Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pramod Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12653
1 CRR-4345-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4345 of 2024
PRAMOD SINGH TOMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Madan Mohan Shrivastava - Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Brajesh Kumar Tyagi - GA appearing for respondents/State.
Shri Deepak Singh Parmar and Shri Mohammad Baseem Khan,
learned counsel for the complainant.
Reserved on 06.04.2026
Passed on 18.04.2026
ORDER
1. The instant revision filed under section 397, 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as “CrPC“] /438, 442 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred to as
“BNSS”] takes exception to the order dated 13/08/2024 passed by the First
Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, District Morena in Sessions Trial
number 390 of 2021 whereby, the application filed by the applicants under
section 227 of CrPC seeking discharge from crime No. 85/2021 registered at
police station Nagra, District Morena for commission of offenses under
section 294, 302, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter
referred to as “IPC“], has been rejected.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 4/18/2026
5:47:03 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12653
2 CRR-4345-2024
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the revision petition are as
under:-
3. Complainant Rahul Singh Tomar, S/o Mahaveer Tomar, resident of
Village Amolpura, Nagra, District Morena, lodged a Dehati Nalishi on
13/06/2021 stating that on 13/06/2021 at about 6:00 AM, when the
complainant’s father, namely Mahaveer Singh Tomar, after feeding fodder to
the buffaloes, was going towards the field to answer nature’s call, the
complainant accompanied him, and at that time, a tractor-trolley, being
driven at a high speed, was seen coming on the public road towards the
village of the complainant. The tractor-trolley was being chased by a white
Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. MP09 CJ 7712, from which shots
were being fired towards the tractor. The complainant and his father stopped
on the road, and the complainant’s father tried to stop the Bolero and
questioned the occupants as to why they were firing, stating that such firing
could cause injury to the residents of the village. Thereafter, the occupants
alighted from the Bolero and began abusing the complainant’s father. At that
time, other villagers, namely Shatrughan Singh Tomar and Yadunath Singh
Tomar, also reached the spot. Subsequently, one Pramod Singh Tomar fired
from his 12-bore rifle at the complainant’s father, and the bullet struck the
left side of his chest. At that moment, Raghavendra alias Manni Bhadoria
also fired from his .315 bore rifle, and the bullet hit the wrist of the
complainant’s father, causing him to fall down. The other co-accused also
started hurling abuses. On the basis of the said complaint, after lodging the
Dehati Nalishi, FIR bearing Crime No. 85/2021 was registered at Police
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 4/18/2026
5:47:03 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12653
3 CRR-4345-2024
Station Nagra, District Morena, against the present applicants for the
offences stated hereinabove. Upon completion of the investigation, the
prosecution filed the challan before the learned trial Court against the
applicants for the commission of offences under Sections 302, 294, 147, 148,
and 149 of the IPC on 05/11/2021.
4. It appears that a complaint was also lodged at Police Station
Kotwali, District Morena, on 13.06.2021 at about 22:10 hours, alleging that,
on the morning of 13.06.2021, a Forest Guard team, of which the present
applicants were members, was patrolling the Chambal forest range when
they intercepted a tractor-trolley allegedly transporting mineral sand illegally
from the Chambal River. The patrolling party thereafter chased the said
tractor-trolley, which proceeded towards Village Amolpura and eventually
got stuck in a field. When the Forest Department team attempted to take
action against the persons involved in the alleged illegal transportation, they
were reportedly attacked by a mob of approximately 100 villagers from
Village Amolpura, Nagra, District Morena, who allegedly opened fire using
illegal weapons and attempted to snatch the government-issued rifles of the
patrolling party. In the circumstances, the patrolling party was compelled to
abandon the Bolero vehicle at the spot and flee from Village Amolpura.
5. On the said complaint, an FIR at No. 0/21 was registered at Kotwali,
Police Station Kotwali, Morena, which was later transferred to Police Station
Nagra, District Morena, and was registered as Crime No. 86/2021 against
unknown persons for commission of offences under Section 353, 332, 186,
336, 427, 506, 147, 148, 149 of IPC.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 4/18/2026
5:47:03 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12653
4 CRR-4345-2024
6. The applicants herein, after the filing of the challan in FIR No.
85/2021 before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, District Morena,
moved an application under Section 227 of the CrPC seeking discharge from
the alleged offences on the ground that, at the time of the incident, they were
members of a Forest Department patrolling team and were discharging their
official duties. It was contended that, upon being attacked by a mob at
Village Amolpura, the applicants opened fire in exercise of their right of
private defence. It was further contended that, since the incident in question
arose in the course of discharge of official duties, the prosecution could not
have filed the challan against the applicants without obtaining prior sanction
from the State Government as mandated under Section 197 of the CrPC. The
said application, however, came to be rejected by the learned trial Court vide
the impugned order dated 13.08.2024, which is under challenge in the
present revision petition.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that, since
an FIR in respect of the same incident has also been registered at the instance
of the Forest Department Officers and the issue of grant of sanction for
prosecution of the present applicants is pending consideration before the
competent authority, the prosecution could not have filed the challan. It is
further contended that, in such circumstances, it is not open for the learned
trial Court to take cognizance on the challan filed against the applicants in
FIR No. 85/2021.
8. By referring to Annexure R-5 i.e. communication dated 3.1.2023
issued by the Forest Range Officer, Ghorjhamar, the learned counsel
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 4/18/2026
5:47:03 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12653
5 CRR-4345-2024
appearing for the applicant submits that on the date of incident, the
applicants were on official duty and were conducting patrolling in the forest
area in response to the complaints received on CM Helpline. He further
submits that vide communication dated 14.9.2021 (Annexure R-6), the
Station House Officer Police Station, Nagra, Distt. Morena sought
permission for prosecution of the applicants from the Divisional Forest
Officer, Forest Division, Morena and the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest
Division, Morena vide communication dated 16.9.2021 informed the Station
House Officer that in respect of the incident in question, the Collector has
directed for a magisterial inquiry vide order dated 16.6.2021 and unless the
report of the magisterial inquiry is received, it is not possible to grant
sanction for prosecution of the applicants. The learned counsel appearing for
the applicants by further referring to Annexure R-12 submits that for the
incident in question, forest offence vide POR No. 9803/2010 was registered
on 13.6.2021 against illegal transportation of sand from Chambal river
falling within the Chambal National Park area. He submits that unless and
until, the report of the magisterial inquiry is received, it was not appropriate
for the prosecution to file challan against the applicants nor it is open for the
court to take cognizance on the challan filed by the prosecution against the
applicants. He also placed reliance on certain circulars dated 24.06. 2011,
17.2.2025 and 11.6.2025 issued by the State government to contend that in
the event, there is an incidence of use of licensed arm by employees of the
Forest Department in discharge of their duties then, unless, it is proved in
the magisterial inquiry that the use of licensed arm by such employees was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 4/18/2026
5:47:03 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12653
6 CRR-4345-2024
unwarranted in the case, the prosecution should not file challan against the
employees of the forest department. He further places reliance on a
notification dated 28th May 2004 issued by the Forest Department to submit
that the protection under section 197 of the CrPC has been made applicable
to the forest guards, Foresters and Deputy Rangers of the Forest Department.
He submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
application under section 227 of CrPC was rightly moved by the present
applicants before the learned trial court seeking discharge from the offense
for want of sanction for prosecution of the applicants which has been
illegally rejected by the impugned order dated 13.8.2024 by the learned trial
court.
9. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the
applicants places reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the
case of Abdul Wahab Ansari Vs. State of Bihar; 2000 AIR SC 3187 to
submit that the plea of the accused that he acted in discharge of official
duties can be taken when the court take cognizance of offenses and issues
process and even before framing of charge. He further places reliance on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs
Vibhu Prasad Acharya; 2024 INSC 843 for the same purpose.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State as
well as the objectors/complainants support the order dated 13.08.2024
impugned in the present revision petition and submit that the allegation
against the present applicants is of commission of offence under Section 302
IPC which cannot be said to be in discharge of their official duties. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 4/18/2026
5:47:03 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12653
7 CRR-4345-2024
question of obtaining sanction prior to prosecution of the applicants, in the
given facts and circumstances of the case, does not arise at all and therefore,
the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.
11. No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
13. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
having gone through the materials on record, the issue that falls for
reconsideration is whether the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, Distt.
Morena was justified in rejecting the application preferred by the applicants
under Section 227 of CrPC seeking discharge from Crime No. 85/2021 in the
absence of grant of sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC ? In
other words, whether the offence or the act alleged to have been committed
by the applicants could be said to have been done ‘while acting or purporting
to act in the discharge of their official duty’?
14. Section 197 of CrPC reads as under:
“197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.–
(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or
Magistrate or a public servant not removable from
his office save by or with the sanction of the
Government is accused of any offence alleged to
have been committed by him while acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of his official
duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such
offence except with the previous sanction save as
otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas
Act, 2013 (1 of 2014)–
(a) in the case of a person who is
employed or, as the case may be, was at
the time of commission of the allegedSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 4/18/2026
5:47:03 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:126538 CRR-4345-2024
offence employed, in connection with
the affairs of the Union, of the Central
Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is
employed or, as the case may be, was at
the time of commission of the alleged
offence employed, in connection with
the affairs of a State, of the State
Government:
Provided that where the alleged offence was
committed by a person referred to in clause (b)
during the period while a Proclamation issued
under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution
was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if
for the expression “State Government” occurring
therein, the expression “Central Government”
were substituted. Explanation. — For the removal
of doubts it is hereby declared that no sanction
shall be required in case of a public servant
accused of any offence alleged to have been
committed under section 166A, section 166B,
section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section
354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, 3
[section 376A, section 376AB, section 376C,
section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB] or
section 509 of the Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).
(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence
alleged to have been committed by any member of
the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of his official
duty, except with the previous sanction of the
Central Government.
(3) The State Government may, by notification,
direct that the provisions of sub-section (2) shall
apply to such class or category of the members of
the Forces charged with the maintenance of public
order as may be specified therein, wherever they
may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of
that sub-section will apply as if for the expression
“Central Government” occurring therein, theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 4/18/2026
5:47:03 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:126539 CRR-4345-2024
expression “State Government” were substituted.
(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any
offence, alleged to have been committed by any
member of the Forces charged with the
maintenance of public order in a State while acting
or purporting to act in the discharge of his official
duty during the period while a Proclamation issued
under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution
was in force therein, except with the previous
sanction of the Central Government.
(3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in this Code or any other law, it is
hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the
State Government or any cognizance taken by a
court upon such sanction, during the period
commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and
ending with the date immediately preceding the
date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 1991 (43 of 1991), receives the
assent of the President, with respect to an offence
alleged to have been committed during the period
while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of
article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the
State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for
the Central Government in such matter to accord
sanction and for the court to take cognizance
thereon.
(4) The Central Government or the State
Government, as the case may be, may determine
the person by whom, the manner in which, and the
offence or offences for which, the prosecution of
such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be
conducted, and may specify the Court before
which the trial is to be held.”
15. The case of the prosecution, as per the charge sheet filed, is that the
applicants are guilty of commission of offence under Section 302 IPC, r/w
other offences as alleged against them whereas, the case of the applicants is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 4/18/2026
5:47:03 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12653
10 CRR-4345-2024
that the incident had occurred while they were discharging their official
duties and, therefore, they are entitled to protection under Section 197 of
CrPC. The applicants also contend that sanction for prosecution has not yet
been granted by the competent authority of their parent department; that the
report of the magisterial inquiry, as directed by the concerned Collector, is
still awaited; and that Crime No. 86/2021 has also been registered at their
instance in respect of the same incident. It is also borne out from the record
that, although the charge-sheet has been filed, charges have not yet been
framed against the applicants.
16. Recently, a similar issue, wherein, the employees of the officers of
the police department were seeking the benefit of Section 197 CrPC against
their prosecution in a case wherein, it was alleged that the act committed by
them was done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official
duties, came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Om
Prakash Yadav vs. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay and Ors.; 2024 SCC Online
SC 3726 and in the said case, the Apex Court, after considering the law on
the issue of grant of sanction for prosecution under section 197 CrPC, and
the series of judgments by the Apex Court in the said regard while laying
down the guidelines on the issue in paragraph Nos. 72, 73, 74 has held as
under:-
“72. This Court in P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim,
(2001) 6 SCC 704 re-emphasized that for invoking
protection under Section 197 CrPC, the acts of the
accused must be such that it cannot be separated from
the discharge of the official duty. However, if there was
no reasonable connection between the act and theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 4/18/2026
5:47:03 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1265311 CRR-4345-2024
performance of those duties, and the official status only
furnishes the occasion or opportunity for the illegal act,
then no sanction would be required. The Court
acknowledged that the question of sanction can be
raised at any time after cognizance i.e., maybe
immediately after cognizance or framing of charge or
even at the time of conclusion of trial and after
conviction as well. However, there may be certain cases
where it may not be possible to decide the question of
sanction effectively without giving opportunity to the
defence to establish that what he did, he did in the
discharge of official duty. In such cases, the question of
sanction must be left open to be decided in the main
judgment which may be delivered upon conclusion of
the trial. The relevant observations are as follows:
“15….It is well settled that question of
sanction under Section 197 of the Code can
be raised any time after the cognizance;
maybe immediately after cognizance or
framing of charge or even at the time of
conclusion of trial and after conviction as
well. But there may be certain cases where it
may not be possible to decide the
question effectively without giving
opportunity to the defence to establish that
what he did was in discharge of official duty.
In order to come to the conclusion whether
claim of the accused that the act that he did
was in course of the performance of his duty
was a reasonable one and neither pretended
nor fanciful, can be examined during the
course of trial by giving opportunity to the
defence to establish it. In such an eventuality,
the question of sanction should be left open
to be decided in the main judgment which
may be delivered upon conclusion of the
trial.
1 6 . In the present case, the accused is
claiming that in awarding contract in his
capacity as Secretary, Department of Rural
Development, Government of Sikkim, he didSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 4/18/2026
5:47:03 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1265312 CRR-4345-2024
not abuse his position as a public servant and
works were awarded in favour of the
contractor at a rate permissible under law and
not low rates. These facts are required to be
established which can be done at the trial.
Therefore, it is not possible to grant any relief
to the appellant at this stage. However, we
may observe that during the course of trial,
the court below shall examine this question
afresh and deal with the same in the main
judgment in the light of the law laid down in
this case without being prejudiced by any
observation in the impugned orders.”
(emphasis supplied)
73. This Court in Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2016) 12 SCC 87 had observed that sometimes certain
questions about the requirement of sanction cannot be
decided without evidence and questions like the good
faith or bad faith of the public servant can be decided
on the conclusion of trial. The relevant observations
made are reproduced hereinbelow:
“39.8. Question of sanction may arise at any
stage of proceedings. On a police or judicial
inquiry or in course of evidence during trial.
Whether sanction is necessary or not may
have to be determined from stage to stage
and material brought on record depending
upon facts of each case. Question of sanction
can be considered at any stage of the
proceedings. Necessity for sanction may
reveal itself in the course of the progress of
the case and it would be open to the accused
to place material during the course of trial for
showing what his duty was. The accused has
the right to lead evidence in support of his
case on merits.
39.9. In some cases, it may not be possible to
decide the question effectively and finally
without giving opportunity to the defence to
adduce evidence. Question of good faith orSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 4/18/2026
5:47:03 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1265313 CRR-4345-2024
bad faith may be decided on conclusion of
trial.
40. In the instant cases, the allegation as per
the prosecution case is that it was a case of
fake encounter or death caused by orture
whereas the defence of the accused person is
that it was a case in discharge of official duty
and as the deceased was involved in the
terrorist activities and while maintaining law
and order the incident has taken place. The
incident was in the course of discharge of
official duty. Considering the aforesaid
principles in case the version of the
prosecution is found to be correct, there is no
requirement of any sanction. However, it
would be open to the accused persons to
adduce the evidence in defence and to submit
such other materials on record indicating that
the incident has taken place in discharge of
their official duties and the orders passed
earlier would not come in the way of the trial
court to decide the question afresh in the light
of the aforesaid principles from stage to stage
or even at the time of conclusion of the trial
at the time of judgment. As at this stage it
cannot be said which version is correct. The
trial court has prima facie to proceed on the
basis of the prosecution version and can re-
decide the question afresh in case from the
evidence adduced by the prosecution or by
the accused or in any other manner it comes
to the notice of the court that there was a
reasonable nexus of the incident with
discharge of official duty, the court shall re-
examine the question of sanction and take
decision in accordance with law. The trial to
proceed on the aforesaid basis.”
(emphasis supplied)
74. The legal position that emerges from the discussion
of the aforesaid case laws is that:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 4/18/2026
5:47:03 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12653
14 CRR-4345-2024
(i) There might arise situations where the
complaint or the police report may not
disclose that the act constituting the offence
was done or purported to be done in the
discharge of official duty. However, the facts
subsequently coming to light may establish
the necessity for sanction. Therefore, the
question whether sanction is required or not
is one that may arise at any stage of the
proceeding and it may reveal itself in the
course of the progress of the case.
(ii) There may also be certain cases where it
may not be possible to effectively decide the
question of sanction without giving an
opportunity to the defence to establish that
what the public servant did, he did in the
discharge of official duty. Therefore, it would
be open to the accused to place the necessary
materials on record during the trial to indicate
the nature of his duty and to show that the
acts complained of were so interrelated to his
duty in order to obtain protection under
Section 197 CrPC.
(iii) While deciding the issue of sanction, it is
not necessary for the Court to confine itself
to the allegations made in the complaint. It
can take into account all the material on
record available at the time when such a
question is raised and falls for the
consideration of the Court.
(iv) Courts must avoid the premature staying
or quashing of criminal trials at the
preliminary stage since such a measure may
cause great damage to the evidence that may
have to be adduced before the appropriate
trial court. ”
[Emphasis Supplied]
17. When the facts of the case are examined in terms of the guidelines
formulated by the Apex Court in para 74 of the judgment in the case of OmSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 4/18/2026
5:47:03 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1265315 CRR-4345-2024
Prakash Yadav (supra), it can safely be gathered that there may be situations
and cases wherein the complaint or the police report may not disclose that
the act constituting the offence was done or purported to be done in the
discharge of official duty. However, the facts subsequently coming in light
may establish the necessity of sanction. Or there may also be certain cases
wherein, it may not be possible to effectively decide the question of sanction
without giving an opportunity to the defence to establish that what the public
servant did, he did in the discharge of his official duty. Therefore, the
question whether sanction is required or not is one that may arise at any stage
of proceedings and it may reveal in the course of progress of the case. So
also, it is open to the accused to place necessary material on record during
the trial to indicate the nature of his duty and to show that the acts
complained of were so interrelated to his duty in order to obtain protection
under section 197 of CrPC. That apart, the Apex Court also held that the
courts must avoid the premature staying or quashing of the criminal trials at
the preliminary stage since such a measure may cause great damage to the
evidence that may be adduced before the appropriate trial court.
18. Records of the case in hand indicates that the material relied upon
by the applicants seeking discharge from the offenses in question does not
form part of charge-sheet filed by the prosecution and therefore, the same
may not be taken into consideration at the stage of deciding an application
under section 227 CrPC as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of
Debendra Nath Padhi Vs State of Orissa; (2005) 1 SCC 568. At the same
time, the learned trial court while taking into consideration the lawSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 4/18/2026
5:47:03 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1265316 CRR-4345-2024
propounded by the Apex Court in the case of P.K. Pradhan Vs. State of
Sikkim; (2001) 6 SCC 704 has held that the applicants can raise the plea of
self-defence during trial and the issue of want of sanction is open and can be
raised and decided at the time of final judgment. The view taken by the
learned trial court while rejecting the application preferred by the applicants
under section 227 of Cr.P.C vide impugned order dated 13/08/ 2024 being in
conformity with the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Om Prakash Yadav (supra) , does not suffer from any jurisdictional or legal
error and therefore, finding no merit in the present criminal revision, the
same is hereby dismissed.
19. However, the question of sanction for prosecution of the applicants
is left open to be appropriately decided by the trial court at a suitable stage,
in accordance with law, and without being prejudiced by any of the
observations made in this order, as well as the order passed dated 13/08/2024
passed by the learned trial court.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGEar
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 4/18/2026
5:47:03 AM