Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pritam Singh vs State Of Hy. on 29 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-711-SB-2005 (O&M)
Reserved on: 01.05.2026
Pronounced On: 29.07.2026
Pritam Singh
...Appellant
V/S
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA
Argued By: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate, with
Mr. Parveen Gaur, Advocate
Mr. Arun Biriwal, Advocate and
Mr. Anshuman Sethi, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Satbir Singh Goripuria, DAG, Haryana.
SUBHAS MEHLA, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the judgement of
conviction dated 19.03.2005 and the order of sentence of even date passed by
the learned Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988),
Kurukshetra, in FIR No.18 dated 16.05.2003 registered at Police Station State
Vigilance Bureau, Ambala, whereby the appellant was convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act‘) and sentenced as under:-
Offence under Imprisonment Fine In Default of
Section Payment of Fine
Section 7 of PC Rigorous Rs.2,000/- In default of
Act Imprisonment for payment of the
1 year total amount of
Section 13(2) of Rigorous Rs.5,000 fine i.e. Rs.7,000
PC Act Imprisonment for a further rigorous
2 years imprisonment for
a period of nine
months
Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
MANISHA
2026.07.29 13:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-S-711-SB-2005 (O&M) -2-
BRIEF FACTS
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 16.05.2003,
complainant Balwant Singh submitted an application before the State Vigilance
Bureau, Kurukshetra (hereinafter ‘SVB’) alleging that on the night of
14.05.2003, the appellant, who was working as a Foreman in the Electricity
Department, along with a Junior Engineer, visited his residence and accused the
complainant of committing theft of electricity. It was alleged that the appellant
demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/- for not initiating proceedings against him
and received Rs.9,000/- on the spot. It is further alleged that the appellant later
continued insisting upon payment of the remaining amount of Rs.1,000/- when
finally, the SVB was approached. Acting upon the complaint, a trap was
arranged by the Vigilance Bureau wherein DRO Pirthi Singh was joined as part
of the raiding party being a gazetted officer. The complainant allegedly paid the
remaining amount of Rs.1,000/- to the appellant during the trap proceedings,
whereafter the appellant was apprehended and the tainted currency notes were
allegedly recovered from his possession. Upon completion of investigation and
obtaining sanction for prosecution, the final report was presented before the
Court.
3. Finding a prima facie case, the trial Court framed charges against
the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC
Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses
and tendered documentary evidence on record. After completion of prosecution
evidence, the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein all incriminating
MANISHA
2026.07.29 13:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-S-711-SB-2005 (O&M) -3-
circumstances were denied and false implication was pleaded. Upon
appreciation of the evidence, learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the
appellant in the manner mentioned hereinabove. Hence, the present appeal.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
5. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgement
primarily on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential
ingredients constituting the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of
the PC Act. It was argued that the complainant – Balwant Singh (PW-9) and the
shadow witness (and also son of the complainant) – Joginder Singh (PW-10),
did not support the prosecution case during trial and categorically denied that
the appellant had demanded or accepted any illegal gratification. Learned
counsel submitted that both the said witnesses attributed the demand of money
to certain other officials of the Electricity Department and specifically
exonerated the appellant. It was further argued that although the prosecution
case itself referred to the involvement of a Junior Engineer, however, no
proceedings were initiated against him thereby rendering the prosecution
version doubtful.
6. Learned counsel further contended that trial Court erred in placing
reliance upon the testimony of the official witnesses despite the complainant
and shadow witness having disowned the prosecution story. It was argued that
the alleged recovery of tainted currency notes, by itself, is insufficient to sustain
conviction in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification. Learned counsel thus submitted that the prosecution has failed to
prove the foundational facts necessary for invoking the presumption under
MANISHA
2026.07.29 13:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-S-711-SB-2005 (O&M) -4-
Section 20 of the PC Act. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) (SC) (Constitution Bench),
2023 (4) SCC 731; State of Kerala v. C.P. Rao, 2011 (96) SCC 450; Madan
Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 (4) SCC 624; Rajesh Gupta v. State Through
Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 INSC 359; State of U.P. v. Ram Balak,
2008(4) RCR(Criminal) 845; Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023(2)
RCR(Criminal) 499; N. Sunkanna v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2015(4)
RCR(Criminal) 797; Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka, 2015(4) RCR(Criminal)
and thus, prayed that the impugned judgement of conviction be set aside, and
the appellant be acquitted.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT-STATE
7. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned
judgement and submitted that the prosecution has successfully established the
guilt of the appellant through the testimony of the official witnesses and the
documentary evidence brought on record. It was argued that the appellant was
posted as Assistant Foreman in the area concerned and the prosecution had duly
proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Learned State
counsel submitted that the tainted currency notes were recovered from the
possession of the appellant during the trap proceedings and the hand wash and
pocket wash of the appellant tested positive. Reliance was placed upon the
testimony of PW-11 Pirthi Singh (District Revenue Officer) and PW-12
Inspector Gurdwaya Ram, both of whom fully supported the prosecution case
regarding the trap proceedings and recovery. It was accordingly submitted that
MANISHA
2026.07.29 13:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-S-711-SB-2005 (O&M) -5-
trial Court had rightly returned a finding of guilt and no interference is
warranted in appeal.
OBSERVATIONS & ANALYSIS
8. Heard and record perused.
9. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the
prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt
that the appellant demanded and accepted illegal gratification from the
complainant so as to attract the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2)
of the PC Act.
10. Balwant Singh, the complainant, appeared as PW-9. In his
deposition before the Court, he did not support the prosecution case. He
categorically stated that certain officials of the Electricity Department had
visited his house and demanded money from him, but specifically deposed that
the appellant was not one of those persons. He further stated that the
appellant had nothing to do with the occurrence. Though he admitted his
signatures on certain documents relied upon by the prosecution, he denied
the contents thereof and asserted that his signatures had been obtained on
blank papers. More importantly, he denied that the appellant had ever
demanded any amount from him or that any payment had been made to the
appellant.
11. Equally significant is the testimony of Joginder Singh (PW-10) i.e.
the shadow witness and son of the complainant. He too failed to support the
prosecution case. He specifically denied that the appellant had ever
demanded any money from him or from his father. He also denied the
MANISHA
2026.07.29 13:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-S-711-SB-2005 (O&M) -6-
prosecution version regarding payment of tainted currency notes,
acceptance thereof by the appellant and the alleged recovery proceedings.
12. What assumes significance is that the shadow witness (PW-10) did
not merely fail to support the prosecution version. Rather, he proceeded to
narrate a version which substantially supports the defence plea. According to
him, the grievance of the complainant was against a Junior Engineer and
another official of the Electricity Department. He further stated that the
amount in question was intended to be paid to the concerned Junior
Engineer and when he went to the place where the payment was to be made,
the said Junior Engineer was not present. Thus, the testimony of PW-10, far
from advancing the prosecution case, lends support to the defence version
that the appellant was not the person who had originally demanded the alleged
gratification.
13. The prosecution has failed to prove its case as required in a
criminal trial i.e. beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt for the reasons
hereinafter elaborated.
a) Demand of Illegal Gratification
14. In the present case, the prosecution primarily relied upon the
testimony of the complainant and the shadow witness to establish the demand
of illegal gratification. However, both PW-9 and PW-10 failed to support the
prosecution case on the crucial aspect of demand. The prosecution is thus left
without any direct evidence regarding demand, necessitating an examination as
to whether the remaining evidence on record is sufficient to establish the said
ingredient by way of circumstances.
MANISHA
2026.07.29 13:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-S-711-SB-2005 (O&M) -7-
15. In B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55, the
facts were similar to those of the present case. A trap was laid and tainted money
was recovered from the pocket of the accused; the complainant turned hostile,
and consequently, the Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the judgement of conviction
by the trial Courts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that proof of demand of
illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under Section
7 of the PC Act and that mere possession or recovery of currency notes from an
accused, without proof of demand, would not establish the offence. The same
principle was reiterated in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of
Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, (2015) 10 SCC 152, wherein it was held that
proof of demand is the gravamen of the offence and in the absence thereof, the
charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act cannot be sustained.
16. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeraj
Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 280,
while comprehensively considering the law on the subject, observed that where
the prosecution seeks to establish the demand of gratification on the basis of
circumstantial evidence, every circumstance relied upon must be firmly
established and the chain of circumstances must be such as to lead only to one
conclusion, namely, the accused had made the demand in question. Thus, where
direct evidence of demand is unavailable or found to be unreliable, the Court
must carefully examine whether the circumstances proved on record unerringly
point towards the guilt of the accused and are inconsistent with any other
hypothesis. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the evidence led by the
prosecution in the present case is required to be examined.
MANISHA
2026.07.29 13:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-S-711-SB-2005 (O&M) -8-
17. In the facts of the present case, the prosecution has failed to
establish the demand of illegal gratification through its most material witnesses,
i.e. the complainant and the shadow witness. Once the demand itself remains
unproved, the alleged recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant
loses much of its evidentiary significance. Mere recovery, howsoever proved,
cannot by itself sustain a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act
in the absence of proof of demand and voluntary acceptance.
18. The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act also
cannot come to the aid of the prosecution in the facts of the present case. The
presumption is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its obligation to
establish the foundational facts. Since the prosecution has failed to prove the
demand of illegal gratification, the presumption under Section 20 cannot be
invoked to sustain the conviction.
b) Acceptance of Illegal Gratification
19. The prosecution case on ‘acceptance’ also suffers from serious
doubt. The complainant PW-9 and the shadow witness PW-10 have not
supported the prosecution version regarding the payment of the alleged bribe
amount. Rather, PW-10 shadow witness has narrated a different sequence of
events, which lends support to the defence plea and runs contrary to the
prosecution version. Further, the evidentiary value of the allegations against the
appellant/accused is substantially weakened by the complainant’s deposition
that his signatures were obtained on blank papers and that he did not make the
statements attributed to him.
In these circumstances, the evidence on record does not inspire
confidence that the amount was consciously and voluntarily accepted by the
MANISHA
2026.07.29 13:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-S-711-SB-2005 (O&M) -9-
appellant as illegal gratification pursuant to a demand made by him.
Consequently, the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant, by
itself, cannot be treated as conclusive proof of acceptance of illegal gratification.
c) Recovery Proceedings and Testimony of Official Witnesses
20. Learned State counsel has rightly pointed out that PW-11 Pirthi
Singh, District Revenue Officer, and PW-12 Inspector Gurdwaya Ram have
supported the prosecution case regarding the trap proceedings. Their testimony
establishes that tainted currency notes were prepared, trap proceedings were
conducted and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of
the appellant. The hand wash and pocket wash of the appellant also tested
positive.
21. However, even if the testimony of PW-11 and PW-12 is accepted
in its entirety, the circumstances emerging therefrom do not establish beyond
the shadow of reasonable doubt that any demand for illegal gratification was
made by the appellant. The evidence of the said witnesses may establish the
recovery proceedings, but it does not establish the foundational fact that the
demand for illegal gratification emanated from the appellant or that he
consciously and voluntarily accepted the illegal gratification to attract the
operation of Section 7 of the PC Act. On the contrary, the only direct witnesses
on the aspect of demand, namely PW-9 and PW-10, have expressly denied the
prosecution version. Therefore, the circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution do not form a complete chain leading only to the hypothesis of guilt
of the appellant.
MANISHA
2026.07.29 13:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-S-711-SB-2005 (O&M) -10-
d) Analysis of the Impugned Trial Court Judgement
22. At this stage, it would be apposite to examine the reasoning
adopted by trial Court while dealing with the issues of demand, acceptance and
the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. The relevant observations
contained in Para 23 of the impugned judgment read as under:-
“23. Learned defence counsel also contended that mere recovery
of money from the accused is not sufficient to convict the accused
when the substantial evidence in the case is not reliable. He
contended that in the absence of demand and acceptance, mere
recovery of money from the accused cannot be made basis to
presume that the money was received and demanded as bribe
amount. I find no force in the said submission of the learned
defence counsel, because it is not always necessary that the passing
of money should be proved by direct evidence. It may also be
proved by circumstantial evidence. Acceptance of money by the
accused and its recovery in the manner, as alleged by the
prosecution, stands duly proved on the file. Once this fact is proved
by the prosecution, then a legal presumption can well be drawn
under section 20 of the Act that such gratification was accepted as
a reward for doing the public duty, unless contrary is proved by the
accused. Accused in this case although tried to prove the contrary
by alleging that he had received the amount to pay the same to J.E.
Mr. S.P. Dhiman, to whom the person who paid him the money,
wanted to pay the same, but as soon as he received the money, he
was apprehended by the police party and was taken to S.V.B. unit
Kurukshetra, resulting into registration of the present case, but he
has miserably failed to prove this fact. Jawahar Lal DW2,
examined to prove this defence, cannot be believed, because he is
a neighbour of the son of accused in the vicinity where they both
run shops. He stated that he had heard a noise which attracted him
and a few shopkeepers to the shop of the son of accused, where the
MANISHA
2026.07.29 13:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-S-711-SB-2005 (O&M) -11-
accused alongwith three-four police officials were present. They
had some exchange of words with regard to currency notes and
accused was then lifted physically by them and taken in a jeep. In
his cross-examination, he stated that he had not made any
complaint to the S.P. or D.C. about forcible lifting of accused. He
also stated that he does not know what had transpired earlier to his
reaching the shop of son of accused. Thus, he is silent about the
defence version given by the accused that some persons had come
to his shop and wanted to pay certain money to J.E. whom they
were enquiring and he accepted the said money to further pass the
same to said J.E. and was thereafter lifted by the police party.
There is no other evidence on behalf of the accused to make his
defence version probable and thus has failed to prove the contrary,
as required under section 20 of the Act. It was held in AIR 1992
S.C. 1201 B.Hanmantha Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh that once
the amount is found in the possession of the accused, the burden
shifts to him to explain the circumstances to prove his innocence as
contemplated under section 20 of the Act. Reliance can also be
placed on the authority relied upon by the learned Public
Prosecutor 2001(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 95 (Supra). The facts and
circumstances of the authorities, 2004(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 369
and 1979 Crl. .L J. 1087 (Supra) relied upon by the learned defence
counsel, are not identical to the facts and circumstances of the
present case, and therefore, no benefit whatsoever can be given to
the accused of the same.”
23. A perusal of the aforesaid observations in the impugned judgment
shows that the trial Court primarily proceeded on the basis of the recovery of
tainted currency notes and the testimony of the official witnesses associated
with the trap proceedings. However, while recording the finding of guilt, the
trial Court failed to adequately appreciate the evidentiary impact of the
MANISHA
2026.07.29 13:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-S-711-SB-2005 (O&M) -12-
testimonies of PW-9 and PW-10, who were the most material witnesses on the
aspects of demand and acceptance. Once both the complainant and the shadow
witness failed to support the prosecution version, and in fact, attributed the
demand to officials other than the appellant, the question whether the
foundational facts stood established required closer scrutiny.
24. Further, the trial Court placed considerable emphasis upon the
statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. In this regard, reference
may be made to the testimony of PW-8 Rajesh Mehla, who produced the official
record pertaining to the checking conducted at the premises of the complainant
and deposed as under:-
“That from 14.3.2003 Sh.Pritam Singh FM was on duty in
the area of Chakarwarti Mohalla, City Thanesar. I identify the
signatures of Sh. J.K. Arora, SDO Operation Divn. no.1 on Ex.
PG. the meter number of Balwant Singh is KK20-1300 and it falls
in the Chakarwarti Mohalla.
XXX by Sh. S.C.Sharma, Adv., Counsel for accused.
I do not know Balwant Singh. I had not gone to his house at
any point of time. I had brought a record dated 14.5.2003 vide
which the checking of the house of Balwant Singh Mohalla
Chakarwarti bearing account no.KK20-1300 was done by
Sh.S.P.Dhiman, J.E. and line-man Ram Janam on 14.3.2003. The
charge of account no. KK20-1300 of Balwant Singh Mohalla
Chakarwarti was with Sh.S.P.Dhiman, J.E. and Ram Janam Line-
man. As per my record the number of meter of Balwant Singh is
107253001and the meter was showing the reading as 01344 on
14.5.2003. According to this record seals were found intact. The
connected load was noted to be 3.200 kilo-wat. As per this record
consumer had refused to sign the LL-1 checking report. The timeMANISHA
2026.07.29 13:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-S-711-SB-2005 (O&M) -13-of visit of S.P. Dhiman and Ram Janam is 7.44 P.M. according to
my record”
The aforesaid testimony reflects that witness PW-8 categorically
deposed that the checking in question was carried out by Junior Engineer S.P.
Dhiman and Lineman Ram Janam and the complainant’s account was under
their charge. Significantly, the official record brought on record through PW-8
does not indicate any role of the appellant in the checking proceedings or in any
official matter concerning the complainant. The prosecution has also not led any
evidence to establish that any official act relating to the complainant was
pending with the appellant or fell within his domain of duties. This circumstance
assumes importance when viewed alongside the testimonies of complainant
PW-9 and shadow witness PW-10, both of whom attributed the demand of
money to officials other than the appellant. In such circumstances, the very
nexus between the alleged gratification and any public duty to be performed by
the appellant remains inadequately established.
25. This aspect assumes added significance while examining the
reasoning adopted by the trial Court. A perusal of the record reflects that in the
complaint forming the basis of the present FIR, the allegations were not
confined exclusively to the appellant and reference was also made to the
involvement of other officials of the Electricity Department. However, the
prosecution proceeded only against the appellant and no satisfactory
explanation emerges from the record for excluding the said officials from the
purview of investigation. This circumstance assumes particular relevance in
view of the testimony of PW-8, which indicates that the checking of the
complainant’s premises was carried out by Junior Engineer S.P. Dhiman and
MANISHA
2026.07.29 13:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-S-711-SB-2005 (O&M) -14-
Lineman Ram Janam, as well as the testimonies of PW-9 and PW-10, both of
whom attributed the demand of money to officials other than the appellant. In
these circumstances, the matter warranted closer scrutiny before the
presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act was invoked against the appellant.
26. Further, a perusal of the impugned judgment reflects that despite
the categorical deposition of DW-2 J.K. Arora, S.D.O., to the effect that the
appellant was deputed for maintenance of 11 K.V. lines and L.D. systems such
as transformers, etc., as reflected in duty roster Ex.DX, the trial Court observed
that there was insufficient evidence to establish the nature of the appellant’s
duties. Consequently, the defence evidence on the said aspect was not accorded
due weight. This Court finds it difficult to concur with the aforesaid approach.
The testimony of a defence witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground
that it has been led by the defence. It is well settled that the evidence of defence
witnesses is entitled to the same consideration as that of prosecution witnesses
and must be evaluated on its own merits. The material produced by DW-2 was
directly relevant to the issue whether the appellant was in a position to perform,
influence or facilitate any official act concerning the complainant, and
consequently, whether the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act
could at all be attracted. The trial Court failed to examine this aspect in its proper
perspective.
27. The trial Court appears to have proceeded on the premise that once
recovery stood established, the burden shifted upon the appellant under Section
20 of the PC Act. However, before the statutory presumption could be invoked,
it was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the foundational facts
regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as a motive or reward
MANISHA
2026.07.29 13:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-S-711-SB-2005 (O&M) -15-
for performing, or causing the performance of, a public duty. For the reasons
already discussed hereinabove, those foundational facts have not been proved
beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Consequently, the presumption under
Section 20 could not have been invoked in the manner adopted by the trial Court.
28. Thus, apart from the failure of the prosecution to establish the
demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification, the material available
on record also does not satisfactorily establish the necessary nexus between the
alleged gratification and any public duty to be performed by the appellant. The
very foundation on which the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act was
invoked by the trial Court, therefore, becomes doubtful.
29. In the considered view of this Court, the evidence on record did not
justify the conclusion that the demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal
gratification by the appellant stood proved beyond the shadow of reasonable
doubt. Therefore, the approach adopted by the trial Court in treating the
recovery as sufficient to convict the appellant cannot be sustained.
CONCLUSION
30. Examining the evidence on record, and in the light of the aforesaid
discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond
the shadow of reasonable doubt the foundational elements necessary for
sustaining the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under
Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act, and the trial Court has erred in convicting
the appellant. The testimonies of PW-9 and PW-10 create a serious dent in the
prosecution case and render doubtful the allegation that the appellant either
demanded or accepted illegal gratification. Consequently, the prosecution has
MANISHA
2026.07.29 13:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-S-711-SB-2005 (O&M) -16-
failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.
The appellant is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt.
31. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The judgement of
conviction dated 19.03.2005 and the order of sentence of even date passed by
learned Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988),
Kurukshetra are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges
framed against him.
32. The bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by the appellant shall
stand discharged. If the appellant has deposited the amount of fine, the same
shall be refunded to him in accordance with law.
33. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(SUBHAS MEHLA)
JUDGE
29.07.2026
Manisha
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
MANISHA
2026.07.29 13:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
