Present:

Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto

Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho

Appellant: Rajesh alias Raju son of Sheeva through Mr. Abdul Raheem, Advocate

Respondents: The State through Mr. Mohammad Iqbal Awan, Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh.

Complainant: Shamsuddin son of Muhammad Ayub through Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Channa, Advocate.

Date of hearing: : 24.02.2021

Date of announcement : 08.03.2021

J U D G M E N T

NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.- Appellant Rajesh alias Raju was tried by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Karachi East for offence under section 302, PPC. After a full-fledged trial, appellant was found guilty for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Nawabuddin; vide its judgment dated 23.09.2019, appellant was convicted under section 302(b) PPC as Tazir and sentenced to death. Appellant was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.3 Million in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.PC, to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. In case of failure to pay such compensation, he was ordered to suffer SI for six months.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR are that on 26.09.2017 at 0730 hours, appellant committed murder of Nawabuddin inside Saima General Hospital, Gulshan-e-Hadeed Phase-I, District Malir Karachi. SIP Manzoor Hussain of P.S. Steel Town received such information on 26.09.2017 from 15 helpline that murder had been committed in the hospital. Above named SIP went to the Saima General Hospital and found the dead body of one Nawabuddin, he inspected the same and found one mobile phone Nokia Company lying near the dead body. IO had also collected bloodstained earth and bloodstained plow from the place of wardat in presence of mashirs Shamsuddin and Abdul Aleem, prepared such mashirnama and shifted the dead body to the JPMC for conducting postmortem examination and report. IO received last worn clothes of the deceased in sealed condition. He handed over the dead body to his brother Shamsuddin for burial. At about 1300 hours, he recorded statement of complainant Shamsuddin under section 154, Cr.PC on the basis of such statement recorded FIR No.206/2017, under section 302, PPC against unknown person. Then, he handed over the papers to the SIO for further investigation. After receipt of investigation papers, SIP Arbab Ali visited the place of wardat in presence of mashirs, prepared such mashirnama, he recorded 161, Cr.PC statements of PWs. IO visited the room of accused, situated at 3^rd Floor of the hospital but the accused was not found there. On 27.09.2017, IO received spy information that accused was present at Christian Colony, Mian Khan Jokhio Goth. IO proceeded there along with complainant and police party, he arrested the accused from a house, prepared such mashirnama in presence of mashirs. On personal search of the accused, one CNIC and one touch mobile were recovered from his possession. Such mashirnama was prepared. During interrogation appellant prepared to produce the crime weapon used by him in the commission of offence so also the clothes which accused/appellant was wearing at the time of the incident. Thereafter, appellant led the police party to the Saima General Hospital and from corner of the water tank he produced jeans, in which one knife was there along with one black coloured mask before the IO, such mashirnama was prepared. Appellant further disclosed during interrogation before the IO that after using the ATM card of the deceased, he had thrown the same in WC of the washroom. IO started search for recovery of ATM card from WC and called the sweepers. Finally sweepers recovered backside of the ATM card of Bank Al-Habib, lying in the main gutter. IO sealed the above mentioned articles in presence of mashirs and returned to the police station. IO dispatched the cellular phone of the deceased for forensic examination and received such report, in which it was mentioned that deceased Nawabuddin had withdrawn Rs.21,000/-, which reflected that appellant had used the ATM card of deceased unauthorizedly and withdrawn Rs.21,000/-. IO issued notice to the Bank Manager for bank statement of deceased and collected it, which showed that on 24.09.2021 Rs.21,000/- were withdrawn from the account of the deceased through ATM. IO obtained CD from Bank Al Habib, Phase-I, Gulshan-e-Hadeed from where ATM was used. During investigation, CCTV footage of Saima Hospital was also collected by the IO from Dr. Qamar, through his Incharge Abdul Sattar in USB. He prepared such mashirnama in presence of the mashirs. Thereafter, IO sent clothes of the deceased, bloodstained earth along with pant, knife, black mask recovered on the pointation of the appellant as well as bloodstained plow to the chemical examiner for analysis and report. All the reports were positive. IO produced accused before the doctor for his medical examination, as accused/appellant had received minor scratches at his chest at the time of incident, when deceased had resisted. On conclusion of usual investigation, challan was submitted against the accused under section 302, PPC.

3. Trial Court framed charge against appellant Rajesh alias Raju under section 302, PPC. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. At trial, prosecution examined Dr. Qamaruddin Soomro (PW.1 ), Mst. Tunjeena Bibi (PW.2), Shamsuddin (PW.3), Abdul Sattar (PW.4), Syed Hassan Mehdi (PW.5), Manzoor Hussain (PW.6), Arbab Ali Channar (PW.7), Dr. Afzal Ahmed (PW.8), and Dr. Shiraz Ahmed (PW.9). Thereafter, prosecution side was closed vide statement at Ex.41.

5. Trial court recorded statement of accused under section 342 Cr.PC at Ex.42, accused claimed false implication in the case and denied the prosecution allegation and raised plea that he has been falsely involved in this case at the influence of Dr. Qamar. Accused declined to give statement on oath is disproof of prosecution allegations and did not lead any evidence in the defence.

6. Trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and assessment of the evidence available on record, vide its judgment dated 23.09.2019 convicted the appellant under section 302(b), PPC and sentenced to death as stated above. Trial court made Confirmation Reference to this Court as required under Section 374, Cr.PC. Appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment filed the instant appeal. By this single judgment, we intend to decide the aforesaid appeal as well as Confirmation Reference No.32/2019 made by trial court.

7. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that instead of pressing this appeal on merits of appellant’s case, he only prays for reduction of his sentence of death to imprisonment for life. In this regard, he has relied upon many mitigating circumstances available on the record warranting the reduction of the appellant’s sentence.

8. As against that, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh, appearing for the State, has maintained that as long as the conviction of appellant is not disturbed by this Court, he has nothing much to say on the question of sentence as the same lies within the discretion of the Court. Learned D.P.G. has, however, submitted that prosecution had failed to prove its motive at trial.

9. Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Channa, counsel for the complainant, argued that the appellant/accused had committed brutal murder by causing 8 knife blows to the deceased, on vital parts of his body. It is submitted that evidence of CCTV footage is corroborated by the medical evidence and other pieces of evidence. As regards to the motive, learned advocate for the complainant argued that prosecution succeeded to prove its motive at trial and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

10. It may be observed that learned advocate for appellant does not press the appeal on merits but we firmly believe that it is the primary duty of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt. We have re-examined the prosecution evidence to satisfy ourselves whether the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence according to settled principles of law and sentenced the appellant to death.

11. In order to prove unnatural death of the deceased, prosecution has examined Dr. Afzal Ahmed (PW.8), who deposed that on 26.09.2017, SHO P.S. Steel Town referred to him the dead body of Nawabuddin for conducting postmortem examination and report. Dr. found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:

1. Incised wound size 1.5 cm X 0.3cm at right post auricular region skin deep.

2. Incised wound size 1.5 cm X 0.3cm at right side neck, structure deep below the above one injury.

3. Incised wound size 1.5 cm X 0.3cm at right side neck, structure deep.

4. Incised wound size 1.5 cm X 0.3cm at mid neck, structure deep.

5. Incised wound size 1.5 cm X 0.3cm at left side neck, structure deep.

6. Stab wound size 1.5 cm X 0.3cm cavity deep at right side chest interiorly.

7. Stab wound size 1.5cm X 0.3cm cavity deep at right side chest interiorly below the above one.

8. Stab wound size 1.5 cm X 0.3cm cavity deep at mid of chest.

9. Stab wound size 1.5 cm X 0.3cm cavity deep at mid struman.

According to the doctor, time between death and postmortem examination was 3 to 4 hours. From the external as well as internal examination of the dead body of Nawabuddin, doctor was of the opinion that death of deceased had occurred due to cardio respiratory failure due to neck/chest injuries resulting from sharp edged weapon. Trial court rightly came to the conclusion that death of deceased was unnatural. We have also come to the conclusion that deceased died of injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon as described by the medical officer. Moreover, un-natural death of deceased has not been disputed by the defence. Finding recorded by the trial court regarding unnatural death of deceased requires no interference by this Court.

12. Now the question arises whether appellant had committed murder of deceased in the hospital on 26.09.2017 at 07:30 a.m. as alleged by the prosecution?

13. In order to prove its case, prosecution had examined 9 witnesses. Dr. Qamaruddin (PW.1) had deposed that he runs Saima General Hospital in Gulshan-e-Hadeed, Phase-I, Karachi. Nawabuddin Channa (now deceased) was receptionist/dispenser in his hospital. Appellant and his wife were sanitary workers, in the said hospital. On 26.09.2017, complainant went to the upper floor of the hospital with his wife at 0730 hours to 0745 hours. His staff informed him that Nawabuddin was lying dead. Complainant gave information of the incident to the police and police reached within no time. Complainant informed about the incident to the family of the deceased. Dr. Qamaruddin had further deposed that CCTV is installed in his hospital. At about 1100 hours, CCTV footage was watched and every staff member of the hospital identified accused/appellant Rajesh alias Raju as culprit of the incident. Doctor also identified him in CCTV footage.

14. PW.2 Tunjeena Bibi stated that deceased was her husband. On 24.09.2017, deceased told her that he had bank account in Bank Al Habib and ATM card of said account was missing and Rs.21,000/- have been withdrawn by someone by using the said ATM card. She further deposed that on 26.09.2017 at 0745 hours she was informed by somebody on mobile that dead body of her husband was lying in the Saima General Hospital. She came in the hospital. FIR of the incident was lodged by Shamsuddin, brother of deceased. She further deposed that murder of her husband Nawabuddin has been committed by Rajesh alias Raju. Learned trial judge rightly put up question from the wife of the deceased, as to how the accused could withdraw money without pin number of ATM. It was replied by the wife of the deceased that deceased was working with accused Rajesh alias Raju and he was aware about the pin code.

15. PW.3 Shamsuddin stated that deceased was his brother, he used to work at Saima General Hospital. On 26.09.2017 at 0745 hours, he received a call from the mobile of his deceased brother that condition of the deceased was critical. He came to hospital, found brother murdered, saw the CCTV footage, in which one unknown person was causing knife blows to his brother. Dr. Qamaruddin informed him that said culprit in the CCTV, was Rajesh alias Raju. He has further deposed that Rajesh was arrested and disclosed to the police that he had withdrawn Rs.21,000/- from the account of deceased Nawabuddin by means of ATM card of deceased.

16. Evidence of Abdul Sattar (PW.4) is most important for just decision of this case. He had stated that he was monitoring CCTV installed at Saima General Hospital since 2015. Nawabuddin was murdered inside the hospital. CCTV footages of the incident were preserved in USB, he had handed over the USB to the IO. USB was sealed by the IO in his presence. Trial court played the CCTV footage of the incident in presence of PW Abdul Sattar (CCTV monitor/incharge). He confirmed that accused/appellant Rajesh was visible in the footage, who had committed the murder of Nawabuddin.

17. Syed Hassan Mehdi (PW.5) was the Manager of Bank Al Habib, Phase-I, Gulshan-e-Hadeed, he stated that deceased Nawabuddin had a bank account in Bank Al Habib, Phase-II Branch, Gulshan-e-Hadeed. Investigating officer of this case asked the Manager to verify CCTV footage of ATM installed in the branch of 24.09.2017 wherein it was stated that appellant by using ATM card of deceased had withdrawn Rs.21,000/-. Manager provided footage of 24.09.2017 from 11:00 to 12:00 hours by collecting the same from Saud Alam, Manager Bank Al Habib, Phase-II Branch, Gulshan-e-Hadeed. Learned trial court has noted that footage was played in the open court wherein a boy was using ATM machine. He had resemblance with the accused present before the trial court. Quality of footage/cameras was poor. Appellant/accused was not identified with certainty.

18. SIP Manzoor Hussain (PW.6) conducted initial investigation of this case as we have already mentioned above. PW.7 Arbab Ali Channar had conducted the entire investigation of this case. It has also been mentioned by us in the earlier part of the judgment, need not to be repeated here. However, investigating officer submitted the positive reports of the bloodstained knife/churri, clothes of the deceased as well as of the clothes of appellant. It was the whole prosecution evidence produced at the trial. Appellant had neither denied specifically his presence in hospital on the day of occurrence nor offered any explanation about CCTV footage against him.

19. From the close scrutiny of the evidence, we have come to the conclusion that prosecution proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. Dr. Qamaruddin (PW.1) and Abdul Sattar (PW.4) have clearly stated that they had identified the appellant in CCTV footage while causing knife blows to the deceased, in Saima General Hospital. It may be mentioned here that appellant was sweeper in the Saima General Hospital and deceased was receptionist/dispenser in the said hospital. PWs 1 and 4 knew the appellant since long. Evidence of Abdul Sattar (PW.4), CCTV operator of the Saima General Hospital is quite reliable and trustworthy. He had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant in the murder of the deceased. Whole prosecution case is basically structured upon his evidence. Examination-in-chief of PW.4 Abdul Sattar is reproduced as under:

“I am working as Monitor of CCTV installed at Saima General Hospital since 2015. The incident of murder of one Nawab Deen was committed in our hospital and I had taken such CCTV footage and recorded in one USB of 16gb Kingston. I see Article-A is same USB. On 01.10.2017 I handed over the same USB Recording to IO through memo on which I signed as a witness. I produce such memo at Ex.14 which is same, correct and bears my signature. The USB was sealed in the Parcel. I see the parcel present in Court from which USB is produced bears my signature. Accused present in Court is Rajesh and he is also clearly visible in the footage who had committed murder.”

Accuracy of recording of CCTV footage in the hospital has been proved through the evidence of Abdul Sattar (PW-4), he was the person who was monitoring the CCTV footage in the hospital. Video was played before the trial court, appellant was visible in the video, he was identified by Abdul Sattar (PW.4) and Dr. Qamaruddin (PW.1) as the appellant was sanitary worker in the hospital. Safe custody of the CCTV footage after its preparation till production before the trial court has been proved. We have no hesitation to rely upon the piece of CCTV footage against the appellant.

20. Dr. Qamaruddin (PW.1), the owner of Saima General Hospital had also watched the CCTV footage and identified the appellant, he was causing churri blows to the deceased. Medical evidence corroborated the CCTV footage evidence. Churri used in the commission of offence was voluntarily produced by the accused from the corner of water tank, on third floor of the hospital, it was bloodstained and report of the chemical examiner was positive. As regard to the piece of CCTV footage is concerned, not a single question has been put by the defence counsel to the prosecution witnesses regarding tampering with the USB. It is already observed that prosecution has proved safe custody of USB/CCTV footage. A judge and more so a trial judge, acts as a gatekeeper of the scientific evidence and must, therefore, enjoy a good sense and understanding of science. As science grows so will the forensic techniques, tools and devices; therefore, courts must be open to developments in forensic science and embrace new techniques and devices to resolve a dispute, provided the said technique and device is well established and widely accepted in the scientific community as a credible and reliable technique or device. Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, is our gateway allowing modern forensic science to come into our courtrooms. Article 164 provides that courts may allow to be produced any evidence that may have become available because of modern devices and techniques. Proviso to Article 164 read with Article 59, inter alia, allows modern forensic science to enter courts through the credible and valued scientific opinions of experts as evidence, in order to arrive at the truth as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ali Haider alias Pappu vs. Jameel Hussain, etc. (Criminal Petition No.513/2010) decided on 07.01.2021.

21. As it is observed above, we find that evidence of Abdul Sattar (PW.4), CCTV operator and Doctor Qamaruddin (PW.1) is quite reliable and beyond any doubt. Evidence of Dr. Afzal Ahmad (PW.8), who produced the postmortem report, fully supports the prosecution case. The chain of circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of churri, positive reports of the chemical examiners is firm and continuous, leaving no margin for the hypothesis of the innocence of the appellant. The prosecution has thus proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, we are not persuaded to take the different view from the view taken by the trial court, so far as the conviction against the appellant is concerned.

22. As regards to the quantum of sentence is concerned, prosecution has failed to prove the motive at the trial. In the FIR, motive has not set up but during investigation, investigating officer interrogated the accused and collected the material that the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased because the appellant had got the ATM card of the deceased secretly and used it unauthorizedly and had withdrawn an amount of Rs.21,000/- form the account of the deceased by means of ATM card but in order to substantiate it at trial, prosecution had failed to collect the independent piece of evidence to prove the motive at trial. PW.5 Syed Hassan Mehdi, Manager of Bank Al Habib, Gulshan-e-Hadeed, was examined by the prosecution, he deposed that Saud Alam, Manager Bank Al Habib, Phase-II Branch, Gulshan-e-Hadeed had provided him footage of the ATM machine room, when the same was played before the trial court, picture of user was not visible. ATM card of the deceased was also used. There is nothing on record as to how the appellant came to know about the valid PIN number of the ATM Card of the deceased. Investigating officer could not recover the ATM Card of the deceased from the possession of the appellant but stated that it was thrown by the accused in the gutter. Said piece of evidence/recovery has not been established at trial by cogent and confidence inspiring evidence. IO had also failed to interrogate/investigate the accused/appellant with regard to the use of amount of Rs.21,000/- allegedly withdrawn by the appellant from the account of the deceased by means of ATM card.

23. In the view of above, learned D.P.G. has rightly argued that prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt but the prosecution has failed to establish the motive at trial and submitted that there are mitigating circumstances in this case, death sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the imprisonment for life.

24. The law is settled by now that if the prosecution asserts a motive but fails to prove the same then such failure on the part of the prosecution may react against a sentence of death passed against a convict on the charge of murder and a reference in this respect may be made to the case of Mst. NAZIA ANWAR versus The STATE and others (2018 SCMR 911). Relevant portion is reproduced as under:

“4. I have particularly attended to the sentence of death passed against the appellant and have noticed in that context that the motive set up by the prosecution had remained far from being established. According to the FIR as well as the statement of the complainant the motive was based upon borrowing of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by the appellant from the deceased and on the issue of repayment of that loan a heated exchange had taken place between the appellant and the deceased. Mst. Sadiqa Bibi complainant (PW2) was the only witness produced by the prosecution regarding the alleged motive but in her deposition made before the trial court the complainant had admitted that the appellant and the deceased were on very good and friendly terms, no date or time of borrowing of the relevant amount by the appellant from the deceased had been specified by the complainant, the complainant was not present when the money had been borrowed by the appellant from the deceased, no date, time or place of the altercation taking place between the appellant and the deceased over repayment of the borrowed amount had been specified by the complainant and admittedly the complainant was not present when the said altercation had taken place. In these circumstances it is quite obvious to me that the motive asserted by the prosecution had remained utterly unproved. The law is settled by now that if the prosecution asserts a motive but fails to prove the same then such failure on the part of the prosecution may react against a sentence of death passed against a convict on the charge of murder and a reference in this respect may be made to the cases of Ahmad Nawaz v. The State (2011 SCMR 593), Iftikhar Mehmood and another v. Qaiser Iftikhar and others (2011 SCMR 1165), Muhammad Mumtaz v. The State and another (2012 SCMR 267), Muhammad Imran alias Asif v. The State (2013 SCMR 782), Sabir Hussain alias Sabri v. The State (2013 SCMR 1554), Zeeshan Afzal alias Shani and another v. The State and another (2013 SCMR 1602), Naveed alias Needu and others v. The State and others (2014 SCMR 1464), Muhammad Nadeem Waqas and another v. The State (2014 SCMR 1658), Muhammad Asif v. Muhammad Akhtar and others (2016 SCMR 2035) and Qaddan and others v. The State (2017 SCMR 148). After going through the entire record of the case from cover to cover and after attending to different aspects of this case I have found that although it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant was responsible for the murder of the deceased yet the story of the prosecution has many inherent obscurities ingrained therein. It is intriguing as to why the appellant would bring her four months old baby-boy to the spot and put the baby-boy on the floor and then start belabouring the deceased with a dagger in order to kill her. I have, thus, entertained no manner of doubt that the real cause of occurrence was something different which had been completely suppressed by both the parties to the case and that real cause of occurrence had remained shrouded in mystery. Such circumstances of this case have put me to caution in the matter of the appellant's sentence and in the peculiar circumstances of the case I have decided to withhold the sentence of death passed against the appellant.

5. For what has been discussed above this appeal is dismissed to the extent of the appellant's conviction for the offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. but the same is partly allowed to the extent of her sentence of death which is reduced to imprisonment for life. The order passed by the trial court regarding payment of compensation by the appellant to the heirs of the deceased as well as the order regarding imprisonment in default of payment of compensation are, however, maintained. The benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. shall be extended to the appellant.”

25. As regards to the sentence of death passed against the appellant, we have already observed that prosecution has failed to prove the motive at trial. Prosecution had also failed to examine Saud Alam, Manager of Bank Al Habib, Phase-II, Gulshan-e-Hadeed Branch, who had handed over the CCTV footage of ATM machine room to Syed Hassan Mehdi (PW.5). Prosecution has no explanation for such omission. Syed Hassan Mehdi (PW.5) watched the CCTV footage of the ATM machine room, he clearly deposed that culprit could not be identified as efficiency of cameras was poor. Evidence of Shamsuddin (PW.3), brother of deceased, was hearsay evidence. Sweepers, who searched a piece of ATM Card were not examined before the trial court. Therefore, we have decided to exercise caution in the matter of appellant’s sentence of death. Reliance is placed upon the case of Javed Zaki alias Ali Nadeem vs. The State (Criminal Appeal No.431/2005) decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 02.03.2015. Relevant portion is reproduced as under:

“4. As regards the sentence of death passed against the appellant we have already observed that the ocular account of the murder in issue furnished by Shahzad complainant has not been found by us to be totally reliable and, therefore, we have decided to exercise caution in the matter of the appellant’s sentence of death. Apart from that the appellant has already spent about thirteen years in jail including about twelve years having been spent by him in a death cell by now. Moreover, the recovery of a firearm allegedly effected from the appellant during the investigation and subsequent matching of a crime-empty with the recovered firearm have not been found by us to be reliable pieces of evidence because Mehboob Ellahi, S.I. (PW.16) had clearly acknowledged before the learned trial court that the crime-empty had been sealed into a parcel after many months of its recovery and that the crime-empty had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory after recovery of the firearm. Another reason prompting us to exercise caution in the matter of the appellant’s sentence of death is that the test identification parade held in this case vis-à-vis the appellant has been found by us to be quite laconic for various reasons. In these circumstances we have felt persuaded to reduce the sentence of death passed against the appellant to imprisonment for life. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed to the extent of the convictions of the appellant recorded and upheld by the learned courts below, the sentences passed against the appellant in respect of the offences under section 324, PPC and section 13-D of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 are maintained and the sentence of death passed against the appellant for an offence under section 396, PPC is reduced to imprisonment for life. All the sentences of imprisonment passed against the appellant shall run concurrently to each other and the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.PC shall be extended to him. This appeal is disposed of these terms.”

26. For the above stated reasons, this appeal is dismissed to the extent of appellant’s conviction for the offence under section 302(b), PPC, recorded by the trial court through the impugned judgment but the same is partly allowed to the extent of appellant’s sentence of death, which is reduced to the imprisonment for life. Confirmation Reference No.32/2019 is answered in ‘NEGATIVE’. Apart from the above reduction in the sentence, compensation ordered by the trial court to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased in the impugned judgment shall remain intact. Appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.PC.

27. In the view of above, this appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

J U D G E

Gulsher/PS