G.Ramanathan, Translator. Dated: 25-10-2009.
Translation of the 8th document's photocopy. At the top margin of the document which is in 6 pages handwriting, at the 1st pages, the continuity page number 59 and at the 5th pages, the continuity page number 63 are given:-
Statement given by Mr. D. Ashokan, working in the designation of Circle Inspector at the Police Station Harippad:
Since the date 6-3-09, I had taken over the responsibility of Circle Inspector at the Police Station Harippad. On date 13-5-09 during morning time 9.45'o clock; the Crime No. 275 of 2009 u/s 379 of IPC, of the Police Station Harippad had been registered by (the Police Personnel) Mr. Baiju of the place Harippad; relying upon the statement given by Mr. Sreekesh, aged 27 years, who had been working at the M/s Bhima Jewellers; son of Mr. Muralidhara Pai, resident of house named Priya Veetil, TC 54/474, Village Nemam, District Thiru-vanantha-puram; who had came to the Police Station to record the complaint/ statement; that Gold weighing 4 kilograms had been lost from his custody/ possession, while traveling in the KSRTC (= Kerala State Road Transport Corporation) Bus; while he had been carrying that, from the house of the owner of M/s Bhima Jewellers, to the Shop where he had been working at the Place Kollam/ Quilon. On that particular day I had been on duty at the Magistrate Court, Neyattin-Kara. Since the date 14-5-09, I had taken over the responsibility of investigating the said case. On dates 15th, 16th, and 17th; I had been doing the duty related to Law and Order related to Result declaration of the Parliament Elections. In this case, following persons had been Checked (examined/ questioned) by me (in person) and through other Policemen: the previously convicted accused persons and individuals who had the chance of doing this offence because of their criminal background. I had read/ perused the Statement which had been recorded by Mr. Sreekesh, I had asked him questions, observed his behaviour/ conduct, and examined the Bag which had been produced by him; from these all I had a lot of doubts/ suspicions. I could understand that, the said bag had been torn off using a scissors. Following averments had been found to be not believable: that he could not know/ sense the loss of 4 kgs of Gold, and he had kept Gold in his possession and slept while sitting in the Bus. Because in the Statement given by Mr. Sreekesh, it is told that, from the place Ambalapuzha, 3 or 4 persons had boarded the bus, and they had created troubles for him by doing push and pull crowding activities (“unthum thallum” words in Malayalam = crowd), for a period of approximately 10 minutes. For a Super-fast Bus to travel from the place Ambala Puzha, to the place Harippad, only 15 minutes are sufficient. If the Statement given by Mr. Sreekesh is correct, he could have slept only for 5 minutes. It is not possible to reach the physical condition of deep-sleep within 5 minutes; and within that time it is not possible to open the Zip of the Bag; within that time by using Hand, the Bag had been torned-off using Blayixxx (Note:- it is an important/ crucial word, which did not come completely in photocopy, at the right side end of the last but 2 line of the page 2 of this statement, only two Malayalam Alphabets had came: Bla and Yi, it may mean “Blade”, however, the complainant Mr. Sreekesh had alleged use of Scissors, as can be read from the Statements which had been translated till now, thus to prevent confusion the word “Blayixxx” is used – Translator); and the Gold had been stolen, this allegation which is told cannot be believed. Because of above reasons I had strong suspicions about Mr. Sreekesh. The statement of fact that, after collecting the Gold, he had spend approximately 15 minutes inside the Kalyana Mandapam (= permanently constructed marriage solemnizing halls) had been known/ confirmed through the Person doing Security Duty at the said place. After the happening of the incident, when-ever I had called/ summoned him, Mr. Sreekesh had appeared before me at the Office. He had been coming and going back, while residing (temporarily) at some of his Relatives house, at the place Alapuzha. I had been the Investigating Officer for this Case. Following Police Personnels had been assisting me in this case: Mr. Ashokan and Mr. Manoharan, who are working in the Rank of ASI; and Mr. Jaya Chandran and Mr. Sunil who had been working in the Rank of Policemen/ Constables. The Sub-Inspector at the Police Station Harippad also had helped me in the investigation of this Case. To verify the permanently/ previously convicted persons, and to bring the Album of the photographs of the accused persons, I had obtained the help of the Police Personnels of the place Alapuzha Town. The Album of the photographs of the persons accused of the offence of commission of Pick-Pockets and other type of crimes had been brought from the Police Stations of the places Kazhakootam and Alapuzha South and shown to Mr. Sreekesh, during the investigations. Complying the requirement made by Mr. Sreekesh, after taking the consent letter of the said individual, on date 19-5-2009, at the FSL, Thiru-vanantha-puram; he had been produced before the Head of the Polygraph Department; and he had been examined. The Poligraph Expert/ Experts had stated that, approximately 25 questions had been asked, and related to the Case/ Crime what ever were the questions asked, for more than half (50 per cent) of those questions, he had given false answers; and their Report had been received to this effect. This had been told to Mr. Sreekesh and his relatives. It had been wished that, (Mr. Sreekesh) will be taken to the place Bangalore, to subject him for Narco-Analysis Test. On date 23-5-09, during the afternoon time, regarding the suspicions/ doubts arising during the Polygraph test, Mr. Sreekesh had been addressed with more questions. (Note:- it is the 4th page, last 4 lines, at the right side end a few alphabets are not printed in the photocopy, thus a few Important points not known to the Translator, which had been presumed to complete the work – Translator). Prior to the 5'o clock itself Mr. Sreekesh had been SEND BACK ? Had been made (due to missing alphabets, this sentence remains incomplete). Complying the Summons issued, on dates 24-5-09 and 25-5-09, Mr. Sreekesh had arrived. On date xxx-5-09 when he came, he had been accompanied by an Advocate named Ajith from the place Thiru-vanantha-puram. (Important Note: The translator, who is a Practicing Advocate, in the interest of justice, begs to submit that; there is a Contradiction between the Statements of 'Witness Advocate Ajith' and 'Witness/Accused Circle Inspector Ashokan' about this point: Advocate did not speak anything about any incidents after the date 23-5-09; but the Circle Inspector is recording here that, on xxx-5-09 (25-5-09) the said Advocate had accompanied 'the Suspect/ Defacto complainant' to the Police Station and got angry with Police and spoken to Police with angriness; the DySP who had enquired this complaint had failed to bring the said Advocate and CI face to face and bring this point to be explained by both the persons; in the welfare of Advocate Ethics it is prayed that, investigation into this point is necessary to find out, whether 'the Client gave wrong instructions to Advocate and later on discarded the said Advocate'; or whether 'the Policemen had threatened the Advocate prior to the Statement he had made to the Investigating Officer of NHRC Complaint' – Translator). I told the following to Mr. Sreekesh and the Advocate Mr. Ajith: that Mr. Sreekesh is concealing many of the facts, he should be taken into Custody and questioned and he should be taken to Bangalore to subject him for Narco Analysis Test. The Advocate had got angry and asked the following question: whether this individual is the De-facto complainant why you want to subject him for Narco Analysis Test; etc questions had been asked by him. I told boldly/ thoroughly that, even after obtaining the directions of the Court, we (the Police) will subject him for Narco Analysis Test. To this the Advocate had told/ answered that: 'in that case we will see face to face in the Court'. After saying this, the Advocate had taken Mr. Sreekesh with him and went away from my presence/ Police Station (Interpretation: the Translator begs to Interpret the circumstances revealed at this point of this Document, in the interests of justice, that, according to the Facts alleged by the CI, on date xxx-5-09 [25-5-09] the complainant before Hon'ble NHRC, namely Mr. Sreekesh had not at all been questioned by the Police Personnel, the only incident took place is the Exchange of hot/ angry Words between the Advocate for Mr. Sreekesh and the Circle Inspector, and after the exchange of words the Complainant Mr. Sreekesh left in the company of his Advocate. From the Statement recorded by 'witness Dr. Rajesh Kumar' it may be read that, Injured person Mr. Sreekesh had two days old injuries on 26-5-09, but the experienced Circle Inspector could not note any injuries/ weakness upon the person of Mr. Sreekesh on date 25-5-09. The most important point is, if it is to speak only about Narco-Analysis test, it was not at all necessary for the Police to Summon a De-facto complainant to the Police Station; thus the Translator have the honour to Interpret the Incident dated xxx-5-09 [25-5-09] that, many relevant informations had been concealed by the 'accused' before Hon'ble NHRC – Translator). In the matter of Mr. Sreekesh, due to the result of the Polygraph test, very clear doubts/ suspicions had arise, and he wanted to escape/ avoid from the Tests like Narco-Analysis etc, and his part (in the offence) should not be proved through the investigations; it may be with these ulterior motives; due to the instigation/ inspiration (“prerana”) given by the Advocate or any other individual, Mr. Sreekesh had got admitted at the Hospital and had complained that the Police had Tortured him etc. Mr. Sreekesh and other individuals might have made these type of false allegations with the following intention: the Investigation of the Police against the person named Mr. Sreekesh should be made less effective, it may be with this intention, this false allegation had been made. Either myself or any other Police Personnels had not created any type problems or harassment to the said individual.
(Interpretation: in the interest of justice, the Translator beg to do interpretation of this submission made by witness: the accused CI is interpreting the Statute Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154 to the effect that, FIR is written against particular persons and not about theft of 4 kg Gold; and just because a Suspect will allege injuries and get admitted in the Hospital for 10 days, the Police can/ will be black-mailed/ compelled to discard the investigations against the said individual; but continue investigating about the theft of 4 kg gold without questioning the suspect. The Circle Inspector had not told even one word about, how 4008 grams = 501 Sovereign according to Kerala measurement having value of more than Rs.50,10,000/- had been send alone in the hand of an individual, who did not have Breakfast and did not clear his Bowels/ Natural Calls while permitting him to go away taking the said Consignment, and how he had been permitted to travel alone by Public Conveyance without being escorted/ shadowed by another person, and whether the Investigating Officer Circle Inspector had ever suspected the role of owners of the said Gold to cheat the Income Tax/ Wealth Tax Departments. According to the Circle Inspector Ashokan, only Employees will commit theft and not employers thus they need not even be questioned. – Translator).
Sd/- English. D. Ashokan, CI of Police, Place not clear.
Recorded by me. Sd/- 31-5-09. Name not written. Dy SP, Kayamkulam.
/CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE TRANSLATION/
G.Ramanathan, Translator. Dated: 25-10-2009.
Translation of the 9th document's photocopy. At the top margin of the document which is in one page handwriting, the page number 65 is written:-
Statement made by Mr. PM Baiju, working in the designation of Sub-Inspector at the Police Station Harippad:
Since the date 3-3-09, I am working at the Police Station Harippad, in the designation of Sub-Inspector. It was me who had registered the case vide Crime No. 275 of 2009 u/s 379, of the Police Station Harippad; related to the incident of loss of Gold of M/s Bhima Jewellers. The case had been registered relying upon the Statement made by the employee of M/s Bhima Jewellers, namely Mr. Sreekesh. After I had recorded the Statement, the said individual had gone away from the Police Station and I had seen that, related to the investigation of the case, he had been coming to the office of the Hon'ble Circle Inspector of Police. The Circle Inspector of Police had been the Investigating Officer in this case. Either myself or any other Police Personnel had not detained and Tortured Mr. Sreekesh at the Police Station. The Statement etc, given by Mr. Sreekesh had created many doubts in myself. I had spoken those things to the Circle Inspector of Police. I came to know that, regarding the Report of the Ploygraph Test, there are suspicions against this individual. With an ulterior motive to escape from more investigations, he may be making false allegations against the Police Personnels.
(Note:- At the bottom margin, more than one line did not come in the photocopy, thus the signature block of the witness, officer who had recorded the statement and the dates could not be read by the Translator.)
The statement had been read aloud and admitted to be correct.
Sd/- Name and date could not be read.
Recorded by me. Sd/- Name and date could not be read.
/CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE TRANSLATION/
Dated: 26-10-2009.
G.Ramanathan, Advocate, Translator. Enrolment No. Delhi 1282/2000.
=====================================================
Translation of the 10th document's photocopy. At the top margin of the document which is in one page handwriting, the page number 67 is written:-
Statement made by Mr. B. Ashokan, working in the designation of Assistant Sub-Inspector at the Police Station Harippad:
Since the date 7-6-2004, I am working at the Police Station Harippad. On date 28-5-2009, I had reached at the Government Hospital, Perror-Kkada, Thiru-vanantha-puram; and I had recorded the Statement of Mr. Sreekesh. After being informed by the Sub Inspector of the Police Station Perror-Kkada, I had gone there. The Statement of Mr. Sreekesh had been recorded by me according to whatever had been stated by him. In the external appearance, there had been no problems with the said individual. What he had stated is, four Police Personnels who had came from outside had tortured him. The Statement which had been recorded by me was produced by me at the Police Station. The Statement had revealed only Con-Cognizable offences, which cannot be taken cognizance by the Police directly, thus no Case had been registered. The Statement had been entered in the NC Regsiter and that had been filed.
The statement had been read aloud and admitted to be correct.
Sd/- ASI. Mr. B. Ashokan, Assistant Sub-Inspector.
Recorded by me. Sd/- Name and date could not be read.
/CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE TRANSLATION/
/NHRC 55/11/1/09-10/
Dated: 26 October 2009
G.Ramanathan, Advocate, Translator. Enrolment No. Delhi 1282/2000.
========= ============== ================
You have the right to accept or reject or ask to re-write any portion of the Chapters.
Thanking You. Yours truly, G.Ramanathan, 01276-322097.
==============
Deeds and Agreements involving Land:-
The Publisher had given a few Conveyancing Deeds to the Author to correct them and approve for Printing in the Book. While perusing them, this Lecture/ Note are found to be required to be written.
KHASRA NUMBER or SURVEY NUMBER:- Government have Revenue Officials, for each place, which also have various Hierarchy like Police Stations and Post Offices; and at some States like Uttarakhand or certain parts of Uttar Pradesh, the Revenue Officials work as Police Officials also. Their duty is to measure entire land within their jurisdiction and maintain Site Plan or Maps for entire land at their Area. After such measuring, depending upon the directions of State Government of Government of India, each land is allotted a number, which is called “Khasra Number or Survey Number”. In this, the present Owner’s name also will be written.
Why it is legislated that, transfer of Immovable Property is to be Registered is, from the Land Registration Sub-Registrar’s office, the data will go to Revenue Official, and he will write the details of transfer in his Records. It is called Mutation.
In various States, under criminal law, not only Policeman, but also the Revenue Official should visit each place of crime and prepare his own Site Plan. It will ensure that, rightful owner of the said land can be charged for crime or negligence.
In the transfer of Immovable properties, due to this reason, not only Door Number is necessary; but also “Khasra Number or Survey Number” is necessary. In a case handled by the Author, under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act (PVCL Act), the Hon’ble HC of Punjab and Haryana asked the Sale Deed Holder/ Appellant’s Advocate to find out “Khasra Number or Survey Number” from the Exihibit, when said details could not be found, the Appeal was dismissed for that reason only. Reason is, unless said details is there, the Revenue Officials cannot do Mutation, to write Land Holder’s name in Government Record, and he deserves no relief.
This Lecture/ Note is written to ensure that, even when due to oversight the Author himself forgot to write “Khasra Number or Survey Number” at any place, the Students/ Reader of this Book do not forget to write that – Author.
======== ================
JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT
(MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING)
This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is made on 20th August 2007 between M/s Rrr Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Address:… Delhi, a company registered under Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at Address:… Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the first party and M/s Mmm Liaisoning Company Pvt. Limited, a Company registered under the said Act and having its registered office at Address:… Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the second party.
WHEREAS both the parties of the first part and second part and their respective Memorandum of Associations entitled to them to carry on the business in collaboration (Joint Venture or JV). Both the parties of the first part and second part are entitled to enter into collaboration with any person or persons including a Joint Stock company for carrying on the business authorized by their respective Memorandum of Associations.
(NOTE:- THE important point in Legal documents is Unambiguity = without any confusion. It is about the word “Company”. In ordinary life, even a single person may call himself is a “Company”. Even Partnership Firms and Hindu Undivided Families give their own name as “Company”. However, when it comes to entering into Agreements, MOU etc; the term “Company” is an entirely defined Business Organization, Registered under the Companies Act; which is a Legal Person. Please note that, for a Partnership Firm and Private Limited Company, the minimum required members is TWO. However, the Rights and Liabilities are different, between themselves and towards the Society. Thus the Author recommends using the word “Joint Stock Company” at these occasions – Author).
1. That the first party has offered to second party to enter into (Joint Venture) collaboration to develop land owned by first party at Khasra/ Survey Number… Village place:…, Haryana by investing Rs. One Crore in the said project and first party has assured and guaranteed that second party will be entitled to minimum 1% of the invested amount as profit/return (Divident) on investment per month.
2. That the first party has agreed to secure his investment by creating charge over the said property in terms of Section 100 of Transfer of Property Act. Details of the property are narrated in the schedule and Site Map, in separate “deed of charge”, which is Annexure-1 to this MOU.
3. That the first party has assured that this project will be completed within three months and if not completed second party shall be having a liberty to move out of this agreement and his investment will be returned by way of post dated cheque bearing No. …………….. dated…………… for Rs. …………… (In words Rupees……..) dawn on Bank:…………………………………………………………….. which is being given to day as security for return of the invested amount.
4. That the first party has assured profit/return (dividend or interest) of 1% of invested amount per month and has given three post dated cheques towards return on investment for next three months while signing this agreement.
Cheque No. Date Amount
…………. ……. ………
5. That the first party has entered into this agreement with second party to develop his land measuring 2.1 Acres situated at Village Rakba Moja Kansapur, Tehsil Jagadari, District Jamuna Nagar, Haryana and the second party will only invest his money in this project for three months only and the second party has been assured return/profit @ 1% per month on his investment and second party will not involve itself into day to day business and affairs of the first party.
6. However, the Second Party reserves his right to appoint independent observers and Chartered Accountants to examine the Records of the First Party, to ensure that, no efforts will be made by the First Party or it’s Employees to misappropriate money and to defraud the first party. The First Party also welcomes this proposal because it is common in the Business that, it’s rivals will do misleading informations compaign, to create differences of opinion between the parties, either to attract the Second Party/ Investor to their business or for sadistic pleasure; thus having Independent Observers will reduce the scope of future misunderstanding. The Name and complete details of the Persons who are appointed as independent observers and Chartered Accountants to examine the Records of the First Party are given in the Annexure-2 to this MOU. They are liable to be changed if objected by the First Party, with sufficient reasons.
7. That the MOU is being signed for doing business for next three months only starting from today i.e. 20.8.2007 to 20.11.2007 and will not be extended under any circumstances and second party shall at liberty to encash the said cheque dated 20.11.2007 on due date which is being given by first party for repayment of the investment of the second party.
8. That nothing in this MOU shall be constrained to prevent or disable any party hereto to carry on any business in terms of its Memorandum of Association anywhere, none of the party shall have right or concern with the business and internal management of other, subject to exception of what is provided at Point 6, supra.
9. That if any disputes and differences arises, same shall be referred to Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by Second party who will look into the matter in terms of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
(NOTE:- The point written at Para 9 is out of Sychopancy or Chamchagiri and Author do not recommend such a clause. Correct way of appointing an Arbitrator is suggested at another Format in this Book, namely “Agreement to print Books”, which are not repeated for the sake of brevity – Author).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have put their respective hands the day, date and year hereinabove written.
Signed and delivered for and WITNESS
On behalf of the within named
M/s Rrr Constructors Pvt. Ltd., 1.
Address:… Delhi by its Director
Nnn duly authorized in that
behalf by the Board of Director in
presence of.