'-". ..^^ ."""- -•-~T.^':1^' ••a's< 'i,'%, •?;^j*s^fe. ^ *"'"Eai¥i sj ./ .'^ ?^' ^r tei^lwil' n| HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT »LASPUR fSB: Hon'bte Mr.T.P.Shama.J.l Criminal ABoeal No. 607 of2008 APPELLANTS Reman atias Raman and another VERSUS RESPONDBIT State of ChhEfttisgarh APPELUWTS Criminal Aoneal No. 671 of 2008 AjayDubey andanother VERSUS RESPONDENT StateofChhattisgarh APPELLANTS Criminal Appeal No. 712 of 2008 Muk^h Tiwari RESPONDENT VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh APPELLANTS Crimnnal Apoeal No. 633 of 2008 Battu at@s Balram VERSUS RESPONDENT SteteofChhattisgarft Q- JUDQMBfl- BE POSTBB TOR PRONOUNCEMEWT ON A ^.2008 Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge HtGJl' ;OFCHHATTISOARHAT BILASPUR FSB: Hon'bleMr.T.P.Sharma.J.l Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 2008 APPELLANTS 1. RESPONDENT 2. VERSUS Reman alias Raman, S/o Harilal Bhandekar, Aged about 26 years, R/o Village Sonesarar, P.S. Khairagarh, DistrictRajnandgaon (C.G.) Uttam S/o Salltek Ram Bangde Aged about 42 years, R/o Ganjipara, Khaiiagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, DisbictRajnandgaon, C.G. Shri G.S. Ahluwalia counsel forthe appellants. Shri R.R. Sinha P.L. for the respondent/State. Criminal ADDKII tto. 671 of 2008 APPE1.LAJWS 1. 2. VERSUS RESPONDENT Ajay Dubey son of Prakash Narayan Dubey, aged about 26 years, resident of village Bajrangpur Police Station City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, C.G. Dayanand alias Golu son of Ishwar Dewangan aged about 21 years, resident of village Bajrangpur Navagaon, Poltee Station City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, C.G. State of Chhattisgarh through Police StaUon City Kotwati, Rajnandgaon, DisbrictRajnandgaon, C.G. Shri Miiza Hafeez counsel for the appellants. Shri R.R. Sinha P.L. forthe respondent/State. Criminat Appeal No. 712 of 2008 APPEU.ANT Mukesh Tiwari S/o Bakleo Prasad Tiwari, aged about 24 years, R/o Village Dhaneli, Police Station Khairagarh, / c l^»VS3Sf, ^ ^ss.Bvsa^ g '^ ^^/ ^s^' — 2-— c;' VERSUS RESPONDENT District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) State of ChhatUsgarti throi<|h ttie District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon. Shri RavindraAgrawal counselfortheappellant. Shri R.R. Sinha P.L. forthe respondentffitate. Crimmal tooeal No. N3 of 2808 APPELLANT VERSUS RESPONDENT Ballu alias Balram S/o late Lal Das Sahu ^ed about 19 years, R/o Vrtlage Indamara Hal Dhangaon, P.S. Lalbagh, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (CG) State of ChhatUsgarh ftrough PoUce Station City Ifetwali, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon, C.G ShriSatish Verma counsel for the appellant. Shri R.R. Sinha P.L. for the respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEALS UNDERSECTION 374(21 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JUDGMENT (&.9.206% Since all the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 24.6.2009 passed by fte Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No. 10/2008, they are disposed <rf by this common judgment. 2. These Criminat Appeals ( CrA. 607/2008, 67100)8, 7122008 and 633Q008 ) are directed sgatostthe judgment of convictton and order of sentence dated 24.6.2008 passed by the Sessions Juclge Rajnandgaon, in SessionsTrial No. 10Q008 whereby accused/appellante Dayanand alias Golu has been convicted for the offence punishable - -5 ~^v ^^ / -/ /' under seetion 489 (a), 489 (c) and 4^ (d) oftbe Indian Penal code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five yeats and pay fine of Rs. 2000/- u/s 489 (a), to undergo rigorous imprisonment for threeyears and pay fine of Rs. 2000!- u/s 489 (c) and to undeigo rigorous imprisonment-for five years and pay fine of Rs. 2(KX)/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo simpte imprisonnient for two months fcr eachoffence. Accused/appellants Ajay Dubey and Mukesh Tiwari have been convicted under sections 489 (b) and 489 (e) of the tndian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for flve yeare and pay flne of Rs. 2000/- each u/s489 (b) and to undergo rigorous imprisenment for three yeare and pay fine of Rs. 20001- each u/s 488 (c) of 8ie Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine they shall undergosimpl* imprisonment for two months each on each count. Accused/appellants Reman Mandekar, Uttam and Ballu alias Balram have been convicted under sections 489 (c) (rfthe IncHan Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigoreus imprisonment for three yeare and pay flne of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each. Sentencw imposed on atl the accused/appellants shall run concurrently. 3. The judgment of the trial Court is chaltenged on Uie ground ttat without there being any credibte and retiabte evidence regarding the fect thatthe applicants were in possession ofttie fake or counterfeit currwicy notes having the knowtedge that the currency notes whteh wers counterfeit or fake, the trtal Court had committed an illegalily by conivicting and sentencing them as aforementioned. / -^- <t. ^a...^....-^" ^'^•^/ *^e,ass«< 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on ^.11.2007 when Investigating Officer Pramod Rusiya, Assistant Sub Inspector, District Crime Branch, Rajnandgaon, was on patrotling duty, he received an information that at vittage Bajrangapur Navagaon, accusetfappetlant Ajay Dubey was possessing counterfeit currency notes. 1-te recerded the Roinamcha Ex. P-30 and went to the spot i.e. viltage Bajran^ur Navagaon where he calted Panch witnesses namely Kamlesh Dewangan PW-3) and G^ineshwar Mishra (PW-4). Accusec^appellant A|ay Dubey informed him regarding Ihe possessfon of Computer, Printer, Pencil, Watennark paper witti accused/appellant Dayanand aBas Golu. Counterfeit currency notes were in his possession and also in possesaon of accused/appellante BaBu alias Balram, Mukesh, Dayanand altas Golu, Reman and Uttam. Dehatt Nalishi Ex. P-2A was recorded. Accused/appetlant Ajay Dubey made disclosure statement about the possession of computer, printer, watermark paper, pencil with accused/appellant Dayanand alias Golu. Accused/appellants Dayanand, Mukesh, Baltu, Reman andUBamwere having counterfeit cun'ency notes of 500 and 100 denominations in their shops vtele Ex. P-3. On the basis of his diselosure statement he produced 10 counterfe'rt curreney notes of 500 denomination and 46 counterfeit currency notes of 100 denominNion. Same were recovered vide Ex. P-7. Accusect/appellant Dayanand alias Golu made disclosure statement that he was in possession of computer, printer, pencil, counterfeit curreney notes of 100 denomination. l-te also stated in the disctosure statement that accusedteppsllarts Reman, Ajay Dubey and Uttam were also possessing counterfeit currancy notes vide Ex. P-5. He produced 8 counterfeit currency notes of 100 denwninatfon, L.G. monitor, CPU, Key board, printer, scanner, copier and mouse whieh were reeovered vide Ex. P-9. Accused/appellantReman macte disclosure slatement Ex. P-4 relating to 4 counterfeit currency notes of 500 -^~- ,/v o' / denomination in his shop Ex. P-4. Investigating OfRcer Pramod Rusiya atong with witnesses and accusect Reman went to his shop at Gol Bazar, Khairagarh where he produced 4 counterfeit ciarency notes of 5CX) denominaBon which were recovered vide Ex. P-10. Aceused/appellant Mukesh Tiwart made disclasure statement regarding f»ssessionof three counterfeit curreney notes of 500 denominaUon and 25 caunterfeit currency notes of 100 denominatton vide Ex. P-3 and produced the same which reeovered vide Ex. P-8. On tt»basis of disclosure statements of accused/appellant Ajay Dubey (Ex. P-3) and Dayanand alias Golu (Ex. P-5) he went to the hou^ of aecused/appellant Ballu at vilage Dhangaon where he produced tuvo counterfeit currency notes <rf ^X) denomination and 14 counterfeit currency notes of 100 denomination which were recovered vide Ex. P-11. Onttiebasisofdisclosurestatement of accused/appeltant /yay Dubey and Dayanand Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-5 respecUvely, he went to the house of accused/appellant Uttam at Civit Lines, Khairagarh where he produced 12 counterfeit currency notes of 500 denomination. 5. All the accused/appellarrtswere arrested victe arrest memos Ex. P- 14 to Ex. P-19. IntimaUonof arrest wassent to the relartwes of the accused persons vide Ex. P-23 to P-27. InvesUgating Oflicer issued notice Ex. P-22 to accused Dayanand alias Golu for produetion of reeeiptfeill for the instruments recovered from his possession. After recoveryof counterfeit notes currency, DehatiNalishi Ex. P-2A alongwith the documents was sent to Police StaBon, Kotwati through constabte Tularam (PW-2) where FIR Ex. P-2 was recorded. Investgattng Officer Pramod Rusia recoided Rojnamcha vide Ex. P-29 atter r^um frwn the spot. Seized currency notes were sent to the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, IVIain Branch, Rajnandgaen for exaniinatfon on 1.12.2007 vide Ex. P-1 where B.N. Dhali 03W-1) opined that the said -6- currency notesbe sentto Rweive Bank of India fw examination. ^Qam on 6.12.2007 they were sent for examinatkwi to hira and he opined that the currency notre appeared to be counterfeit and ttierefore, they were sent to Currency Note Press at Nasik vide Ex. P-20, receipt thweof is Ex. P-21 and atterexamination ofthesamebyV.G. Maruthe r^»ortEx. P-28 was submitted in wrtiteh he opined that alt the currency notes were counterfeit and fake. After recofrfing the statements of ttie wltnesses under secUon 161 oftheCode of Criminal Procedure and completton of the invesfigatton', charge sheet was fited in the Court o( Judicial Magistrate First Ctass, Rajnandgaon who in tum eommitted the case to the Court of Session, Rajnandgaen where he undertook thetrial. 6. In order to prove the guilt <rf the accused/appelants the prosecuUon haseiaminedas many as eightwitnesses. Statomentsof the accused persons were recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminat procedure in whteh they denieet the circumstances appearing againstthem and slated that they are innocent and have been falsely impHcatect in the crime in quesSon. 7, Afler hearing coun»lfor ttie psries and pwuang the evidence adduced by them leamed trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appeltants as mentioned above. 8. Heard counsel fcr the respective parttes and perused e material availabte on record Including the judgment impugned. 9. It is argued by the counsel for the accused/appetlante that Vne prosecution has feiled to acktuce any evidence relattng to the (act that the accused/appeltantswerehavingknowledgethatthecun-encynoteswhidh theywere possessingwere ttie counteffeitandttieywere intending to i»e the same as genuine. It is further a^ued that no independent witness, not ^ / •7— ^ 0"-;" even the police officer has supported the case of the prosecution. B.N. Dhati (PW-1) who is a Bank Officer has specffically stated in his evtdence that thatcurrency notes wereproduced before him in a sealed packeton 1.11.2007 and 6.12.2007. In paragraph No. 5 this witness has speciricaliy stated that one month and flve days after 1.11.2007, the same curreney notes were agwrv produced before him. Aecording to the case of the prosecutton the inctdenttook place on2&.11.2007 and prier to tt»atday i.e. on 1.11.2007 it could not have beenpossibte to produce ttie altegedly seized currency notes before the Bank Officer. Itshows that ttie entire prosecution story is concocted one. It is argued that the convictton can rest on the sole testimony of the police officer but in such cases, sfrict scruUny of the material available on record is required. In this case even the Potice Officer has not complied the procedure prescribed and rather deviated from rt. Therefore, the statement of the police offlcer being unfrustworthy does not inspireconfictence. It is further argued that the entire statement recorded under sscUon 27 of the Evidence Act is not admissible and only relevant portion regarding diseovwy of fact is admissibte. Reliance is ptaced onthe decision of Supreme Court in the matter of GeeiaaandaSomiah V. State of Kamataka n which it has been held that discoveiy of faet pursuartt to ^ateraei* gives some guaranteethatinfBrmationistrue.Relevantportionreadsasunder: 'TheCourt mustensure theCTedibintyofevidence by police because this provision is vulnerabte to abuse. It <loes not, however, mean that any statement made in tenns of the afoFBsaid section should be seen with susfrfcion afri it cannot b& discarded onty on the ground tfta* it was made to a police ofRcer during investigation. The Court has to be eautiousthatnoefftntismadebythe prosecution tomake AIR 2007 SC 1355 -8- out a statement of accused with a simpte case of recoveiy as a case of discovery of fact in order to attract the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act." 10. Further reliance is placedon the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Umashanker V. State of Chhattisaarh 2 in which it has been held that knowing or having reasons to believe that currency-notes or bank-notes are forgedorcounterfe'rt and buying or receiving from anofcer person or otherwise trafRcking in or usingas genuine or also possessing or even intending to use any forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank- notes is not sufFlcient to make out a case under secUon 489-C in the absence of a mens rea. Further reliance is placed on the decisfon of Supreme Court in the matter of BachanSinah and another v. The State of Puniab in which it has been held that by joining two different pieces of two genuine currency notes, would not amount to counterfeiting. Further reliance is placed on the deciston of High Court of Chhattisgarh in ttie matter of Dineshwar alias Munna Y. State of C.G. in which it has been held that for the failure on the part oflfte to prove that the counterfeit notes made by the appellant were resembling the genuine notes and the resemblance was suchas might deceive a pereon and faihjre to eslablish that notes which were half printed on one side on a plain sheet of paper resembled the genuine currency notes in any manner, the accused persons are enliUed for acquittal. 11. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and subm'rtted that accused/appellant Dayanand alias Golu was found in possession of instruments meant for preparation of counterfeit currency notes, computer, printer, scanner etc. Atl the accused persons were found in possession of the ftd<e or 2A!R2001SC3074 31982 Cri.L.J. 32 4 2006(3)cau 340 ^ ^ -9- counterfeit currency notes of 500 and 100 denomination. They did not offer any explanation as to how theygot the same. He further argued that though the Panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution yet they are not the stock wttnesses. They have admitted their signatures over more Ihan 15 documents and they have not stated whether they signed the said papers under fear or pressure of Police. Statementofthe Investigating OfRcer is trustworthy inspires confidence. Pramod Rusia (PW-6) has spwifically stated about the incident in detail which is sufRcient to draw an inference that accused/appellants possessed the courrtBrfe'rt currency notes with the intention to circulate them as genuine ones. Asfar as slatementoT B.N. Dhali (PW-1) is concemed, he has stated that flretty the currency notes were sent to him on 1.11.2007 and thereafter on 6.12.2007. But in fact the document itself was prepared on 1.12.2007 by A.S. Thakur (PW-8) who has specificalty stated in paragraph 7 of his evidence that he sent the currency notes to State Bank of India, Main Branch, Rajnandgaon on 1.12.2007 ter e) imination and the date mentioned as 1.11.2007 is only a clerical error and it should have beenwritten as 1.12.2007. 12. In order to prove the guittofthe accused/appetlante the prosecution is required to establish the foltowing essentiat ingredients: (i) Accused/appellant Dayanand alias Golu counterfeited the currency notes resembting to the genuine ones and the resemblance was such ttiat a perewi might be deceived thereby; counterfeit currency notes were found in possession of the accused/appellants on ttie date of incident. They were having the knowtedge ftat ttie currency notes possessed bythem were counterfeit ones; ("O / 1& (iv) They were possessing the coimterfeit currency notes with an intention to circulate the same to be genuine. 13. It is not disputed by the counsel for the accusedyappeltants that the currency notes recovered from the accused/appeilants were counterfeit and fake. B.N. Dhali ^>W-8) who was the Chief General Manager inthe State BSnk of India, Main Branch, Rajnandgaon has atso stated that he examined the currency notes produced before him by uttraviolet machine and fteywere notfound to be genuinevide Ex. P-1. Thereafter, they were sent to Currency Note Press, Naslk vide Ex. P-20whteh were received thereby vide Ex. P-21. The said currency notes were examined by V.G. Maru, Class I Gazetted OfRcer who vide report Ex. P-28 opined Ihat the currency notes of 500 and 100 denomination were counterfeit. He is a Ctass \ Gazetted Otficer posted in the Currency ^tote Press, Nasik and his report is admissible under secUons 292 and 293 oftheCode ofCriminal Procedure and no formal proof is required. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecuUon to this effect estabtish^ that the currency notes in question were examined and found to be eounterfieitand Take. 14. As regards the possession of counterfeitcurrency notes with accused/appellante, Pramod Rusia (PW-6) has Gategoricaltystatsd in his evidenee that on 26.11 .2007 at about 7 a.m. he received information from some informant that some persons were possessing fate currency notes at Bajrangpur Navagaon vitlage. After recording Rqnamcha Ex. P-30 he went to the spot where he called Kamtesh Dewangan (PW P-3) and Gyaneshwar Mishra (PW-4). He catled accused/aniellant ^ay Dubey and took him into cu^ody. On interrogation, accused/appetlant Ajay Dubey made disclosure statement Ex. P-3 ttiat accused/appettants Dayanand alias Golu, Ballu, Mukesh Reman, Uttam and he himsetf were in possession offake currency notes. Dehatt NalishiEx. P-2A was reeorded. On the basis of disctosure statement, aasused Ajay Dubey produceet 10 fakecurrencynotes of 500 denominaflon and 46 fake currency notes of 100 denomination vide Ex. P-7. On ttie basts of mformafion glven by accused Ajay Dubey, he calted accused/appellant Dayanand alias Golu and oninterrogation he also made disctosure statement of possessionof LG monter, scanner, printer, copier, pencil and feke currency not^ witti him. He also diselosed that accused/appellants Mukesh, Battu, Reman and Uttam were atso possessing fake currency not^ vide Ex. P-5. On the basis of this disctosure statement, he produced Siree genuine currency notes of 500 denomination, LG monitor, CPU, printer, scanner, mouse and 8 feke currency notes of 100 denomination wtnch were recovered under Ex. P-9. On the basis of disclosure statement of aforesaid two accused/appellants, this wltness went to village Dhaneli along witti the witnesses and called accused Mukesh Thwari and tnok Wm into custody. On interrogation, he made disclosure statement that h®was possessing three fake curreney notes of 500 denominaBon and 25 fake currency notes of 100 denommation wde Ex. P-6 which were recovered vide Ex. P-8. He also stated that he went to Khairagarh alongwith wtaesses, eatled accused Reman and took him into custody. On interrogaBon he made disclosure stetement that he was having 4 fake currency notes of 500 denomination vide Ex. P-4 which were recovered on producBon vide Ex. P-10. This wttn^s also stated that he called aecused Uttgam Who produced 12 fakecurrencynotes of 500 denomination whksh were seeed vide Ex. P-12 and Ex. P-13. Thereafter, he went tovillage Dhangaon along with witnesses and caltedaccused/appellant Bdtu who produced 2 fake currency notes of 500 denominaUon which were seized vide Ex. P-11. 15. Accused/appellante were arrested vide Ex. P-14 to P-t9 and irrtimaBon to this effect was gwen to their relaBves vide Ex. P-23 to -13-- (S^ P-26. He sentall the documents and currency notes to Police Staton Kotwali, Rajnandgaon through constable Tularam and Rojnamcha was reeorded. PW-3 Kamlesh Dewangan and PW-4 Gyaneshwar Mishra are the Panch witnesses. Both the Panch witnesses have stated that Uiey are motorcycle mechanics and residents of Bajrangpur Nawigaon viBage and they have signedthe papereatttie instarase of Police. Gyaneshwar (PW-4) used to repair the motoreycles ofthe Poliee OfRcere and they have signed the papers at their in^ance. These witnesses have been declared hosUte. In cross examinaUon they have admitted their photographs attached to the documente. They have not dated anything that they are the stock witnesses or ftey signed more than 15 papere under threat or pressure of the Police. They are not new to the police as they used to repar thdr motorcycles and without any reason they signed the papere when they were so asked by the Police. Dealing with the identical provision under the NDPS Act in the matter of Ghasita Sahu V. State of Madhva Pradesh the ApexCourt has held that in the absence of any suggestion thatftey are the stwk witnesses or they have signed the Panchnama under the fear or pressure of the police, their negaBve statement does not affect the credibility of the documents and statements of the othet witnesses. In the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Udai Lal it has been held by the Apex Court that unless it is stated by the witnesses that they have put their signature on the documente after being put under terror or pressure or wittiout their free consent,their evidence cannot be discarded. 16. Pramod Rusiya (PW-6) has specifically stated that at Bajrangpur Navagaon, he called Panch witnesses namely Kamtesh Dewangan (PW-3) and Gyaneshvrar Mishra (PW-4) wrtio are the residents of that S2008AIRSCW1435 '2008AIRSCW3495 -/3- village. These Panch witnesses have not stated anywhere that friey are residente of ttie area within the jurisdictton of Aiusuchit Jati Kalyan Thana but they have stated themseh/es to be the residents of Bajrangpur Navagaon. Itreveals that when the Investigating Offeer proceeded for the spot, Panch witnesses did not accompany him, they are not r^idents of the area near Anusueh'rt Jati Kalyan Thana. Ramod Rustya (PW-^ has taken sufficierrt precaufion by calting the Panch wHnesses from the local'rty but they have not supported the case of the prosecutton. In this circumslance, only the substantial rtatement of police offieers remains for consideration. Evidence of Pramod Rusiya aid other police officars cannot be discarded on the ground that they are pottee offieers and interested in theoutcome of the case. In the matter of Anil alias Andva Sadashiv Nandoskar v. State of Maharashtra it has been held by the Apex Courtttiat wttnesses belng police officers does not by itsetf create a doubt about their creditworthiness if non examinsrtion of Panch witnesses is explained satisfactorily. Relevant portion reads as under: "Incteed all fhe five prosecuffon wit/wsses who have been examined in support of search and aeizure were memfaers of <fte rasSng pariy. They are aff poffce ofScials. There is, hawever, no rule ofhwthatffw ewdeiwe of poSce oHiciats has to be dfscansfed or iat it suffers from some inherent inffmiity. Prudence, hawever, requres Vhat Vhe ewdence of ffte police officials, who are fnterested in ttw outeome c^the resuff of (he case, neecte to be carefulty scmtinized and independentty appreciated. The police aShsials cto not suflfer ffom any {Ssability te give evktence asid the mer®hct ffiiat they aie poRce offlcfafe cfoes not by itself gf'xe rise to any doubt abotrf (heir crecStworthiness. We have careMly and criScally anatysed (fte ewdeoce of all ffw 5 poSce offic/afe. Thwe is nolHng on the recoid to sftow that eny one of them was hosfffe to the appe/fert and cfespfte lengfiy cioss- examination thsr evidence has lemainecS unshaten 'AIR 1996 SCW 2943 youBd sif) fo uoifBuiwexa uou aiff fo asneoaq /Ouotflne jo asuaoff ou eonpcud CT/K» ey y3?ym jq^ sa^M^eo pue ^ayoiAau ^pBtu A^unoa atffjo iueiffscWB sy; uau; ASIAOOSU sffl pue 4/Btf 6u<p(B/ 914 /g anzias pue ywBas stfl '{UBiiadde aiff fo uoisuQifwddB stff q fiuflB/a* uoi&iaA uoiyiaosaid ay; fo sssiyaauoa wff ^qnqp c»uoseai Xue puif fou ap 'eucyaotfl 'a/M '/iBifaci ^tff u; spBtu ^qys SUQBilP a»Ksfesppsoe^ aq ^ou pfnoo sy»ogB6uayM^otfl pue ifwess p sfufl stfl <B (usy? Aq paiisiu/tv ssaippe Qtff yaf peif Aai# {Biff {oef atD jo iunoaae uo paijSf }M) iBUt aift ye u/sy; aonpcud pue soai) af vwa yOarta ^peiu <( aows sassai^tM ssatfl Buif^oiiiffjM fo pasnaoe aq }OUUK> uognosscuda(/j[ 'asBO uoffna^Qtd aiy w ^uap /ue paiea/a fou sey sncfl /BU) Stfl <& uoifanpojd uou jotu. 'UOSBSU anfe/qo /fue ^o funooae uo aq o; pies w) ysuuea SBtfouBd o^ atft fo uoiiBUiuiBxa uou 9tff 'p-Md f° uoffBUjtuexa ssaio efff Buunp paBu^ft^aun ^iBn^iA pouiewaj SBII ifoiitM fo sssu}3auioo aq) 'p^ 'xsyodw w paf^s staef 9tft /o 83^ Qtif U{ •IBU} aiff fB paiiuuexaaq }ou [^noa ASID 'acysuatfl pue paaait jo papeaq aq fou p/noo /eifl 'iuay) auas ai AouaBe fiuflnosscud stfl Aq apeui s^qys ^uaSi/p aydsap 'ja^awoH 'aotspuw awB c» psuouauns pue ssssstflim uoanaasaKl se p^ia OS/B aue /siu -psuio/' os SUSAI Xay; pue amztas pue qawas fo osus w^ fe seyouBc/ iuapua<fopu! OM} tUStfl tfflM Upf 0» s^oi/a atfsoufs qpetu ^erf Buipiw scff te{# SMOtis Ftiosai aiff uo aau^pna SKU •XmpEysflBs Sl {XBWOflSQ Td p-AU ^ PW PZ •X3 vodai sifl Aq patioddns si tfaiifM 'sassauaM ifauscf OMJ sifl^o uoflBuituexs -uou stff jqf 'uoyisasofd atff Aq uaufi uoifBueidxa ayi 'wnqp s/gBuosesu /UB puafaq uoymascud at# /fq patisiiq^sa uasq sey jueiftdcle aiff jo uoissassod srmissuoa 84; wcuy jwyanw apeiu /C<»um»aiy fo wnzos pue qaess fo wnfaef ay» 'uo^uoFo ^no u/ 'aouapMa jiotD w ^fuuyui 'iefsy euoie }ai 'snou9s Aue yio }uiod o) aiqB uaaq )ou seii tueiiedcfe atf)