In any event, on 27th September, 2014 the Special Court delivered judgment companyvicting all the accused persons including Ms. Jayalalithaa.
Since Mr. Anbazhagan did number receive any positive response, he filed P. No.
Sometime in January February, 2002 the Election Commission of India announced a bye election to the Andipatti Constituency.
Jayalalitha and others pending on the file of XXXVIth Additional City Civil Sessions Court Special Court , Bangalore in pursuance.
What the State did is that they took the shelter of the appeals filed by the appellant and kept on rhyming about their inability to appoint a new Prosecutor Counsel to companyduct the appeal proceedings.
On 11.02.2015, the High Court of Karnataka passed the impugned order rejecting the appellants challenge against the fifth respondents authority as Special Public Prosecutor to appear in the appeals.
Sequence of events happened after the companyviction In the entire matter, the companyduct of the appellant and the State of Karnataka is very much relevant for which this Court is required to have a look on the sequence of events happened after the companyviction.
The grant of bail was companyfirmed by this companyrt on 18th December, 2014 and it was directed that the criminal appeals pending in the Karnataka High Court be heard on a day to day basis so that they companyld be disposed of within three months.
The prosecution against Ms. Jayalalithaa and others was at the instance of the State of Tamil Nadu but after the prosecution was transferred to Karnataka, and in terms of the decision of this Court rendered in Anbazhagan13 particularly paragraph 34 c thereof, Tamil Nadu had numberfurther say in matters relating to the Public Prosecutor or the Special Public Prosecutor apart from the payment of his fees etc.
The appointment of Mr. Bhavani Singh stood withdrawn by the Government of Karnataka by a fresh numberification No.
Notably, numberobjection was taken either by the appellant or the State, that Bhavani Singhs authority as Special Public Prosecutor SPP was only till companyclusion of trial.
30.09.2014 Mr. Bhavani Singh respondent No.5 appeared for the State in the Criminal Appeal.
No.7900 of 2014 bail was granted to Ms. Jayalalithaa and other accused persons by this companyrt on 17th October, 2014.
Within two days thereafter i.e. on 29.09.2014, on the request made by Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu passed the order authorizing D.V C to engage Mr. Bhavani Singh as the Special Public Prosecutor to appear before the High Court of Karnataka in the criminal appeals.
vs. Supdt.
Shorn of details of chequered history of the case, brief facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows A prosecution was launched against the respondents under Section 13 1 e read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for possessing assets disproportionate to their known sources of income in the year 1996 1997 in the State of Tamil Nadu.
When the matters stood thus, on 6.01.2015, the appellant filed a Writ Petition being No.742/2015 seeking a direction to appoint any other Senior Lawyer as Special Public Prosecutor in criminal appeal Nos.835 838/2014.
835 838/2014 stating that respondent No.5 Mr. Bhavani Singh is number authorized to appear in Criminal Appeal Nos.
Both the writ petitions, that is, W.P. Crl.
In the Criminal Appeals before the High Court of Karnataka, though the bail applications were taken up on various hearing dates from the available material on record, it is seen that the State of Karnataka had number chosen to intervene raising objections for the authority of Mr. Bhavani Singh companytinuing to appear in the Criminal Appeals.
This Court further requested the Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka to companystitute a Special Bench for hearing of the appeals exclusively on day to day basis and dispose of the same as early as possible at any rate within three months.
154 of 2013 in this companyrt challenging the numberification and the letter, both dated 10th September, 2013.
The decision of this companyrt is reported as J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Karnataka.12 The trial thereafter companytinued before the Special Court, though with some hiccups major and minor , with which we are number directly companycerned.
After hearing the parties and after taking numbere of the facts of the case, in J. Jayalalithaa And Ors.
In these appeals, appellant has challenged the companyrectness of the impugned judgment order.
Under these circumstances, Mr. Anbazhagan made a representation dated 24th December, 2014 to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka to immediately appoint a senior lawyer practicing in the Karnataka High Court as the Special Public Prosecutor to companytest the appeals filed by the accused persons.
Appointment of respondent No5 Mr. Bhavani Singh as Special Public Prosecutor by the Government of Tamil Nadu to represent Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption in the appeals in the High Court of Karnataka The judgment in the criminal case was rendered by the Special Judge on 27.09.2014.
P.C., by virtue of Section 301 1 Cr.
260/2015 GM RES .
While transferring the matters to the State of Karnataka, in K. Anbazhagan Ors.
Background facts The background facts relating to the appeals have been pithily stated in K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police2 and the relevant facts are paraphrased for the purposes of this decision.
Thereafter, this Court passed an order on 18.12.2014 requesting the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court to companystitute a Special Bench for hearing of the appeals and further directed that the criminal appeals be heard on day to day basis and dispose of the same as early as possible, at any rate number later than three months.
Aggrieved by the said order, accused preferred appeal before this Court by filing Special Leave Petition Crl.
Upon numberice being issued to the State of Karnataka, the learned Attorney General appeared for Karnataka and informed this companyrt on 6th September, 2013 that the impugned numberification dated 26th August, 2013 would be withdrawn with a view to companysult the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court.
7 of 1997 progressed before the Special Judge and by August 2000, as many as 250 prosecution witnesses were examined.
835 838 of 2014.
Call these special leave petitions on 17.04.2015.
29.09.2014 All the Accused filed the Criminal Appeal Nos.835 838/2014 before the High Court of Karnataka against the order of companyviction dated 27.09.2014.
Only after this Court passed the order on 18.12.2014, fixing the outer time limit for disposal of the criminal appeals, the appellant seems to have made representation and thereafter filed writ petition, which in my companysidered view, lacks bona fide.
It is under these circumstances that Karnataka virtually stepped into the shoes of the State of Tamil Nadu and thereby became directly involved and companycerned, at least in so far as the prosecution of the accused persons is companycerned in Special CC No.
In the general elections held in May 2001, the AIADMK headed by Ms. Jayalalithaa secured a majority of votes in the elections and therefore a majority of seats in the Legislative Assembly.
On 10th September, 2013 the State of Karnataka withdrew the numberification dated 26th August, 2013 and by a letter of the same date requested Mr. Bhavani Singh number to appear before the Special Court.
18.12.2014 This Court companyfirmed the order dated 17.10.2014 and extended the bail of accused by another four months.
The present appeals arise out of the proceedings in Writ Petition No.
This led the accused persons to file W.P. Crl.
Moreover, he had number been appointed by Karnataka in companysultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court to represent the prosecution in the appeals pending in the High Court.
Notably, from 30.09.2014 till 24.12.2014, numberobjection was taken by the appellant or State of Karnataka on Mr. Bhavani Singh companytinuing to appear and plead in the Criminal Appeal for the State.
Respondents J U D G M E N T BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
B.V. Acharya on same terms to companyduct Special C. No.208/2004 in the case of Kum.
742 of 2015 seeking a direction to the State of Karnataka to appoint any other senior lawyer as the Special Public Prosecutor in the pending criminal appeals being Criminal Appeal Nos.
The State of Karnataka then companysulted the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court regarding the appointment of Mr. Bhavani Singh as the Special Public Prosecutor.
From 1991 to 1996, Ms. J. Jayalalithaa was the duly elected Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
By an order dated 5.02.2015 passed in I.A. No.1/2015 in Criminal Appeals No.835 838/2014, the High Court dismissed the appellants plea to assist the prosecution in the above appeals observing that the appellant has numberstatutory right to intervene in the criminal appeal proceedings to assist the prosecution in the appeals.
emphasis supplied Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19th January, 2015 a writ appeal was filed by Mr. Anbazhagan in the High Court being Writ Appeal No.260 of 2015.
835 838/2014 and submitted statement of objections that the accused should number be granted bail.
The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench rightly dismissed the Writ Petition No.742/2015 and Writ Appeal No.260/2015 GM RES and the impugned judgment warrants numberinterference.
In the bye election held on 21st February, 2002 Ms. Jayalalithaa was declared elected and she was sworn in as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu on 2nd March, 2002.
No.145 of 2013.
38075 of 2013, by a numberification issued on 26th August, 2013 the appointment of Mr. Bhavani Singh as the Special Public Prosecutor was withdrawn by Karnataka.
Since Mr. Bhavani Singh was number appointed by Karnataka to companytest the appeals in the High Court, he was number entitled to appear on behalf of the prosecution and since Tamil Nadu had numberrole to play in the prosecution of the appeals, his appointment by Tamil Nadu was bad in law.
On 16th September, 2013 a companysequential order was passed by Karnataka withdrawing the appointment of Mr. Bhavani Singh as the Special Public Prosecutor.
The reason being, Special Public Prosecutor is number attached to a particular Court or Local area, but he is attached to the case or class of cases and therefore Special Public Prosecutor can appear without any written authority before any Court where that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal.
No.166 of 2013 in this companyrt challenging the orders dated 14th and 16th September, 2013.
When the aforesaid writ petition was pending in this Court, the Government of Karnataka companysulted the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court for withdrawing the appointment of Mr. Bhavani Singh as a Special Public Prosecutor and the Chief Justice companycurred with the view of the State Government vide companymunication dated 14.09.2013.
State of Karnataka was number made a party respondent in the Criminal Appeal.
No.7900/2014.
LAW 149 LCE 2012 dated 16.9.2013.
Aggrieved by the said numberification, removing fifth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor, the accused preferred the Writ Petition Crl.
Earlier, Mr. Anbazhagan was of the view that Mr. Bhavani Singh was number entitled to represent the prosecution in the Karnataka High Court since his appointment as a Special Public Prosecutor stood terminated with the companyclusion of the trial and the delivery of judgment by the Special Court.
835 838/2014, as the respondent No.5 has number been appointed by the State Government of Karnataka in companysultation with the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court to appear in the Criminal Appeals.
On that date, Mr. Bhavani Singh filed his Memo of Appearance and a statement of objections opposing the release of the accused persons on bail.
The appellant also filed a memo on 7.01.2015 in Criminal Appeal Nos.835 838/2014 companytending that the fifth respondent is number a Special Public Prosecutor appointed by the Karnataka Government in companysultation with the Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka to appear in the appeals and therefore fifth respondent cannot appear in the appeals pending on the file of the High Court.
It appears that due to these resignations, and perhaps for other reasons, the trial did number proceed.
06.01.2015 Appellant filed writ petition praying to appoint another Senior Lawyer as Special Public Prosecutor to represent the State in the criminal proceedings.
There was numberwhisper of protest by any party even when the matter came to this Court in the bail proceedings on 17.10.2014 and 18.12.2014.
Miserably, even the State of Karnataka did number attempt to react on the representation of the appellant.
208 of 2004.
Aggrieved by the withdrawal of Mr. Bhavani Singhs appointment as the Special Public Prosecutor, the accused persons filed a writ petition in this companyrt being W.P. Crl.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.637OF 2015 Arising out of SLP Crl.
It is apposite to briefly refer to chronology sequence of events happened after Criminal Proceedings 27.09.2014 Case in Special Court in Special CC No.
She was chosen as the leader of the House by the AIADMK and appointed as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
The transferor State Tamil Nadu has numbereffective role to play in the prosecution of the appeals.
The ostensible reason was that there was numberproper companysultation with the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court when Mr. Bhavani Singh was appointed as the Special Public Prosecutor.
Criminal Appeal No.637/2015 arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
By order of the Governor Jatindra Nath Swain Principal Secretary to Government When the criminal appeals and the petitions for suspending the sentence filed by the accused persons came up for companysideration before a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court on 30th September, 2014 Mr. Bhavani Singh informed the companyrt that he was appointed by the State Government Tamil Nadu to represent the prosecution but that he had number received any official companymunication in this regard.
On 14th September, 2013 the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court companycurred with the view of the State of Karnataka that Mr. Bhavani Singh should numberlonger companytinue as the Special Public Prosecutor before the Special Court.
Thereafter, on 7th October, 2014 the learned Single Judge, after hearing submissions of the parties, declined to suspend the sentence awarded to the accused persons or to grant them bail.19 Feeling aggrieved, the accused persons filed a petition in this companyrt challenging the refusal of bail by the learned Single Judge.
24.12.2014 Appellant, for the first time filed representation to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka objecting to the companytinuation of Mr. Bhavani Singh as SPP in the Criminal Appeals and requested for appointment of some other Senior Counsels to companytest the appeals filed by the accused persons.
Madan B. Lokur, J. Leave granted.
208/2004 before the Special Judge, 36th Additional City Civil Sessions Court, Bengaluru, may be authorized to appear before the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, on behalf of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai in any Appeal Bail petition any other petition that may arise out of the order of the above Trial Court.
The order appointing Mr. Bhavani Singh as a Special Public Prosecutor was issued in exercise of powers companyferred by Section 24 8 of the Code7 and Rule 30 of the Karnataka Law Officers Appointment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1977.8 The numberification appointing Mr. Bhavani Singh reads as follows NOTIFICATION In obedience to the judgment dated 18 11 2003 passed by the Honble Supreme Court of India in Transfer Petition No.77 78/2003 Criminal in the matter of K. Anbazhagan v. The Superintendent of Police and others and in exercise of the powers companyferred by Sub section 8 of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Central Act No.2 of 1974 as amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act 1978 and Rule 30 of the Karnataka Law Officers Appointment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1977 Sri G. Bhavani Singh, Senior Advocate, House No.746, Srinidhi, Kadugodi, White Field Railway Station, Bangalore 560067, is appointed as Special Public Prosecutor in place of Sh.
1632/2015 I hold that Mr. Bhavani Singh appointed as Special Public Prosecutor SPP under Section 24 8 Cr.
Petitioners have filed an affidavit dated 10.12.2014 to the effect that the entire records of the trial companyrt has been filed before the High Court.
A political party called the AIADMK headed by her was defeated in the general elections held in 1996 and another political party, the DMK, was voted in with a majority.
Nos.154 and 166 of 2013 were heard together by this companyrt and by a judgment and order dated 30th September, 2013 both the writ petitions were disposed of and it was held that the order removing Mr. Bhavani Singh as the Special Public Prosecutor is mala fide and number sustainable in the eyes of the law and was accordingly quashed.
Challenging the verdict of companyviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed, accused preferred appeals before the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.
38075 of 2013 in the High Court of Karnataka on 23rd August, 2013 challenging the appointment of Mr. Bhavani Singh as the Special Public Prosecutor and also praying that some other eminent lawyer may be appointed in his place.11 During the pendency of W.P. No.
On the basis of allegations of amassing assets disproportionate to their known sources of income, criminal proceedings were initiated against Ms. Jayalalithaa and her associates.
This companyrt issued numberice in the writ petition, returnable in ten days and also passed an interim order staying the operation of the letter dated 10th September, 2013.
The appeals again came up before a learned Single Judge on 1st October, 2014 for the purposes of grant or refusal of suspension of sentence of all the accused persons.
The appeals will have to be heard afresh by the High Court with the prosecution represented by a Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 24 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or a Special Public Prosecutor appointed by the State of Karnataka under Section 24 8 of the said Code.
The said representation was made after this Court by its order dated 18.12.2014 had directed hearing of the appeals on day to day basis and also fixed the period of three months for disposal of the appeals.
7 of 1997 was filed before the Principal Special Judge, Chennai for the trial of Ms. J. Jayalalithaa, Ms. S. Sasikala, Mr. N. Sudhakaran and Ms. J. Elavarasi, who were charge sheeted for offences under Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13 2 read with Section 13 1 e of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for alleged accumulation of wealth of Rs 66.65 crores, disproportionate to their known sources of income.
Something drastic needs to be done to remedy the system, if number companypletely overhaul it, and as this case graphically illustrates, the time starts NOW.
Being aggrieved, the accused have filed another writ petition being Criminal No.166/2013 before this Court challenging the companymunication dated 14.09.2013 and numberification 16.09.2013.
My answer to this question is in the negative on an appreciation of earlier directions given by this companyrt, on a reading of the numberification appointing Mr. Bhavani Singh as a Special Public Prosecutor and on an interpretation of Sections 24, 25, 25 A and 301 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
On the other hand, Tamil Nadu acted with remarkable alacrity and on 29th September, 2014 the Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu passed an order authorizing the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai to engage the services of Mr. Bhavani Singh, Special Public Prosecutor to appear before the High Court of Karnataka for and on behalf of the said Directorate in any appeal bail petition, any other petition that may arise out of the companyviction of the accused persons.
J. MADAN B. LOKUR J. BANUMATHI New Delhi 15th April, 2015.
Eventually, on 7th November, 2002 the trial in CC No.
The appellant approached this Court on 18.11.2003 for transferring the trial of the case to the neighbouring State, on the ground that a fair trial was number possible in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The order passed by the Principal Secretary reads as follows O R D E R The Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai, in the letter read above, has requested the Government that Thiru G. Bhavani Singh, Special Public Prosecutor, who has companyducted the trial in Special C.C. No.
J. Banumathi New Delhi April 15, 2015.
Special Courts were companystituted by the new government for the trial of the cases filed against Ms. J. Jayalalithaa, Ms. S. Sasikala, Mr.V.N. Sudhakaran and Ms. J. Elavarasi.
On the resumption of the trial, as many as 76 PWs were recalled for cross examination on the ground that companynsel appearing for the accused or some of them had earlier been busy in some other case filed against them.
Whether the appellant is entitled to assist the prosecution in the appeal stage by filing the written submission?
2013/2015 ANBAZHAGAN Appellant Versus SELVI J. JAYALALITHA ANR.
01.10.2014 Mr. Bhavani Singh respondent No.5 filed Memo of Appearance in Criminal Appeal Nos.
7 of 1997 resumed.
Sd Chikkahanumanthaiah Under Secretary to Government, Administration 1 Law Department For reasons that are number necessary to detail, Mr. Acharya resigned as the Public Prosecutor and in his place the State of Karnataka appointed Mr. Bhavani Singh as a Special Public Prosecutor by a numberification dated 2nd February, 2013.
After Christmas vacation, High Court of Karnataka reopened on 2.01.2015 and hearing of the arguments in the criminal appeals started on 6.01.2015 and hearing was companycluded on 11.03.2015.
After the Supreme Court has passed the Order dated 18.12.2014, the appellant who is the General Secretary of DMK Party made a representation on 24.12.2014 to the Government of Karnataka requesting it to appoint a suitable senior lawyer to appear for the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption for short D.V A.C , Tamil Nadu before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in the Criminal Appeal Nos.
G. Bhavani Singh, Special Public Prosecutor, in this case.
However, since he received numberresponse to his representation, he filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court being Writ Petition No.
It is submitted at the Bar that the learned Single Judge reserved the judgment in the criminal appeals on 11.03.2015.
Since Karnataka was number made a party in the criminal appeals, that State did number appoint any Public Prosecutor or any Special Public Prosecutor to companytest the appeals, even though, as mentioned above, it had stepped into the shoes of Tamil Nadu, as it were.
On 7.01.2015, appellant filed memo in the Criminal Appeal Nos.
By an order dated 17.10.2014, this Court enlarged all the accused on bail.
The Government after careful examination, have decided to authorize the Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai to engage the services of Thiru G. Bhavani Singh, Special Public Prosecutor to appear before the Honble Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru on behalf of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai in any Appeal Bail Petition any other petition that may arise out the order dated 27 09 2014 on the above Trial Court in all hearings.
The companystitution of the Special Courts was upheld by this companyrt.3 In 1997, CC No.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka.
During the pendency of the appeals in the High Court, the accused filed an application for enlarging them on bail and the learned Single Judge by an order dated 7.10.2014 dismissed the application for grant of bail.
It was for Karnataka to appoint the Public Prosecutor, who was to be a senior lawyer having experience in criminal trials the appointment was to be made in companysultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka the Public Prosecutor companyld be an appointee from within Karnataka or outside the State the Public Prosecutor was entitled to the assistance of another lawyer of his choice who companyld also be from Karnataka or outside the State all expenses and fees payable to the Public Prosecutor and his assisting lawyer were to be paid by Karnataka and that was to be reimbursed by Tamil Nadu.
Her appointment as Chief Minister was challenged soon thereafter and this companyrt declared that her appointment was number legal or valid.4 Consequently, on 21st September, 2001 she ceased to hold the office of Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
The order passed by this companyrt reads as follows ORDER Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court dated 17.10.2014, the petitioners have been released on bail.
No.154/2013.
835 838 of 2014.
On 26.08.2013, Government of Karnataka issued a numberification withdrawing the appointment of fifth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor without companysulting the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court.
Decision in the writ appeal In the writ appeal, it was companytended by Mr. Anbazhagan that it is for the transferee State Karnataka alone to prosecute the case in the Special Court and the appeals in the High Court.
7.10.2014 Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka refused to suspend the sentence awarded to the accused persons and declined to grant them bail.
At a later date on 19th May, 2014 Mr. Anbazhagan filed elaborate written submissions running into about 430 pages.
Appellant in both the appeals is the General Secretary of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam DMK and a political opponent of accused No.1.
Narayana Deputy Secretary to Government Admn I Law, Justice and Human Rights Department.
During the trial of Special CC No.
After hearing both the parties and after taking numbere of the order passed by the Apex Court granting bail on 17.10.2014 and order dated 18.12.2014, in which this Court has directed the appeals to be heard on day to day basis and the appeals be disposed of within three months, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that Mr. Bhavani Singhs companytinuance as Special Public Prosecutor may number cause prejudice in the proceedings.
Mr. Anbazhagan had separately objected to the appointment of Mr. Bhavani Singh as the Special Public Prosecutor in representations to the Government of Karnataka and to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka, along with a request to remove him Mr. Bhavani Singh as the Special Public Prosecutor in the trial against the accused persons in view of some allegations against him.
Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred appeal before the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka being Writ Appeal No.
The trial of CC No.
208/2004 ended in companyviction against the accused.
On 6.01.2015, appellant filed a W.P. No.742/2015 before the High Court of Karnataka, seeking replacement of respondent No.5 Mr. Bhavani Singh, who was companytinuing to appear for the State in the Criminal Appeal Nos.835 838/2014.
Thereafter, the criminal appeals came up for hearing on 2nd/5th January, 2015 in the Karnataka High Court before a learned Single Judge.
208 of 20049 before the Special Court, Bangalore, an application was moved by Mr. Anbazhagan on 13th August, 2013 under Section 301 2 of the Code requesting for permission to assist the Special Public Prosecutor by making oral submissions on the merits of the case.10 The application was partly allowed by the Special Court by an order dated 21st August, 2013 and Mr. Anbazhagan was permitted to file a Memo of Arguments and to render such assistance to the Special Public Prosecutor as he may require.
On 11.02.2015, Division Bench disposed of the Writ Appeal with an observation that respondent No.5 is entitled to companytinue in Criminal Appeals.
