//
you're reading...
legal issues

The court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail.

                                                            REPORTABLE

                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   1531            OF 2011

           (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3361 of 2011)

Shah Nawaz                                            .... Appellant (s)

            Versus

State of U.P. & Anr.                                .... Respondent(s)

                            J U D G M E N T 

P. Sathasivam, J.

1)    Leave granted.

2)    This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   final   judgment   and 

order   dated   10.12.2010   passed   by   the   High   Court   of 

Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 716 of 2009 

whereby   the   High   Court   dismissed   the   criminal   revision   filed 

by the appellant herein.   

                                                                            1

3) Brief facts:

(a)    The   appellant   claims   to   have   born   on   18.06.1989   in 

Village   and   Post   Dadheru   Kala,   Police   Station   Charthawal, 

District   Muzaffarnagar,   U.P.     He   was   admitted   in   Class   I  in 

Nehru   Preparatory   School,   Khurd,   Muzaffarnagar   on 

05.07.1994 and studied there till 20.05.1998.   Thereafter, on 

04.07.1998, he got admission in Class VI in the National High 

School   Dadheru,   Khurd-O-Kalan,   Muzaffarnagar   and   studied 

there   till   Class   X.     The   date   of   birth   in   the   mark   sheet   is 

mentioned as 18.06.1989.  

(b)    On 04.06.2007, a First Information Report (in short "the 

FIR")   was   lodged   by   Khatizan,   wife   of   Nawab-the   deceased, 

against   the   appellant   herein   and   three   others   for   the   alleged 

occurrence which culminated into Crime Case No. 215 of 2007 

at   Police   Station   Charthawal,   District   Muzaffarnagar,   U.P. 

under   Sections   302   and   307   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   1860 

(in short "the IPC").   

(c)    On 12.06.2007, the mother of the appellant submitted an 

application   before   the   Juvenile   Justice   Board   (in   short   "the 

Board"),  Muzaffarnagar,  U.P. stating that the appellant was a 

                                                                                 2

minor  at the time  of the alleged occurrence.    After examining 

the   witnesses,   the   Board,   vide   judgment   and   order   dated 

24.01.2008,   declared   the   appellant   juvenile   under   the 

provisions   of   the   Juvenile   Justice   (Care   and   Protection   of 

Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").  

(d)    Against the judgment of the Board, Khatizan - the wife of 

the  deceased filed  Criminal   Appeal  No.  11  of  2008  before  the 

Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. under Section 

52   of   the   Act.     The   State   -   respondent   No.1   did   not   file   any 

appeal.     Vide   judgment   dated   13.01.2009,   the   Additional 

Sessions   Judge   allowed   the   appeal   and   set   aside   the   order 

dated 24.01.2008 passed by the Board.    

(e)    Challenging   the   judgment   dated   13.01.2009   passed   by 

the   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   the   appellant   filed   Criminal 

Revision No. 716 of 2009 before the High Court of  Allahabad. 

The High Court, by the impugned judgment dated 10.12.2010, 

dismissed the criminal revision.   Hence this appeal by way of 

special leave.

4)     Heard   Mr.   Dinesh   Kumar   Garg,   learned   counsel   for   the 

appellant   and   Mr.   R.K.   Gupta,   learned   counsel   for   the   State. 

                                                                                  3

Despite   notice,   no   one   has   entered   appearance   on   behalf   of 

respondent No.2. 

5)    Before   considering   the   merits   of   the   claim   of   the 

appellant and the stand of the State, let us consider Rule 12 of 

the   Juvenile   Justice   (Care   and   Protection   of   Children)   Rules, 

2007   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   `the   Rules')   which   reads   as 

under:-

      "12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age. 

      (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict 

      with law, the court or the Board or as the case may be the

      Committee   referred   to   in   rule   19   of   these   rules   shall 

      determine   the   age   of   such   juvenile   or   child   or   a   juvenile   in 

      conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date 

      of making of the application for that purpose.   

      (2)   The   court   or   the   Board   or   as   the   case   may   be   the 

      Committee   shall   decide   the   juvenility   or   otherwise   of   the 

      juvenile   or   the   child   or   as   the   case   may   be   the   juvenile   in 

      conflict   with   law,  prima   facie  on   the   basis   of   physical 

      appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the 

      observation home or in jail.

      (3)   In   every   case   concerning   a   child   or   juvenile   in   conflict 

      with   law,   the   age   determination   inquiry   shall   be   conducted 

      by   the   court   or   the   Board   or,   as   the   case   may   be,   the 

      Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining -

      (a)     (i)   the   matriculation   or   equivalent   certificates,   if 

              available; and in the absence whereof;

              (ii)   the   date   of   birth   certificate   from   the   school   (other 

              than a play school) first attended; and in the absence 

              whereof;

              (iii)   the   birth   certificate   given   by   a   corporation   or   a 

              municipal authority or a panchayat;

                                                                                              4

(b)     and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause 

        (a)   above,   the   medical   opinion   will   be   sought   from   a 

        duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the 

        age  of the juvenile  or child. In  case  exact assessment 

        of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, 

        as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to 

        be   recorded   by   them,   may,   if   considered   necessary, 

        give   benefit   to   the   child   or   juvenile   by   considering 

        his/her   age   on   lower   side   within   the   margin   of   one 

        year. 

and,   while   passing   orders   in   such   case   shall,   after   taking 

into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the 

medical   opinion,   as   the   case   may   be,   record   a   finding   in 

respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any 

of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause 

(b) shall  be the  conclusive proof  of the age  as regards  such 

child or the juvenile in conflict with law.

(4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict 

with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, 

on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-

rule   (3),   the   court   or   the   Board   or   as   the   case   may   be   the 

Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and 

declaring   the   status   of   juvenility   or   otherwise,   for   the 

purpose of  the  Act  and  these  rules  and a  copy of  the  order 

shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned.

(5)   Save   and   except   where,   further   inquiry   or   otherwise   is 

required, inter alia, in terms of section 7A, section 64 of the 

Act and these rules,  no further  inquiry  shall be conducted 

by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the 

certificate   or   any   other   documentary   proof   referred   to   in 

sub-rule (3) of this rule.

(6)  The  provisions  contained   in  this  rule   shall  also  apply to 

those   disposed   off   cases,   where   the   status   of   juvenility   has 

not   been   determined   in   accordance   with   the   provisions 

contained in sub-rule (3) and the Act, requiring dispensation 

of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order 

in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law."

                                                                                         5

6)   In   the   light   of   the   above   procedure   to   be   followed   in 

determining   the   age   of   the   child   or   juvenile,   let   us   consider 

various decisions of this Court.  

7)       In  Raju   and   Anr.   vs.  State   of   Haryana  (2010)   3   SCC 

235, this Court had admitted "mark sheet" as one of the proof 

in   determining   the   age   of   the   accused   person.     In   that   case, 

the   appellants   therein   Raju   and   Mangli   along   with   Anil   alias 

Balli   and   Sucha   Singh   were   sent   up   for   trial   for   allegedly 

having   committed   an   offence   punishable   under   Section   302 

read   with   Section   34   of   the   IPC.     Accused   Sucha   Singh   was 

found to be a juvenile and his case was separated for separate 

trial under the Act.   Others were convicted under Section 302 

read   with   Section   34   of   the   IPC   and   were   sentenced   to 

imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.   Apart 

from contending on the merits of the prosecution case, insofar 

as appellant No. 1, Raju, is concerned, the counsel appearing 

for  him  submitted that  on  the  date  of  the  incident  that  is  on 

(31.03.1994),   he   was   a   juvenile   and   as   per   his   mark   sheet, 

wherein   his   date   of   birth   was   recorded   as   1977,   he   was   less 

than   17   years   of   age   on   the   date   of   the   incident.     Learned 

                                                                              6

counsel submitted that having regard to the recent decision of 

this   Court   in  Hari   Ram  vs.  State   of   Rajasthan   &   Anr., 

(2009) 13 SCC 211, appellant No. 1 must be held to have been 

a minor on the date of the incident and the provisions  of the 

Act   would   apply   in   his   case.     Learned   counsel   further 

contended that the appellant No. 1 would have to be dealt with 

under   the   provisions   of   the   said   Act   in   keeping   with   the 

decision in the aforesaid case.  On merits, while accepting the 

claim of the learned counsel for accused-appellant, this Court 

altered   the   conviction   and   sentence   and   convicted   under 

Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC instead of Section 

302   read   with   Section   34   IPC.     As   far   as   appellant   No.   1, 

namely,   Raju   was   concerned,   while   accepting   the   entry 

relating to date of birth in the mark sheet referred  his case to 

the Board in terms of Section 20 of the Act to be dealt under 

the provisions of the said Act in keeping with the provision of 

Section 15 thereof.   It is clear from the said decision that this 

Court   has   accepted   mark   sheet   as   one   of   the   proof   for 

determining the age of an accused person.  

                                                                             7

8)     Similarly,   this   Court   has   treated   the   date   of   birth   in 

School Leaving Certificate as valid proof in determining the age 

of an accused person.  In Bhoop Ram vs. State of U.P. (1989) 

3 SCC 1, this Court considered whether the appellant therein 

is entitled lesser imprisonment than imprisonment for life and 

should   have   been   treated   as   a   "child"   within   the   meaning   of 

Section   2(4)   of   the   U.P.   Children   Act,   1951   (1   of   1952).     The 

following   conclusion   in   para   7   is   relevant   which   reads   as 

under:-

       "7.....The   first   is   that   the   appellant   has   produced   a   school 

       certificate   which   carries   the   date   24-6-1960   against   the 

       column "date of birth". There is no material before us to hold 

       that the school certificate does not relate to the appellant or 

       that the entries therein are not correct in their particulars....

       " 

It is clear from the above decision that this Court relied on the 

entry made in the column "date of birth" in the School Leaving 

Certificate.

9)     In  Rajinder   Chandra  vs.  State   of   Chhattisgarh   and  

Anr. (2002) 2 SCC 287, this Court once again considered the 

entry relating to date of birth in the mark sheet and concluded 

as under: 

                                                                                        8

       "5. It is true that the age of the accused is just on the border 

       of sixteen years and on the date of the offence and his arrest 

       he was less than 16 years by a few months only. In Arnit Das 

       v.  State   of   Bihar  this   Court   has,   on   a   review   of   judicial 

       opinion,   held   that   while   dealing   with   the   question   of 

       determination   of   the   age   of   the   accused   for   the   purpose   of 

       finding out whether he is a juvenile or not, a hypertechnical 

       approach   should   not   be   adopted   while   appreciating   the 

       evidence adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the 

       plea that he was a juvenile and if two views may be possible 

       on   the   said   evidence,   the   court   should   lean   in   favour   of 

       holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. The 

       law, so laid down by this Court, squarely applies to the facts 

       of the present case.

10)    In Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 5 SCC 488, this 

Court held that while dealing with a question of determination 

of   the   age   of   an   accused,   for   the   purpose   of   finding   out 

whether   he   is   a   juvenile   or   not,   a   hyper-technical   approach 

should   not   be   adopted   while   appreciating   the   evidence 

adduced on behalf  of the  accused  in support of the  plea  that 

he is a juvenile and if two views may be possible on the same 

evidence,   the   court   should   lean   in   favour   of   holding   the 

accused to be juvenile in borderline cases.  

11)    In  Ravinder   Singh   Gorkhi  vs.  State   of   U.P.  (2006)   5 

SCC   584   with   regard   to   the   entries   made   in   School   Leaving 

Certificate, this Court has observed as under:-    

                                                                                          9

       "17.  The   school-leaving   certificate   was   said   to   have   been 

       issued in the year 1998. A bare perusal of the said certificate 

       would   show   that   the   appellant   was   said   to   have   been 

       admitted on 1-8-1967 and his name was struck off from the 

       roll   of   the   institution   on   6-5-1972.   The   said   school-leaving 

       certificate was not issued in the ordinary course of business 

       of   the   school.   There   is   nothing   on   record   to   show   that   the 

       said   date   of  birth   was   recorded   in   a  register   maintained   by 

       the school in terms of the requirements of law as contained 

       in Section 35 of the Evidence Act. No statement has further 

       been made by the said Headmaster that either of the parents 

       of  the  appellant   who  accompanied  him  to   the  school  at  the 

       time   of   his   admission   therein   made   any   statement   or 

       submitted  any   proof   in  regard   thereto.   The   entries   made   in 

       the   school-leaving   certificate,   evidently   had   been   prepared 

       for the purpose of the case. All the necessary columns were 

       filled up including the character of the appellant. It was not 

       the   case   of   the   said   Headmaster   that   before   he   had   made 

       entries   in   the   register,   age   was   verified.   If   any   register   in 

       regular   course   of   business   was   maintained   in   the   school, 

       there   was   no   reason   as   to   why   the   same   had   not   been 

       produced."

12)    In Pradeep Kumar vs. State of U.P. 1995 Supp (4) SCC 

419,   this   Court   considered   the   commission   of   offence   by 

persons   below   16   years   of   age.     The   question   before   a  three-

Judge   Bench   was   whether   each   of   the   appellants   in   those 

appeals was a child within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the 

U.P.   Children   Act,   1951   and   as   such   on   conviction   under 

Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC should have been sent to 

an   approved   school   for   detention   till   the   age   of   18   years.     At 

the time of granting special leave, appellant, by name, Jagdish 

produced   High   School   Certificate,   according   to   which   he   was 

                                                                                             10

about  15  years  of  age  at  the  time  of  occurrence.   Appellant  - 

Krishan Kant produced horoscope which showed that he was 

13 years of age at the time of occurrence.  So far as appellant - 

Pradeep was concerned, a medical report was called for by this 

Court which disclosed that his date of birth as 07.01.1959 was 

acceptable   on   the   basis   of   various   tests   conducted   by   the 

medical authorities.  In the above factual scenario/details, this 

Court concluded as under:-

       "3. It is thus proved to the satisfaction of this Court that on 

       the date of occurrence, the appellants had not completed 16 

       years  of  age  and  as  such they  should  have  been  dealt   with 

       under   the   U.P.   Children   Act   instead   of   being   sentenced   to 

       imprisonment   on   conviction   under   Section   302/34   of   the 

       Act" 

After saying so and after finding that the appellants were aged 

more   than   30   years,   this   Court   directed   not  to   send   them   to 

an approved school under the U.P. Children Act for detention, 

while sustaining the conviction of the appellants under all the 

charges framed against them, quashed the sentences awarded 

to them and ordered their release forthwith.

13)    The   applicability   of   the   Act   and   the   Rules   in   respect   of 

"Juvenile"   and   "Juvenile   in   conflict   with   law"   have   been 

elaborately   considered   by   this   Court   in  Hari   Ram  (supra). 

                                                                                       11

After   analyzing   the   Scheme   of   the   Act   and   various   Rules 

including Rule 12 and earlier decisions of this Court laid down 

various   principles   to   be   followed.     After   applying   those 

principles and finding that the appellant therein was 16 years 

of age on the date of the commission of the alleged offence and 

had not been completed 18 years of age, remitted the matter to 

the Board for disposal in accordance with law.    

Discussion on merits:

14)    In   the   light   of   the   above   principles,   now   let   us   consider 

the claim of the appellant.   According to him, on 18.06.1989, 

he was born in Village and Post Dadheru Kala, Police Station 

Charthawal,   District   Muzaffarnagar,   U.P.     On  05.07.1994,  he 

was admitted  in Class I in  Nehru  Preparatory  School, Khurd, 

Muzaffarnagar.     The   appellant   left   the   said   school   on 

20.05.1998.     On  04.07.1998,   he   was  admitted  in   Class   VI   in 

the   National   High   School   Dadheru,   Khurd-O-Kalan, 

Muzaffarnagar,   U.P.     On   21.05.2004,   he   left   the   said   school, 

namely,   National   High   School   as   he   failed   in   High   School. 

From Class VI till Class X the appellant remained and studied 

continuously in the aforesaid school.   The date of birth in the 

                                                                                 12

mark   sheet   is   mentioned   as   18.06.1989.     The   alleged 

occurrence took place on 04.06.2007.   The FIR was lodged on 

04.06.2007   which   culminated   into   Crime   Case   No.   215   of 

2007   at   Police   Station   Charthawal,   District   Muzaffarnagar, 

U.P. under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC.   On 12.06.2007, 

the   mother   of   the   appellant   submitted   an   application   before 

the   Board   at   Muzaffarnagar   stating   that   the   appellant   was   a 

minor   at   the   time   of   alleged   occurrence.     The   appellant   was 

provided   a   School   Leaving   Certificate   dated   11.07.2007   from 

Nehru Preparatory School, Khurd, Muzaffarnagar.  The mother 

of the appellant made a statement dated 26.07.2007 regarding 

the   age   of   her   son.     She   was   cross-examined   at   length.     On 

16.10.2007,   the   statement   of   clerk   of   Nehru   Preparatory 

School was recorded by the Board.  The said clerk brought the 

entire  records   maintained   by  the  School.    The  said  clerk was 

also cross-examined at length.  

15)    The   Board,   vide   judgment   and   order   dated   24.01.2008, 

declared   the   appellant   juvenile   under   the   Act.     Against   the 

judgment of the Board, the complainant Smt. Khatizan, wife of 

deceased   Nawab   filed   Criminal   Appeal   No.   11   of   2008   under 

                                                                             13

Section   52   of   the   Act   before   the   learned   Additional   Sessions 

Judge,   Muzaffarnagar.     It   is   relevant   to   point   out   that   the 

State,   who   is   the   prosecuting   agency   did   not   file   any   appeal. 

The   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Muzaffarnagar   recorded   the 

statement   of   Guljar   Hussain,   Principal   of   Nehru   Preparatory 

School,   Dadheru,   Khurd-O-Kalan,   Muzaffarnagar   on 

07.08.2008.     By   order   dated   13.01.2009,   the   Additional 

Sessions   Judge   allowed   the   said   appeal   filed   by   the 

complainant and set aside the order dated 24.01.2008 passed 

by the Board.

16)    Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, 

the   appellant   filed   Criminal   Revision   No.   716   of   2009   before 

the High Court.   The High Court  dismissed  the said  Revision 

mainly on the ground that in the absence of any matriculation 

or equivalent certificate and considering the language used in 

Rule   12   with   reference   to   only   "Certificate"   and   not   "mark 

sheet", dismissed the Revision petition.  

17)    We   have   already   referred   to   the   decision   of   this   Court 

about the entry relating to the date of birth made in the mark 

sheet   of   High   School   examination.     The   appellant   has 

                                                                              14

produced   mark   sheet   of   High   School   examination   issued   by 

the school authority, namely, National High School, Dadheru, 

Khurd-O-Kalan,   Muzaffarnagar.     A   perusal   of   the   above   said 

certificate   makes   reference   to   appellant's   Roll   No.,   his   name, 

Date   of   Birth,   name   of   the   school,   details   regarding   various 

subjects,   maximum   marks,   marks   obtained   and   ultimate 

result in the examination.   The certificate contained signature 

of   the   Clerk   Salim   Ahmed,   who   prepared   the   same,   the 

signature of the examiner and signature and seal of the Head 

Master.  It is dated 21.05.2004.

18)    Another   document   relied   on   by   the   appellant   is   School 

Leaving   Certificate   dated   11.07.2007   issued   by   Nehru 

Preparatory   School,   Khurd,   Muzaffarnagar   wherein   it   noted 

the registration no., name of the school, student's name, date 

of   birth   (18.06.1989)   written   in   words   also,   Father's   name, 

occupation,   caste,   residential   address,   date   of   admission   in 

school, date of leaving of school.  The certificate contained the 

signature and seal of the Head Master and the same is dated 

11.07.2007.

                                                                            15

19)    The   documents   furnished   above   clearly   show   that   the 

date  of  birth   of  the   appellant   had   been  noted   as  18.06.1989. 

Rule   12   of   the   Rules   categorically   envisages   that   the   medical 

opinion   from   the   medical   board   should   be   sought   only   when 

the   matriculation   certificate   or   school   certificate   or   any   birth 

certificate   issued   by   a   corporation   or   by   any   Panchayat   or 

municipality is not available.   We are of the view that though 

the Board has correctly accepted the entry relating to the date 

of birth in the mark sheet and school certificate, the Additional 

Sessions Judge and the High Court committed a grave error in 

determining the age of the appellant ignoring the date of birth 

mentioned in those documents which is illegal, erroneous and 

contrary to the Rules.  

20)    We   are   satisfied   that   the   entry   relating   to   date   of   birth 

entered in the mark sheet is one of the valid proof of evidence 

for   determination   of   age   of   an   accused   person.     The   School 

Leaving Certificate is also a valid proof in determining the age 

of the accused person.  Further, the date of birth mentioned in 

the   High   School   mark   sheet   produced   by   the   appellant   has 

duly been corroborated by the School Leaving Certificate of the 

                                                                                 16

appellant   of   Class   X   and   has   also   been   proved   by   the 

statement of the clerk of Nehru High School, Dadheru, Khurd-

O-Kalan and recorded by the Board.   The date of birth of the 

appellant   has   also   been   recorded   as   18.06.1989   in   School 

Leaving   Certificate   issued   by   the   Principal   of   Nehru 

Preparatory   School,   Dadheru,   Khurd-O-Kalan,   Muzaffarnagar 

as   well   as   the   said   date   of   birth   mentioned   in   the   school 

register   of   the   said   school   at   S.   No.   1382   which   have   been 

proved   by   the   statement   of   the   Principal   of   that   school 

recorded   before   the   Board.     Apart   from   the   clerk   and   the 

Principal   of   the   school,   the   mother   of   the   appellant   has 

categorically   stated   on   oath   that   the   appellant   was   born   on 

18.06.1989 and his date of birth in his academic records from 

preparatory to Class X is the same, namely, 18.06.1989, hence 

her statement corroborated his academic records which clearly 

depose   his   date   of   birth   as   18.06.1989.     Accordingly,   the 

appellant   was   a   juvenile   on   the   date   of   occurrence   that   is 

04.06.2007 as alleged in the FIR dated 04.06.2007.  

                                                                             17

21)    We are also satisfied that Rule 12 of the Rules which was 

brought   in   pursuance   of   the   Act   describes   four   categories   of 

evidence   which   have   been   provided   in   which   preference   has 

been given to school certificate over the medical report.  

22)    In the light of the above discussion, we hold that from the 

acceptable   records,   the   date   of   birth   of   the   appellant   is 

18.06.1989, the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court 

committed   an   error   in   taking   contrary   view.   While   upholding 

the   decision   of   the   Board,   we   set   aside   the   orders   of   the 

Additional   Sessions   Judge   dated   13.01.2009   and   the   High 

Court   dated   10.12.2010.     Accordingly,   the   appellant   is 

declared to be a juvenile on the date of commission of offence 

and may be proceeded in accordance with law.   The appeal is 

allowed.                

                                        ..........................................J. 

                                             (P. SATHASIVAM) 

                                        ..........................................J. 

                                           (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN) 

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 05, 2011.              

                                                                            18

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,396 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: