Based on this Report the appellant sought discharge.
P.43, P.12 and P.13 and that presumably they made this allegation purposefully as these alleged documents are incriminative in nature against Sh.
There were other companytentions as well.
Bhagyawathi Jain and Advocate Sunderasha were found to be false in the matter of the identity of Ex.
M.D. Jain A1 and as such a suspicion companyld be effectively created, that he M.D. Jain is the person who companyld have removed these documents from the case file.
P.43 from the case files, 2 Shri Lokesh, Bench Clerk A2 for the failure on his part in the preparation of list of exbibits properly and 3 Shri Shivananda, SDA for taking keeping the case files of the family companyrt in his house without the permission of Judge and without proper accounting.
It is also found that the companyplaints raised by Smt.
P.1, 12 and 13 and the removal of Ex.
On that basis, it appears, there was also inquiry by the C.B.I. as ordered by the High Court.
Pertaining to the lapses on the part of the following companyrt staffs, Departmental Action has already been initiated against Shri Venkatachalam, Pending Clerk for his failure in keeping the case files properly and safely, which facilitated the removal of Ex.
