997 Retd. Judge A.P. H/C 162. Mr. Dipankarlal Mehta 20/40, Mansarovar Jaipur 10-1-1997 Retd .Judge Rajasthan H/C 163. Mr Abdul Gayur Qureshi 63, Ram Nagar Colony, Shahjahanabad , Bhopal & Gandhi Road, 3-Radio Colony, Indore 10-1-1997 Retd. Judge M. P H/C 164. Mr. R. B. Mehrotra 3- Patrika Marg Allahabad UP 10-1-1997 Retd .Judge Allahabad H/CName Address Date of designation as Senior Advocate Remarks 165. Mr. T. S. Arunachalam Flat No- 086 Tower no 13 PhaseI Supreme Enclave, Mayur Vihar Delhi 10-1-1997 Retd .Judge M. P H/C 166. Mr. C.L. Chaudhry D-15 Sector-20 Noida-201301 10-1-1997 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C 167. Mr. M. S. Ganesh 133, Lawyers Chambers Supreme Court, N.D. 10-1-1997 AOR 168. Mr. K. R. Chowdhary 16,Lawyers Chamber, S.Court, New Delhi 10-1-1997 AOR 169. Mr. R. Venkataramani Shankara No-1 Savita Vihar New Yojana Vihar, N.Delhi-92 17-1-1997 AOR 170. Mr. P. Krishnamoorthy Karthika Krishnaswamy Road, Ernakulam, Kochi-682035 01-10-1997 Retd. Judge Karnataka H/C 171. Mr. Sushil Kr. Jain Kothi No. 1278, Sector-18C, Chandigarh 01-10-1997 Retd. Judge Allahabad H/C 172. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Mehra S-388, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi-110048 13-2-1998 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C. 173. Mr. B. M. Thulasidas 'Rohini' Temple Lane (South),Ravipuram,Kochi- 682015, Kerala 13-2-1998 Retd. Judge Kerala H/C. 174. Mr. M. K. Kapoor # 407, Secytor -6, Panchkula 20-8-1998 Retd. Judge Punjab & Haryana H/C. 175. Mr B. N. Krishnan 209, Double Road, Indiranagar II Stage, Bangalore 20-8-1998 Retd. Judge Karnataka H/C 176. Mrs. Shobha Dixit 145, Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, New Delhi 20-8-1998 Retd. Judge Allahabad H/C 177. Mr. Jaspal Singh 59, Hemkunt Colony, N.D.-48 20-8-1998 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C. 178. Mr. T. V. Ramakrishnan “Anugraha”, 45/1871-C, near P. J. Antony Ground Road and Playground, Panchalam, Kochi- 682012 20-8-1998 Retd. Judge Kerala H/C. 179. Mr. M. N. Rao C-81, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi 20-8-1998 Retd. Chief Justice H.P.H/C. 15Name Address Date of designation as Senior Advocate Remarks 180. Mr. P. K. Majumdar P-7, Gariahat Road, Calcutta – 700 029 ( 9831381608 20-8-1998 Retd. Judge Calcutta H/C. 181. Mr. N. G. Das 4-1448, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi- 19. 20-8-1998 Retd. Judge Gauhati H/C. 182. Mr. R. K. Gulati Flat No. 1004, Emperor-3, Supertech Emerald Court, Sector 93-A, NOIDA. 20-8-1998 Retd. Judge Allahabad H/C. 183. Mr. Anoop George Chaudhary Flat No. 182, Tower No. 8, Supreme Enclave, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi 20-8-1998 Adv General 184. Mr. S. Balakrishnan Harihar Vihar C-65, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi 20-8-1998 AOR 185. Mr. Subodh Markandaya A-193, Surajmal Vihar, Vikas Marg Extn. Delhi 20-8-1998 AOR 186. Mr. P. N. Misra G-8, South Extn. Part-II, New Delhi 20-8-1998 AOR 187. Mr. Salman Khurshid 4, Gulmohar Avenue, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi 20-8-1998 Adv 188. Mr. U. L. Bhat 1023, 24th Main Tent Road, SectorI, H.S.R. Layout Bangalore-34 11-2-1999 Retd. Chief Justice M.P. H/C. 189. Mr. Panicka Veettil Kottilungal Shamsuddin 'JASMIN' Sivarama Menon Road, Kochi-682 018 11-2-1999 Retd. Judge Kerala H/C. 190. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Goel Chamber No. 43, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi 11-2-1999 AOR 191. Mr. M C. Jain At Jodhpur ANU-VILLA Pl. No. 92, Section-7, New Power House Road, Jodhpur At Jaipur F-177, Megha Marg,Janpath, Shyam Nagar,Jaipur- 302 019 24-8-1999 Retd. Chief Justice Rajasthan H/C. -16-Name Address Date of designation as Senior Advocate Remarks 192. Mr. V. S. Dave C-22, Sai Jai Singh Highway Bank Park, Jaipur Dave Apartments, Block-A, Flat No. 102 24-8-1999 Retd. Judge Rajasthan H/C 193. Mr. B. K. Singh 2/4, Vivek Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. 24-8-1999 Retd. Judge Allahabad H/C 194. Mr K. M. Agarwal 305, Sundarnagar, Raipur, M.P. Ph. No. 0771 - 2242240 07-3-2000 Retd. Chief Justice Sikkim H/C. 195. Mr. Susanta Chatterjee 2, P. K. Tarkalankar Lane, Sibpur, Howrah, West Bengal 07-3-2000 Retd. Acting Chief Justice Orissa H/C. 196. Mr. Srinath Sahay B-3/254, Vinay Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow 07-3-2000 Retd. Judge Allahabad H/C. 197. Mr. R. P. Gupta 149, Dayanand Vihar, Vikas Marg Extn. Delhi 07-3-2000 Retd. Judge M.P. H/C. 198. Mr. Mohammad Asghar Ali Khan A-19, Raghunath Puri, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012 07-3-2000 Retd. Judge Rajasthan H/C 199. Mr. H. R. Bhardwaj 14, Tuglak Road, New Delhi 07-3-2000 Advocate 200. Mr. Suresh Dutt Jha Indira Ward, Gurudwara Road, Jabalpur Distt. Bustar, M.P. 14-11-2000 Retd. Judge Calcutta H/C. 201. Mr. C. S. Rajan ALRA-59, Ashramam Lane, Kaloor, Kochi 14-11-2000 Retd. Judge Kerala H/C. 202. Mr. N. L. Ganguli 31-A, Tagore Town, Allahabad, U.P. 14-11-2000 Retd. Judge Allahabad H/C. 203. Mr. H. N. Hingorani 40, Lawyers Chamber, Supreme Court Compound, New Delhi 14-11-2000 AOR 204. Mr. Ranjit Kumar 16, Todarmal Road (Bengali Market), New Delhi Res: H-69, Greater Kailash-I New Delhi 14-11-2000 AOR -17-Name Address Date of designation as Senior Advocate Remarks 205. Mr. Rajiv Dutt 16, Todarmal Road (Bengali Market), New Delhi 14-11-2000 AOR 206. Mr. Amarendra Sharan 105, New Chamber Block, Supreme Court Compound, New Delhi Res: C-31, Sector 39, Noida 14-11-2000 AOR 207. Mr. Y. Bhaskar Rao H.No. 5-9-22/63/3, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad 29-1-2001 Retd. Chief Justice Karnataka H/C 208. Dr. J. N. Dubey H.No. 102, Sector- 15A, NOIDA- 201301 30-4-2001 Retd. Acting Chief Justice Patna H/C. 209. Mr. Mam Chandra Agarwal Flat No. 1133, Sec-29, , near Lord Mahavera Public School, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar 30-4-2001 Retd. Judge Allahabad H/C. 210. Mr. K. Ramamurthy D-17, G.K. Enclave, Part I, Delhi-48 30-4-2001 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C. 211. Mr. S. Ganesh A-141, Niti Bagh, New Delhi 30-4-2001 Advocate 212. Mr. A. S. Tripathi AD-49, Ekanki Kunj Colony, Muir Road, Rajapur, Allahabad, U.P. 30-4-2001 Retd. Judge M.P.H/C. 213. Mr. T. K. Chandrashekhara Das 'Nandhanam' Jawahar Nagar, Kadavanthva, kochi - 682020 21-8-2001 Retd. Judge Bombay H/C. 214. Mr. S. Parvatha Rao Plot No. 68, Phase-3, Road No. 71, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 29-10-2001 Retd. Judge A.P. H/C. 215. Mr. P. A. Mohammed Supramo, No. 37/3085A, Villanankil Lane, Ponoth Road, Kaloor, Kochi – 682 017. 29-10-2001 Retd. Judge Kerala H/C. 216. Mr. Ashok Agarwal AB-80, Shah Jahan Road, New Delhi 9-9-2002 Retd. Chief Justice Madras H/C. 217. Mr. V. S. Kokje 201, Park Residency 214 130FNA Compound race Course Road No. 2 Indore-452003 09-9-2002 Retd. Judge Rajasthan H/C. -18- Name Address Date of designation as Senior Advocate Remarks 218. Mr. A. S. Garg 584, Sector 15, Part I, Gurgaon 09-9-2002 Retd. Judge Punjab & Haryana H/C 219. Mr. A. M. Mir Jawahir Nagar, Srinagar 09-9-2002 Retd. Judge J & K H/C. 220. Mr. V. P. Mohan Kumar G-250, Sanjay Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam, Kochi-682036 09-9-2002 Retd. Judge Kerala H/C. 221. Mr. Sunil Gupta 3-A, Sagar Apptt. 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi 09-9-2002 AOR 222. Mr. A. S. Qureshi (i) 145, Supreme Enclave, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi (ii) 201, First Floor, Golden leaf, Muslim Society, 'Navrangpura' Ahmedabad - 380009 14-8-2003 Retd. Judge Gujarat H/C. 223. Mr. M. R. Calla (i) V-19, 1st floor, Green Park Extn., N.D. 110016 (ii) 15/17 Ratnam Barwara House, Ajmer Road, Jaipur 302006 (iii) SUKOON 181, Sunrise Park, behind Asia School Drive-inRoad-side Ahmedabad (Gujarat) 380052 14-8-2003 Retd. Judge Rajasthan H/C 224. Mr. T. S. Doabia Safdarjung, New Delhi. 14-8-2003 Retd. Judge J & K H/C. 225. Mr. M. P. Chinnappa 1419, Judicial Layout, 9thMain, 2 nd Cross, G K V K Post, Bellary Road Bangalore560065 29-4-2004 Retd. Judge Karnataka H/C.-19- Name Address Date of designation as Senior Advocate Remarks 226. Mr. R. K. Batta B-45, Swasthya Vihar, Vikas Marg, New Delhi- 92 Member national Consumer Disputes, Redressal Commission, B, Wing 8th Floor, Janpath , New Delhi – 110 001 29-4-2004 Retd. Judge Bombay H/C. 227. Mr. Ch. Pratap K. Mishra Suraya Nagar, Link Road, Cuttack (new) 29-4-2004 Retd. Judge Orissa H/C. 228. . Mr. S. K. Mahajan C-271, Defence Colony, New Delhi - 110024 29-4-2004 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C. 229. Mr. S. K. Dubey Ratnam, E-11, Vasant Vihar Extn., Gwalior (new) 29-4-2004 Retd. Judge M.P. H/C. 230. Mr. D. G. Karia Bungalor No. 12 Sarvottamnagar, Opp. Memnagar Fire Station b/h Hatkesh Society, G-41, First Floor, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi 29-4-2004 Retd. Judge Gujarat H/C. 231. Mr. Uday Umesh Lalit 37, Supreme Enclave, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi 29-4-2004 AOR 232. Mrs. K. K. Usha Jyothis, Market Road, Kochi – 682 031. 07-12-2004 Retd. Judge Kerala H/C. 233. Mr. C. M. Nayar C-490, Defence Colony, New Delhi 07-12-2004 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C. 234. Mr. Vaman Rao Flat Nos. 202, 203, Mahasiva Apptt. 3-4-874/1/9, Barkatpura, Hyderabad 07-12-2004 Retd. Judge A.P. H/C. 235. Mr. K. C. Gupta Kothi No. 61, Sector-9, Panchkula, Haryana 07-12-2004 Retd. Judge P &H H/C. 236. Mr. P. C. Agarwal A-1,89, Sec-20, Noida (U.P.) 27-7-2005 Retd. Judge M. P. H/C. 237. Mr. Amaresh Kumar Singh Somavanshi 48/21, Rajat Path, Moti Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur-302020 27-7-2005 Retd. Judge Rajasthan H/C 238. Mr. R.L. Khurana H.No. 9, Sector 27, Noida 201-301, Distt. G. B. Nagar, 27-7-2005 Retd. Judge M.P. H/C.-20- Name Address Date of designatio n as Senior Advocate Remarks 239. Mr. S. R. Singh D-4, Sector -122 near Sai Mandir, NOIDA. 30 Hashimpur Road, Allahabad 10-1-2006 Retd. Judge Allahabad H/C. 240. Mr. G. Bikshapathy 16-9-749/41, Ajantha Cony, Racecourse Road, old Malakpet, Hyderabad-36 10-1-2006 Retd. Judge A.P. H/C. 241. Mr. V. Kanagaraj No. 33, Chockalingam Nagar, Behind DMS Office, Gopalapuram Chennai 10-1-2006 Retd. Judge Madras H/C. 242. Mr. S. C. Pandey 577,South Civil Lines,near GCF, Chungi Chowki, Jabalpur, M.P. 10-1-2006 Retd. Judge M.P. H/C. 243. Mr. P. S. Patankar 1902, Rushab Tower Zakaria Bunder Cross Road, Opp. Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Marg, Sewri (W) Mumbai 10-1-2006 Retd. Judge Bombay H/C. 244. Mr. R. C. Chopra N-7, Greater Kailash Part – I, New Delhi-110048 10-1-2006 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C. 245. Mr. B. C. Patel (i) 12, Gurikunj Society Near Sharda Near Mahadev Nagar, P.O.Paldi, Ahmedabad-380007 (ii) 13, Mother Teresa, Cresent, New Delhi. 01-5-2006 Retd. Chief Justice Delhi H/C. 246. Mr. S. K. Keshote Mez-I/Flat No. 302, EdenGarden, Bajaj Nagar Enclave, near Gandhi Nagar Rly Station, Jaipur 302015. C-69, Paradise Regency, Fat No. 402, C- Scheme, Jaipur Plot No. 37 Subham Apartment, Apartment No. 68, IPI Extn., Patparganj, New Delhi. 01-5-2006 Retd. Judge Rajasthan H/C. -21- 247. Mr. S. K. Agarwal A-62, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi Off: 24, Khan Market, New Delhi 01-5-2006 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C. 248. Mr. R. Bhaskaran Sreekrishna Kripa, St. Francis Xavier's Church Road, Kaloor, Kochi, 682017 24-8-2006 Retd. Judge Kerala H/C. 249. Ms. Sharda Aggarwal B-126, Sarvodya Enclave, New Delhi 24-8-2006 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C. 250. Mr. B. Panigrahi Plot No. B/1451, Sec-6, Abhinav Bidanasi, CDA, Cuttack 07-8-2007 Retired Judge Orissa H/C 251. Mr. B. A. Khan 55, High Court Judges Colony, Sector 105, NOIDA- 201 304 07-8-2007 Former Chief Justice J & K . H/C 252. Mr J. M. James 'Smriti' TC-26/939 (TC- 27/1754) Vanchiyoor PO, Thiruvananthapuram- 695 035 07-8-2007 Retd. Judge Kerala H/C 253. Mr. P. Shanmugam New No. 204, Old No. (288/B), TTK Road Teynampet, Chennai-18 07-8-2007 Retd. Judge Madras H/C 254. Ms. Indu Malhotra 59, Lawyers Chamber, Supreme Court Comopund, New Delhi 07-8-2007 AOR 255. Mr. Pravin H. Parekh 30, School Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi 25-9-2007 AOR 256. Mr. K. B. Siddappa Plot No. 82, Phase -III, H.No. 6-5-1/8, Opp. HUDA, Nursery Park, Vaidehi Nagar Vanasthali Puram Hyderabad 06-2-2008 Retd. Judge A.P. H/C 257. Mr. R. Balasubramanian No. 5, Tiger Varadhachary, 1 st Street, Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 90 06-2-2008 Retd. Judge Madras H/C -22- Name Address Date of designation as Senior Advocate Remarks 258. Mr. R. S. Sodhi C-1/40, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi- 110016. 06-2-2008 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C 259. Mr. D. Biswas Shaktigarh Path, near Rajib Bhawan, Guwahati – 781 005 06-2-2008 Retd. Judge Gauhati H/C 260. Mr. S. S. Jha Bungalow No. 898, near Allahabad Bank, Wright Town, , Jabalpur, M.P. 06-2-2008 Retd. Judge M.P. H/C 261. Mr. R. D. Vyas 401, Trishul Apartment, Sanghia Colony, A.B. Road, Indore 06-2-2008 Retd. Judge M.P. H/C 262. Mr. M. Karpaga Vinayagam Bunglow No. 21, New Moti Park, New Delhi – 23 Chairperson, Appellate Tribunal for Electricity C-1/1, Tilaklane, Tilak Marg, New Delhi 110001. 14-10-2008 Retd. Chief Justice Jharkhand H/C 263. Mr. Nure Alam Chowdhury 26, Ratu Sarkar Lane, Calcutta Ph No. (033) 2235-8333 14-10-2008 Retd. Acting Chief Justice Calcutta H/C 264. Mr. V. G. Palshikar C- 102, Lloyds Estate, Vidyalankar College Road,Sangam Nagar, Wadala (East), Mumbai – 400 037. office- R.No. 211, 2nd Floor, 16/2 Bake House, Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce Lane, opp. Mah.State Co.op Bank Ltd., Fort., Mumbai – 400 023 14-10-2008 Retd. Judge Bombay H/C 265. Mr. Hari Nath Tilhari No. 162/42, Astabal, Charbagh, Lucknow. 14-10-2008 Retd. Judge U.P. & KarnatakaH/C. 266. Mr. R. Gururajan No. 504, 5th Floor, Sriharikrupa 15th Cross Malleshwaram Bangalore-560003 14-10-2008 Retd. Judge Karnataka H/C 267. Mr. A. Mariarputham 242, New Lawyers Chamber, Supreme Court Compound New Delhi 14-10-2008 AOR -23- Name Address Date of designation as Senior Advocate Remarks 268. Mr. P. S. Narasimha 127, Lawyers Chamber(Old) Supreme Court Compound New Delhi 14-10-2008 Advocate 269. Mr. J. S. Attri 25, M. C. Setalvad Lawyers Chamber, Bhagwan Das Road, Supreme Court, New Delhi 14-10-2008 AOR 270. Mr. Pallav Shishodia 328, New Lawyers Chamber, Supreme Court Compound N .D. 14-10-2008 Advocate 271. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal C-12, Diwan Shree Aptt., 30, Ferozshah Road, New Delhi 14-10-2008 Advocate 272. Mr. Maninder Singh F-12, Jangpura Extn. New Delhi 28-4-2009 AOR 273. Mr. R. S. Suri 16, New Lawyers Chamber, Supreme Court Compound N.D 28-4-2009 AOR 274. Mr. Shiv Kr. Sharma 878-B, Mahaveer Nagar-1, Durgapur, Jaipur. 28-4-2009 Retd. Judge Rajasthan H/C 275. Mr. K. V. Vishwanath 215, New Lawyers Chamber, M. C. Setalvad Block, Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi 28-4-2009 Advocate 276. Mr. Bilal Nazki House No. 85, A.I- Farooq Colony, Rawalpora, Srinagar, J&K 18.2.2010 Retd Chief Justice Orissa H/C 277. Mr. O.P. Dwivedi G-72, Sector 25, Jalvayu Vihar, NOIDA 18.2.2010 Retd. Judge Delhi H/C 278. Mr. Ikram-Ul-Bari 3/123, Vikas Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow 18.2.2010 Retd. Judge Allahabad H/C 279. Mr. Giri Venkitasubramani Sreepushkaram , C.L. Anand Lane, M.G. Road, Ernakulam,Cochin - 682 011, Kerala. 18.2.2010 Retd. Judge Kerala H/C 280. Mr. B. Padmaraj No. 1288, 13th Main Judicial Lay-out, G.K.V.K. Post, Bangalore – 560 065 18.2.2010 Retd. Judge Karnataka H/C -24- 281. Mr. A. K. Sanghi 118, Lawyers Chamber, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi – 110 001. 18.2.2010 AOR 282. Mr. Dhruv Mehta 33 Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi – 110 001. 18.2.2010 AOR 283. Mr. Mukul Mudgal Ist Floor C-30, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi110 013. 9.8.2011 Retd. Chief Justice Punjab & Haryana High Court 284. Mr.Bhagwati Prasad 53, Ground Floor, World Trade Centre,Barakhamba Lane,New Delhi – 110 001 9.8.2011 Retd Chief Justice High Court of Jharkhand 285. Mr. Subhash Samvatsar Chamber No. 22-23 Johari Palace, 51 M.G. Road, Indore. 9.8.2011 Retd. Judge High Court of M.P. 286. Mr. S.P. Khare A-1,202,Shehnai Residency, A.B. Road, Opp : Amarvilas Hotel,Indore (M.P.) 452 010 9.8.2011 Retired Judge High Court of Madhya Pradesh 287. Mr. Deo Narayan Thanvi 7, Parvati Nagar, Circuit House Road, Jodhpur. 9.8.2011 Retd. Judge High Court of Rajasthan 288. Mr. Piyush Mathur Flat No. 401, Block A-One, Shehnai Residency, A.B. Road, Indore (M.P.) 9.8.2011 Retired Judge. High Court of Madhya Pradesh 289. Mr. D.A. Mehta 203, Sujay Flats, Devendra Park,In Shradha Petrol Pump Lane, Near Judges' Bungalow Circle, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad – 380 054. 9.8.2011 Retd. Judge High Court of Gujarat 290. Mr. Vijay C. Daga Opp. Old Custom House, 12/14, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. 9.8.2011 Retd. Judge High Court of Bombay-25- Name Address Date of designation as Senior Advocate Remarks 291. Mr. S. L. Bhayana 8- B, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi –110 003. 9.8.2011 Retd. Judge High Court of Delhi 292. Mr. K. A. Puj 201, Akashsagar Flats Panchvati Second Lane, near Ambawadi Circle Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad - 380 006. 9.8.2011 Retd. Judge High Court of Gujarat 293. Mr. S.S. Kulshrestha E-20, Ground Floor, Lajpat Nagar- III New Delhi – 110 024 9.8.2011 Retd. Judge High Court of Allahabad 294. Mr. Shiv Shanker Sector 12, 191, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, U.P. 21.11.2012 Retd. Judge High Court of Allahabad 295. Mr. Gopala Krishna Tamada Brindavanam “Plot No. 443/A/54, Road No. 86, Jubilee Hills,Hyderabad 21.11.2012 Retd. Judge High Court of A.P. 296. Mr. S.P. Pathak 164, Santosh Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur - 302019 21.11.2012 Retd. Judge High Court of Rajasthan 297. Mr. Narinder Kumar Sud Ambika Tower, 4th Floor, Police Linew Road, Jalandhar- 144001. 21.11.2012 Retd. Judge High Court of P & H 298. Mr. B.H. Marlapalle P.K. Rele & Co., 817 Maker Chamber Iv, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021. 21.11.2012 Retd. Judge High Court of Bombay 299. Mr. Ram Autar Singh 120, Duplex Sector 82, Swarnim Vihar, Noida (U.P.) 21.11.2012 Retd. Judge High Court of Allahabad 300. Mr. Gurusharn Sharma C/604, Kalka Apartments, Plot 31, Sector 6, Dwarka , New Delhi – 75. 21.11.2012 Retd. Judge High Court of Patna 301. Mr. K. Padmanabhan Nair Panchajanayam, H.No. 34/2383- A, Mangattu Road, Palarivattom P.O., Kochi-682 025 21.11.2012 Retd. Judge ,High Court of Kerala 302. Mr. Radha Mohan Prasad M.P. Sinha Road, Kadam Kuan, Patna- 800 003 21.11.2012 Retd. Judge, High Court of Patna 303. Mr. Palok Basu 10, Kutchery Road, (K.G. Marg), Allahabad- 211 002 21.11.2012 Retd. Judge, High Court of Allahabad 304. Mr. Basant R. H.No. B 5/97, 1st Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi- 110029 21.11.2012 Retd. Judge, High Court of Kerala 305. Mr. I.S. Shrivastava B-101, Sanghavi Residency, Near Kalindi Midtown, In front of Sahara City, Bypass Road, Indore- 542 016 (M.P.) 21.11.2012 Retd. Judge, High Court of M.P. 306. Mr. P.B. Majumdar 506, Milestone Building, Near Drive in Road Kendra, Opp. Doordarshan, Ahmedabad- 380 054 21.11.2012 Retd. Judge, High Court of Gujarat 307. Mr. C.N. Ramachandran Nair 3B-Bhavani, Kunnumpuram, P.O., Kakkanad, Kochi-682 030 21.11.2012 Retd. Judge, High Court of Kerala 308. Mr. Pradeep Kant 16, Krishna Colony, Faizabad Road, Lucknow- 226 006 21.11.2012 Retd. Judge, High Court of Allahabad 308. Mr. Guru Krishnakumar C-4/21,Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi- 110 016 21.11.2012 Advocate 309. Mr. Huzefa A. Ahmadi D-27, G.F. Nizamudding (East), New Delhi-110 013 21.11.2012 Advocate more information at http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/sradv21012013.pdf

GPF & Pension Benefits to Casual Labour with temporary status regularised after 1.1.2004

No. 49014/2/2014-Estt(C) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel & Training ******* North Block, New Delhi. Dated the 29th January,2015. OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: GPF & Pension Benefits to Casual Labour with temporary status regularised after 1.1.2004 —regarding. The undersigned is directed to say that following the issue of this Department’s O.M. No. Dated 26.04.2004, the status of admissibility of pensionary benefits to CL-TS regularised after 1.1.2004 has been a subject of litigation in a number of court cases being contested by various Ministries/Department. 2. In order to take a view on the above issue and in view of the court rulings, it is requested that all Ministries/Departments may furnish the details of Casual Labour with temporary status (CL-TS) regularised after 1.1.2004 in the enclosed proforma latest by 07.02.2015. 3. The particulars of CL-TS yet to be regularised called for vide this Department’s O.M No. Dated 16.10.2014 may also be sent urgently, if not already sent. (J. A. Vaidyanathan) Director(Estt.) Telefax: 23093179

PROMOTION AFTER RETIREMENT

Retired government employees who missed out on their promotions due to late meetings of the committees deciding on such departmental elevations will now be able to avail its post-retirement benefits. "Instructions have been issued to all ministries and departments to give benefit of promotion to those employees who missed it due to late meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)," an official in the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) said. It would not be in order if eligible employees, who were within the zone of consideration for the relevant year but are not actually in service when the DPC is being held, are not considered while preparing year-wise zone of consideration or panel, as per the DoPT order. Consequently, their juniors are considered (in their place) for promotions, who would not have been in the zone of consideration if the DPC had been held in time, it said. "Appointment Committee of Cabinet has observed that DPCs often do not consider such eligible officers who are retiring before the occurrence of the vacancy in the panel year," the order said, adding that this "undesirable trend negate the very purpose" of government's existing instructions for inclusion of such employees. There have been reports that some of the eligible retired employees are not being given the benefit of promotion which they missed due to late DPCs. In fact the DPCs were being held very late, the official said. The DoPT has asked all central government ministries and departments under it to ensure "strict compliance" of its instructions to include retiring employees for promotions in case the DPCs are delayed. Such retired officials would, however, have no right for actual promotion, the DoPT official said.

CLAIM FOR ACCIDENT

A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal here has awarded over Rs eight lakh to the relatives of a 59- year-old man who died after being hit by a rashly driven motorcycle in August 2011. The tribunal, presided by Sanjeev Kumar Singh, asked The New India Assurance Company Ltd, insurer of the offending motorcycle, to pay Rs 8,07,994 to the family of Delhi resident Dara Singh. “After considering all the documents filed by petitioners as a whole, it is clear that respondent No 1 (driver) was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner,” the tribunal said. “I hereby award a sum of Rs 8,07,994 in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents,” the judge said, while directing the insurance firm to pay the money. According to the family members of the victim, in August 2011 Dara was waiting for a bus near ITO here when a motorcycle, which was being driven in a negligent manner, hit him after jumping the traffic signal. Due to the impact of accident, Dara fell down on the road and received multiple grievous injuries after which he was rushed to a nearby hospital, they said. Dara was discharged from the hospital on the next day but soon he had to be admitted to another hospital due to some complications, the petitioners said, adding Dara died while undergoing treatment there on September 5, 2011. During the adjudication of the petition, the driver of the two wheeler denied that he was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner.

PROSECUTION FOR FALSE CHARGES

Making a false corruption charge against a public servant proved costly for a man with a Delhi court ordering initiation of legal proceedings against him observing that statements made under oath before it shall be on a “higher pedestal”. Special judge Narottam Kaushal directed initiation of proceedings against Inder Mohan Verma, who had alleged in his complaint that a Delhi Jal Board (DJB) official was seeking a bribe of Rs 600 from him for alloting him water connection. “Either his (Verma) complaint was false or his testimony before the court on oath is false. Statement made under oath before the court shall have to be put on higher pedestal than the signed complaint,” the judge said. “I am thus of the opinion that he has made a false charge against the accused, who is a public servant of having committed the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act,” the judge said noting that Verma had made a false statement before the court. The court also acquitted DJB official Shiv Kumar against whom Verma had lodged the complaint saying that the complainant has denied that there was demand of bribe and even denied that the complaint was written by him voluntarily. “For the reasons discussed, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Shiv Kumar demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant,” the court said. It said onus is on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that there was demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused only thereafter the presumption that it was illegal gratification can be drawn. “Accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and is accordingly acquitted,” the court said. According to prosecution, Verma had on October 3, 2011, lodged the complaint before the Anti-Corruption Bureau of Delhi Police alleging that Kumar, who was working in the office of zonal engineer of DJB, demanded money from him for giving the water connection. On his complaint, a trap team was constituted and Kumar was caught while demanding and accepting bribe, it had alleged. During the trial, Kumar had claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case.