(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the advocate for the appellant against the judgment dated 27.9,2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IX, Bangalore in S.C.No.933/2005 - convicting the appellant/accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 307, 332 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 punishable with Section 25 of the Arms Act and etc;
This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the advocate for the appellant against the judgment dated 22.7.2008 in S.C.No.204/2007, passed by theJJC, Presiding Officer, City Fast Track (Sessions) Judge, Bangalore City (FTC-VI) - convicting the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Section 307 and 332 read with Section 34 of IPC and etc;
This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the advocate for the appellant praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 10.9.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court- IX, Bangalore, in S.C.No.26/2008 - convicting the appellant/accused No.3 for the offence punishable under Section 332 read with Section 34 of IPC and etc;
This Criminal Appeal filed under Section374(2) of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the advocate for the appellant against the judgment dated 27/29.9.2007 in S.C.No.933/2005 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IX, at Bangalore - convicting the appellant/accused No.5 for the offence punishable under Section 3 punishable with Section 25 of Arms Act and etc;)
1. These appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The facts leading up to these appeals are as follows:- It is stated that on 8.5.2004 at about 9-40 PM, seven persons had assembled at an Amusement park inside the Palace Grounds at Bangalore, known as Fun World. More particularly, they were said to have assembled near a go-carting pavilion and were grouped around a car bearing registration no.KA-05 MB 876 and were armed with deadly weapons and were alleged to have been preparing to commit dacoitv. The police are said to have received information of their intention and presence there and are said to have arrived on the scene. When the police were about to arrest them, the accused no.1, Tanveer, who was said to have been at the wheel of the car being used by the group, having noticed the approaching police personnel, had spurted forward in his car and is said to have driven straight at the police officers, at very high speed particularly a police inspector, Revanna, who was leading the posse of policemen in seeking to arrest the accused, is said to have narrowly escaped being run over, as he had managed to leap out of the way of the speeding car. At that time the other accused namely, Atush, Sajjad and Shakeer were said to be occupying the car along with Tanveer. Revanna is said to have then fired at the car with his revolver and had managed to shoot at and hit the tyres of the car, throwing it out of control and it is said to have come to a halt after crashing into a mud heap. Immediately, Accused no.1 is said to have bounded out of the vehicle wielding a machete and rushed at the police men. Atush and Sajjad had also charged out of the car wielding clubs. A 'free for all' scuffle is said to have ensued between the police men, on the one side, namely, Revanna, Umesh, Ratnakar Shetty, Nanjundegowda and others, and the accused- on the other. The police are said to have managed to overpower the accused, and had sustained injuries in the process. Shakeer is said to have sustained a bullet injury on his left arm. Dhobhi Ayub, one of the accused is said to have managed to escape. On a further search of their vehicle, the police are said to have recovered a long bladed machete (described as a 'long'), a revolver, six bullets, a 3.5MM country made pistol, 2 knives and 5 mobile phones. The accused having been arrested had been brought to the jurisdictional police station and a formal complaint was said to have been filed. And a case in Crime no. 170/2004 is said to have been registered.â
After further investigation, sufficient material is said to have been found against the accused to file a charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 399. 400, 332, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. I860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, before the Court of the VIII Additional City Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore. The magistrate, after having taken cognizance, is said to have committed the case to the Court of Sessions in terms of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'CrPC', for brevity).
After committal of the case, the Sessions court had heard the prosecution and the accused, had framed the charges. The accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Accused no.2 to 4 are said to have remained absent after the framing of the Charges. Hence the case as against them had been split up. Accused no.1 - Tanveer, was in judicial custody, Accused no.5 - Mohammed Ayub, was on bail.â
The prosecution had then examined 19 witnesses and got marked several exhibits and material objects. The statements of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, was said to have' been recorded and the court framed the following points for consideration, in case no.SC 933/2005:
"1. Whether the prosecution proved, beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 8.5.2004 at 9.40 p.m. at Bangalore Palace ground, near Gokarting Pavilion, behind Fun World, Bangalore, accused No.1 and 5 along with absconding accused made preparation by holding deadly weapons and hatching a plan for committing dacoity and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 399 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proved, beyond all reasonable doubt that, that on the above said date, place and time, accused No.1 and 5 along with absconding accused belong to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 400 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proved, beyond all reasonable doubt that, that on the above said date, place and time, accused No.1 and 5 along with absconding accused with their common intention tried to pass the car on C.W-1 B.K.Shivaram and C.V/-22 Revanna, with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances by that act they hod caused death of B.K.Shivaram and Revanna, they would have been guilty of murder and that they hove thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC?
4 Whether the prosecution proved, beyond all reasonable doubt that, that on the above said date, place and tune accused No.l and 5 along with absconding accused with their common intention voluntarily caused hurt to CW1 B.K.Shivaram, CW9 Kalegowda, CW10 Suresh, CW11 Navaz, CW12 Ramachandraiah, CW22 Revanna, CW23 Nanjundegowda, CW24 Umesh, CW25 Rathnakar, while they were discharging the duties, as such public servants and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 332 read with Section 34 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proved, beyond all reasonable doubt that, that on the above said date, place and time, accused No.1 having revolver and 6 live cartridges and accused No.5 was in possession of
a double barrel pistol, 2 single barrel pistol, single barrel country made Gun and 2 magazines, 3 cartridges without holding license in this behalf as per the provisions of Arms Act and thereby violated the provisions of Section 3 punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act? "
In the meanwhile. Accused no.2 - Athush, who had jumped bail, was produced before the Court and the split up charge sheet against the said accused was said to have been filed in SC 204/2007 . since the trial had commenced as against Accused no.1 and Accused no.5, the same is said to have continued and of the witnesses, PW-6 to 13, were said to have been examined in the presence of Accused no.2. The documents and material objects - marked in case no.SC 933/2005 were summoned and ordered to be read in case no.SC 204/2007. After following the procedure in so far as Accused no.2 is concerned, the following points were framed for consideration in SC 204/2007:â
"1. Whether the prosecution has proved that on 8.5.2004 at about 9.30 P.M. at Bangalore Palace Grounds near Gokarting Pavillion behind Fun World, Bangalore accused No.2 along with other accused, made preparations by holding deadly weapons and hatching a plan for committing dacoity and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 399 of IPC?
2.  Whether the prosecution has further proved that on the above said date, time and place, this accused No.2 along with other belonged to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity and thereby committed an offence punishable wider Section 400 of IPC?
3.  Whether the prosecution has further proved that on the above said date, place and time accused No.2 and other accused with their common intention tried to pass the car on CW-1 B.K.Shivaram and CW-12 Revanna with intention or knowledge under such circumstances by the act they had caused death of B.K.Shivaram and Revanna and they would have been guilty of murder and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution has further proved that on the above said date, time and place accused No.2 and other accused sharing common intention voluntarily caused hurt to CW-1, CW9, CW10, CW-12, CW-22, 25 while they were discharging the duty as a public servant and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 332 read with 34 of IPC?"
Further, Accused no. 3 - Sajjad and Accused no. 4 - Shakeer, who had jumped bail, were produced before the court and the split up charge sheet against them was filed against them. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, a case was registered against them in SC 26/2008. After compliance with further procedures and charges having been framed against them, the said accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution had then examined PW.1 to PW.14 and marked several exhibits and material objects. Thereafter, the court had recorded the statements of the accused under Section 313 CrPC and after having heard the prosecution and the accused, had framed the following points for consideration in the case as against Accused no.3 and Accused no.4:
"1. Whether the prosecution proves that on 08.05.2004 at 9.40 p.m, near Gokarting pavilion in Palace ground, A. 3 and A.4 along with 4 persons made preparation to commit dacoity by holding lethal weapons?
2.  Whether the prosecution further proves that on 08.05.2004 at 9.40 p.m, near Gokarting pavilion in palace ground, A.1 to A.4 along with 4 others belongs to gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity?
3.  Whether the prosecution proves that on 08.05.2004 at 9.40 p.m, near Gokarting pavilion in palace ground A.3 and A.4 along with 4 others with common intention voluntarily caused hurt to CW.1 Shivaram, CW.9-Kalegowda, CW.10 Suresh, CW.11 Navaz, CW.12 Ramachandriah, CW.22 Revanna, CW.23 Nanjundegowda, CW.24 Umesh and CW.25 Rathnakar while they were discharging the duties as such public servants?â
4. Whether the prosecution proves that on 08.05.2004 at 9.40 p.m, near Gokarting pavilion in palace ground with common intention tried pass the car on CW.1 Shivaram and CW.22 Revanna with knowledge and under suck circumstances by that act had caused the death of B.K.Shivaram and Revanna?"
The sessions court has convicted Accused no. 1 to 5 in three separate judgments in case numbers - SC 933/2005 (A-l and A-5), SC 204/2007 (A-2) and SC 26/2008 (A-3 and A-4). The said Accused have been found guilty and have been convicted and have been imposed the following sentences : SC 933/205
Accused no J was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for V/i years with fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under section 307 of the IPC and further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 332 of the IPC. Accused nos.1 to 5 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
SC 204/2007
Accused no.2 was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under section 332 read with Section 34 of the IPC. both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
SC 26/2008
Accused nos.3 and 4 were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-for the offence punishable under section 332 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
It is the respective convictions, which are the subject matter of these individual appeals.â
3. It is contended on behalf of Appellant no.1, that there was not a single independent witness, who has corroborated the evidence of the official witnesses, namely. PWs.5 to 10 and 12 to 16 and 33, twelve witnesses in all. The evidence tendered through the above witnesses was self serving and was only with an intention to frame the said accused on false and fabricated charges.
On the other hand, PW.1 to PW.4, the independent witnesses have not Supported the case of the prosecution.
It is also pointed out that even the partisan witnesses have not provided any consistent particulars. The serious contradictions and omissions that were apparent in their respective testimony, has been glossed over by the trial court.
It is pointed out that the complainant - police had foisted not one, but two cases against this appellant on the same day. Crime no. 172/2004 resulted in the present proceedings and Crime no. 179/2004 for an offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosives Act, 1884 and a large number of witnesses cited in both the cases were the same witnesses. It is stated that the case in Crime no. 179/2004 was said to have been tried as Sessions case no.211/2005, before the Fast Track Court - 10 and the appellant is said to have been acquitted in that case.
The blatantly false evidence tendered by the prosecution is sought to be demonstrated with reference to the evidence of the following witnesses :
PW 5, who had deposed that he was in the police Station at 9-45 PM on 8.5.2004, when information is said to have been received of the accused persons planning to commit dacoity after having assembled in the Palace Grounds. But the witness had contradicted himself in also stating that he had received the information at 8:55 PM at the police station. Further, though he was also a witness in SC 211/2005, referred to above, he had blatantly denied that he was a witness in the said case. Such false hood, in the face of the record, ought to have been perceived seriously by the Court, which has however, ignored the same.â
PW.6, the complainant, is said to have been injured in the incident on 8.5.2004, and he is said to have taken treatment on 9.5.2004 at a hospital in Malleswaram, when the Bowring Hospital was a short distance away from the Palace grounds where the incident is said to have occurred. The wound certificate had indicated the place of incident as Malleswaram, but the same has been altered as Sadashivnagar, after a period of two months
PW.7, v/as unable to describe the colour of dress which the appellant was wearing. He is also said to have been injured, but could not remember when he obtained treatment.
PW.8 as well as the complainant had stated that after the car driven by the appellant had been brought to a halt, the appellant had come out of the car wielding a "chopper", at them. However, there is no such weapon forthcoming in the course of the trial and there are not even statements made before the Investigation Officer regarding the same.â
The witnesses have made inconsistent statements as regards the distance at which the police vehicles, in which the raiding party had gone to the palace grounds to nab the accused, were parked. While PW.10 bad claimed that the vehicles were parked half a kilometer away, the other witnesses had claimed they were parked a 100 feet away from the car of the accused, while some others have said they were parked close to the vehicle of the accused.
PW.11, the registered owner of the vehicle, which the accused were said to be using, was allegedly taken away by the Central Crime Branch - personnel, two days after the incident from her premises, the prosecution claiming it had been in use by the accused at the time of the incident, it is pointed out is a serious lacuna in the case of the prosecution.
PW.12 had claimed that this appellant had attacked one Nanjunde Gowda, with a chopper on his right hand. But Nanjunde gowda does not claim to have been so injured. There was no "chopper " produced as a weapon used by the accused.â
The said witness had also stated that the police vehicles were parked a 100 feet away from the car of the accused, quite contrary to the statement of other witnesses in this regard. He had also denied that he was a witness in the other case against this appellant in SC 211/2005, contrary to the record.
It is pointed out that the witnesses, PWs.14, 15 and 16 have inconsistently stated that it took twenty minutes to reach the spot from the police station, while others had claimed it would cake only five minutes to reach the spot, as it was in the next compound from the police station and yet others had, inexplicably, claimed ii would take 40 to 50 minutes.
PW.17, the medical practitioner who had stated that the Medico Legal Register maintained at the hospital would contain all particulars of the manner, in which an injured person had sustained such injury, when he is treated. The Register produced by him did not contain any such details.
It is pointed out that PW.19 has admitted in his evidence that there are no signatures, PF numbers, Crime number or the names of the police station - on any of the material objects produced and would lead to an adverse inference that the same were planted. This witness has categorically admitted that the case in SC 211/2005 arose out of a criminal case registered on the same day against this appellant and that the witnesses in that case and in this case were the same and that the appellant had been acquitted in the said case.
Significantly, the said witness has candidly admitted that the statements of the police witnesses were recorded 15 days after the incident and there was no explanation forthcoming in respect of the same.
It is hence contended that the above and several other minor discrepancies could not have been overlooked by the trial court in holding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond al] reasonable doubt.
It is contended on behalf of Accused no.5, who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal 1597/2007, that the trial court has overlooked several glaring circumstances in arriving at findings against the said appellant. It is pointed out that PW. 1 to PW.4 were the witnesses fielded to establish the alleged recovery of the alleged weapons and the vehicle, which the accused were said to be using at the time of the incident. All the said witnesses had turned hostile and had not supported the case of the prosecution, in spite of which the trial court had come to the conclusion that such recovery was established.
It is further asserted that this appellant had not been apprehended at the alleged spot where the incident is said to have taken place, but was arrested by PW.13, a Police constable, at his house in Shivaji Nagar. There is no explanation as to how the appellant could be connected to the incident. It is clearly a false and concocted case sought to be foisted on the appellant.
It is contended that it is the case of the prosecution that this appellant, accused no.5, had lead PW.19, the Investigating Officer (10), along with the Panch witnesses, PW.3 and PW.4, to his house and had handed over a pistol, two magazines, three 0.135mm cartridges and a rexine bag, as recorded under Exhibit P.5. However, the panch witnesses have not supported the said document and it is hence inexplicable that the court below has yet accepted the case of the prosecution, only on the basis of the evidence of PW.19.
The contentions on behalf of Accused no.2 , the appellant in Criminal Appeal 833/2008, Accused no.3, the appellant in Criminal Appeal 930/2009 and Accused no.4, the appellant in Criminal Appeal 849/2009, are similar to the contentions raised on behalf of Accused no.1, as the very infirmities and glaring contradictions highlighted therein, would equally apply to this appellant as well. Except that there are more direct allegations of overt acts against Accused no.1.
In the light of the above contentions, the respective learned counsel appearing for the appellants pray that the appeals be allowed and the impugned judgments be set aside.
4. The learned State Public Prosecutor seeks to justify the impugned judgments.â
5. On a close perusal of the record and on hearing the rival contentions - without having to repeat the facts as alleged by the prosecution, which is, in any event, summarized hereinabove, a significant feature to be noted is that there have been three independent trials conducted against the accused in respect of the same incident. Each trial was presided over by a different judge, but they have consistently answered two common points framed for consideration in rendering their respective judgments, namely :
(1)Â whether it was proved that the accused had assembled near a "go kart" paviiion, within the Bangalore Palace Grounds at 9-40 PM on 8.5.2004 and had armed themselves with deadly weapons and were plotting to commit dacoity;
(2)Â Whether it was proved that the accused, who had assembled there, were associated as a gang to habitually commit dacoity; (Paraphrased for convenience).â
In all the three judgments under scrutiny, the above two points (worded differently of course) have been answered in the negative. But however, the further acts of the accused, excepting the acts alleged against accused no.5, as claimed by the prosecution, have been held proved. And therein lies the choke. In that, this court is not convinced about the very presence of the accused at the time and place as alleged and the manner in which the police are said to have confronted them, let alone the subsequent events, which are even more dramatically depicted.
The following are some of the grey areas in the case of the prosecution, which would throw a serious doubt about the very incident having taken place in the manner sought to be depicted.
i. The time at which the incident is said to have taken place is 9-40 PM and the place was the Bangalore Palace Grounds, vaguely described as behind the Fun World amusement park and near the 'go kart' pavilion. The Palace grounds are vast, but the police were able to zero in on the accused without any difficulty. The terrain of the spot is not detailed, it is left to one's imagination. Was it an open area ?, Was it accessible by any motorable path or road?, Was it wooded, to offer cover for the several police men to approach the accused, unseen and unheard, to within hearing distance - while claiming that the policemen themselves could recognize each and every one of the accused and could also hear who was saying what.
ii. It is stated that Accused no.1 was sitting in a car with its headlights on. Four others were said to be standing outside the vehicle. This would mean all the accused were behind the glare of the headlights, and could possibly be noticed as dark silhouettes, provided the policemen were approaching them from behind the glare of the headlights. If they were on the other hand facing the glare of the headlights, in an ill lit and dark area, they would see nothing behind the head lights. Did the policemen converge in a circle around the accused or proceed as a group with lathis in hand. These aspects are not forthcoming from the record.
iii. It is difficult to accept the allegation that the accused were plotting dacoity in raised voices with the car headlights on. On the other hand, it is doubtful whether the car was there at all. For it is not the case of the prosecution that it belonged to any of the accused or that they had stolen or borrowed the same. The registered owner of the car was a prosecution witness - who has stated that the CCB Police had requisitioned the car from her two days after the incident.!
iv. Were there no other people in the area, what about security guards or watchmen who would have atleast come to investigate, what with gun fire and shouted attacks with machetes and truncheons and when the night was still early, at least for dacoits. It is also claimed that there was moonlight, the police should be aware that traditionally dacoits have avoided moon lit nights for their activity.â
v. The car was said to be a Ford Ikon, it is a modem car with a highly responsive acceleration power, if the car had shot forward to make a getaway, it would certainly be driven in a manner to unnerve a police man trying to block its path, which could also be seen as an attempt to murder, though death would not be certain - if he is merely bumped out of the way. In any case PW.8, having shot out the tyres of the car and having brought it to a halt, the car is later said to have been taken to the police station. Were the flat tyres changed or was the car driven or towed to the Station house - with the flat tyres, unchanged?. There is no evidence of the damage caused to the car.
Even if it could be said that the above are aspects, which the defence, at best, could have addressed in seeking to discredit the prosecution case and not for an appellate court to raise, especially in the light of the trial court in three independent opinions having accepted the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime. The subsequent acts, which again are held established most certainly, cannot be sustained in the light of the several inconsistencies and unexplained circumstances, apart from other circumstances, which cannot be reasonably accepted.
The accused were alleged to be notorious criminals, against whom several cases were said to be pending. This was especially urged against accused no.1 by emphasizing that a red cornered look out notice was issued by even the Interpol against him. But no evidence was tendered of any case pending against any of the accused. On the other hand, it was the defence claimed by the accused that along with the initiation of these proceedings by lodging the case in Crime no. 172/2004, yet another case in Crime no. 179/2004 was instituted on the same day. The witnesses in this case were also the witnesses in that case. The same had been tried before the Court of Sessions as case no.SC 211/2005 and had resulted in an acquittal. This was suppressed by the prosecution. To compound matters - when witness after witness was questioned as to whether the above circumstance was true. The witnesses had feigned ignorance, or worse, one had even denied the same. This is certainly a circumstance, which could not have been ignored by the trial court. This is especially so, when the prosecution has not thought it fit to explain the background in which that other case was filed and the reluctance on the part of the witnesses to even acknowledge that there was such a case.
This coupled with the further circumstance that the complainant had taken treatment for the injuries said to have been suffered by him, a day after the incident. The doctor who had treated him had been examined as PW.18, he has admitted that the place of the incident was recorded as " Malleswaram", as on 9.5 2004. But it was altered as "Sadashivanagar", as on 7.7.2004. This correction was said to have been made on the day the wound certificate was issued.
The fact that there are no independent witnesses to support the case of the prosecution, it required the standard of evidence tendered through the several official witnesses be of an unimpeachable nature. But the very sequence of events is not convincingly portrayed. On the other hand, it is demonstrated that the testimony of the several witnesses is ridden with inconsistencies and infirmities which does not evoke the confidence of this court to hold that the prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The glaring incongruity is the naivety, with which the prosecution has sought to attribute a notoriety of epic proportions to the accused who were said to be armed to the teeth with deadly weapons and were not hesitant to commit murder and then to glibly contend that such notorious men could be tamely disarmed by truncheon or lathi wielding policemen, with minimal damage to themselves except minor cuts and bruises.
The seizure of the material objects produced as evidence against the accused is not supported by the Mahazar witnesses. In this regard, the only basis on which Accused no.5 has been convicted for Offences punishable under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act and was acquitted in respect of the other charges. The finding is only on the basis of the alleged recovery made of the incriminating materials from his residence. As the said accused was not one who was claimed to have been arrested at the alleged spot and since his conviction is only on the above basis, the seizure mahazar not being supported by the independent witnesses thereto - cannot be relied upon to sustain the conviction.
In the light of the above circumstances referred to by this court, the conviction of the accused for the offences alleged cannot be sustained.
The appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on each of the accused are set aside. The accused are acquitted. The bail bonds furnished by the accused stand cancelled. The fine amounts, if any, paid by the accused shall be refunded.
Shri Mohammed Mujassim, who was appointed as amicus curiae, for the appellants in Criminal Appeal 849/2009, Criminal Appeal 930/2009, Criminal Appeal 838/2008 Criminal Appeal 1586/2007 shall be paid a fee of Rs.5,000/- each case.