Friday, August 24, 2012

Age of the ink in a document can not be defined….Latest Judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

Hitherto the legal position is that, age of the ink in a document can be ascertained and such facility is available at the Forensic Department(CFSL), Hyderabad.  Even this blog reported the same (http://thevsklawfirm.blogspot.in/2011/04/age-of-ink-can-be-traced-by-expert.html).

But, as per the latest judgment delivered on 18.7.2012 by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, no such facility is available in the country at present.

The said judgment is given below. It is also available at http://judis.nic.in/judis_chennai/qrydisp.aspx?filename=60539

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 18/07/2012

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY

Crl.R.C.(MD) No.265 of 2012

and

M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2012

K.Vairavan ... Petitioner

Vs.

Selvaraj ... Respondent

PRAYER

Petition filed under Section 397 R/W 401 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure Code against the order dated 06.06.2012 made in Crl.M.P.No.3397 of

2012 in S.T.C.No.672 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,

Periyakulam.

For petitioner ... Mr.S.Kadarkari

:ORDER

The Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused

against the order dated 06.06.2012 made in Crl.M.P.No.3397 of 2012 in

S.T.C.No.672 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the accused and the

respondent is the complainant in the case. The respondent alleges that the

petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the petitioner, the cheque in question

was not signed and issued by him to the respondent. It is his further

contention that there was neither legally enforceable debt nor liability on the

part of the petitioner impelling him to issue the cheque in question.

3. During trial of the case, the petitioner made an application to the

learned Magistrate to forward the cheque in question for opinion from a

handwriting expert. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate forwarded the admitted

signatures of the petitioner along with the disputed cheque for the purpose of

comparison by an expert. On such comparison, the expert gave opinion that the

disputed signature on the cheque would have been made by the petitioner. The

said expert was examined as R.W.2 before the trial court. After the expert's

opinion, the petitioner again filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.3397 of 2012

requesting the court to forward the same disputed cheque to an expert for the

purpose of finding out the age of the ink used for the writings. In fact, the

endeavour of the petitioner is to prove that the cheque would not have been

drawn as on the date mentioned thereon. That petition was dismissed by the

learned Magistrate by order dated 06.06.2012. Challenging the said order, the

petitioner has come up with this revision petition.

4. The vehement contention raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner in this revision is that the opinion already given by the Forensic

Department that the signature found on the document would have been made by the

accused need not in any manner be helpful for the court to come to a right

conclusion.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the said opinion

is only to the effect that the disputed signature was made by the accused. There

is no opinion already given that the said signature and the writings on the

disputed cheque would have been made as on the date mentioned in the document.

Further, according to the learned counsel, unless, the document is subjected to

examination by an expert to find out the age of the ink and the writings, the

petitioner would not be in a possession to prove his case. Thus, as a part of

fair trial, according to the learned counsel, the cheque in question should be

sent for examination by an expert to offer his opinion regarding the age of the

ink and the writings. The learned counsel has relied on a few judgements of

this court.

6. Before proceeding further on facts, let us have a quick survey of the

judgements from this Court on this aspect.

7. In S.Gopal v. D.Palachandran , 2008 (1) MLJ (Crl) 769, a question arose

before this Court as to whether the age of the ink used for the writings on the

disputed document could be ascertained by an expert in the Directorate of

Forensic Sciences, Chennai. The learned single Judge [Justice M.Jeyapaul] after

having considered the said question held that there is no scientific expert

available in the State with the Directorate of Forensic Science to

scientifically test and find out the exact age of any such writing.

8. In the above said judgement, the learned Judge has taken note of the

fact that there is no expert available in the State of Tamil Nadu and,

therefore, the document cannot be sent anywhere in this State for the purpose of

scientific examination to find out the age of the ink used for the writings. The

learned Judge did not say that there is no method at all available for the

purpose of giving an expert opinion in respect of the age of the ink.

Subsequently, the very same question came up for consideration before yet

another Judge of this Court [Justice S.Palanivelu] in V.P.Sankaran v.

R.Uthirakumar, AIR 2009 Mad 166. In that case, the learned Judge held that the

document could be sent for examination by an expert in the Directorate of

Forensic Sciences, Chennai to offer his opinion about the age of the ink used to

draw the disputed documents. Thus, there were two conflicting judgements on the

same subject.

9. These two judgements came to be considered by yet another judgement

[Justice S.Nagamuthu] in R.Jagadeesan v. N.Ayyasamy, 2010 Cri.L.J.2917 : 2010

(1) CTC 424. In that case, after having considered the above two conflicting

views taken by two different learned Judges, the learned single Judge had

summoned the Assistant Director, Document Division, Forensic Science Department,

Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, to the Court. The said expert is the Head of

the Department of the Document Division of Forensic Science. The said expert

informed the court that there is no scientific method available anywhere in the

State, more particularly, in the Forensic Science Department to scientifically

ascertain the age of any writing and to offer opinion. The learned Judge has

further recorded that the said expert informed the Court that there is one

institution known as Neutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai, where there is

facility to find out the approximate range of the time during which the writings

would have been made. It is a Central Government Organisation confined only to

atomic research.

10. Having considered the above statement made by the Assistant Director,

the learned Judge again held that there is no expert in the State of Tamil Nadu.

Therefore, the learned Judge concurred with the view taken by Justice

M.Jeyapaul.

11. In the same judgement, the learned Judge has held in para 10 as

follows:-

"10. Now I have to consider the judgements relied on by the learned

counsel on either side. In T.Nagappa's case reported in (2008) 5 Supreme Court

Cases page 633, I have to state that the question whether the age of the

writings could be scientifically examined and any opinion in this regard could

be offered never came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In

that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with the right of the accused

to have fair trial so as to send the document for comparison by an expert. It

was never argued before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there are no experts

available to examine the age. Therefore, the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court relied on by the respondents is not in any manner helpful to them. The

learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Judgement of this Court in

S.Gopal's case wherein Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.Jeyapaul has held that there is no

method to find out the age of the document with scientific accuracy. However,

the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that this

Judgement was prior to the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He would

therefore submit that subsequently in another Judgement reported in 2009 INDLAW

MAD 1077 (V.P.Sankaran Vs. R.Uthirakumar), this Court has directed to forward

the document for such opinion. In my considered opinion, a careful reading of

the said Judgement would also go to show that there was no occasion for the

learned Judge to answer the question as to whether there is any expert available

in terms of Section 45 of the Evidence Act to offer any opinion regarding the

age of the document. The entire case proceeded under the premise as though there

are experts to offer opinion regarding the age of the documents. Now, as I have

already stated, the Head of the Department of Forensic Science is before me and

from whom I have the benefit of ascertaining that there is no expert in the

field and also that all such documents sent already were returned without

offering any opinion. Therefore, the said Judgement also would not come to the

help of the respondents."

12. After the said judgement, it appeared that the issue was almost

settled. Once again, the very same question was raised before the same learned

single Judge [Justice S.Nagamuthu] in V.Makesan v. T.Dhanalakshmi, 2010 (1)

Crimes 833: 2010 (1) LW (Crl) 879. The learned counsel, who appeared for the

petitioner therein, had relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash, AIR 1971 SC 1093 wherein in paragraph 10 of the

judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

"10. After consultations between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the

Ministry of Law, the Home Ministry sent certain old writings of the year 1904,

1949, 1950 and 1959, and requested the Director to determine the age of the

writing of the disputed horoscope and marginal note in the almanac by

comparison. The Director on April 17, 1965 wrote that it 'was impossible to give

any definite opinion by such comparisons particularly when the comparison

writings were not made with the same ink on similar paper and not stored under

the same conditions as the documents under examination', and that it 'will not

be possible for a document expert, however reputed he might be, anywhere in the

world, to give any definite opinion on the probable date of the horoscope and

the ink writing in the margin of the almanac'."

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner therein had also cited Yash Pal v.

Kartar Singh, AIR 2003 P & H 344 wherein also similar view had been taken.

Having considered all the above judgements, while rejecting the plea for sending

the document for expert opinion, the learned Judge in paragraph 7 has held as

follows:-

"7. A perusal of all the above judgements would go to clearly indicate

that as of now, there is no expert in terms of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence

Act available who could be in a position to offer any opinion regarding the age

of the ink by adopting any scientific method. In view of all the above, I am

inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track

Court No.III, Coimbatore."

13. The very same question again cropped up for consideration before yet

another learned single Judge [V.Periya Karuppiah.J.,] in Indira Balasubramaniam

and others v. S.Subash (C.R.P.NPD No.3082 of 2008 dated 17.08.2009) wherein the

learned Judge in para 16 has held as follows:-

"16. In view of the judgement of this Court discussed earlier there would

not be any purpose in sending the impugned cheques for examination to ascertain

its age of the ink used for filling up its particulars and signatures put up

therein. Therefore, the request of the petitioners to send the cheques through

an Advocate Commissioner for Expert's opinion as to the age of the ink cannot be

ordered since it does not result in any scientific accuracy. The lower Court had

not discussed these points but correctly rejected the claim of the petitioners.

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the

lower Court and accordingly, the Revision fails and the same is dismissed."

14. In Decon Construction v. J.A.Stephen and Krishnammal 2011 (3) RCR

(Civil) 481 : 211(2) RCR (Criminal) 628 yet another learned single Judge

[Justice S.Tamilvanan] while considering the said question took a view, on

facts, that seeking an order to send the cheque once again to find out the age

of the ink has no relevance to decide the issue. In that judgement also, the

learned Judge held that there is no expert in the State, who can offer an

opinion regarding the age of the ink.

15. Subsequently, the very same question came up for consideration before

yet another learned single Judge [Justice S.Palanivelu] in A.Sivagnana Pandian

v. M.Ravichandran, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 471 : Manu/TN/4000/2010. Before the

learned Judge, earlier judgements, more particularly, the judgement in

R.Jagadeesan's case cited supra was also relied on. When it was argued before

the learned Judge, he was not convinced with the conclusion arrived at earlier

on the said question by yet another learned Judge of this Court. In that

judgement, the leaned Judge has referred to a number of authoritative books on

Forensic Sciences and finally held that there are scientific methods available

for the purpose of finding out the age of the ink found on the document.

However, I find that in the said judgement, the learned Judge has not specified

the expert to whom the document is to be sent for the purpose of offering

opinion regarding the age of the ink used on the document. In paragraph 32 of

the judgement the learned Judge has concluded as follows:-

"32. In view of the above said study and discussion, I am fortified in my

view that the disputed document has to be referred to the expert for

ascertaining the age of the ink and practical hardships, if any, sustained by

the expert shall be brought to the notice of the Court and the Court shall

thereafter act according to the settled principles and procedures, in affording

appropriate opportunity to the accused to prove his defence. Hence, interference

with the order challenged before this Court has become inevitable, which is set

aside. The revision deserves to be allowed."

16. After the said judgement, once again, a number of petitions were filed

before various courts across the State for sending the documents to Forensic

Science Department for opinion regarding the age of the ink used on the disputed

document.

17. The same question once again poked its nose before this Court in

A.Devaraj v. Rajammal, 2011 (1) LW (Crl) 297. In the said case, before the

learned Judge [Justice G.M.Akbar Ali], earlier judgement in R.Jagadeesan

authored by yet another learned Judge (Justice S.Nagamuthu) and the judgement in

C.R.P. (PD) NO.1475 of 2010 dated 02.11.2010 authored by yet another judge

(Justice R.S.Ramanathan) were cited. Having considered the above, the learned

Judge in paragraph 12 has held as follows:-

"12. In my considered opinion, the latest judgement of the learned Single

Judge of this Court in CRP (PD) NO.1475 of 2010 is not a contradictory judgment

to the earlier judgment of the learned Single judge in the case of R.Jagadeesan

v. N.Ayyasamy and another, reported in 2010 (1) CTC 424. Hon'ble R.S. Ramanathan

J. has differentiated the earlier judgment of Hon'ble S. Nagamuthu J, and has

ordered sending the document to be examined by the CFSL, Hyderabad as they claim

the facility is available."

Further in para 15 of the judgement, the learned judge has held as follows:-

"15. The revision petitioner is directed to submit his admitted signature

as stated above within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order before the lower court. The lower court is directed to send both

the documents to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Directorate of

Forensic Science as stated above. The lower court is directed to fix the

remuneration to the Advocate Commissioner and also for the expenses for

comparison. If the revision petitioner fails to produce the admitted signature

for comparison as stated above within the stipulated period, the revision

petitioner is not entitled to ask for sending the documents for comparison.

Consequently, the connected MPs are closed."

18. After the said judgement, this Court is informed that a number of

petitions were filed again in various court across the State for sending the

disputed documents to Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Directorate of

Forensic Sciences. According to the learned Judge though it may be true that

there is no expert in the State, the learned Judge was informed that there was

an expert in the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory. It is because of this

though the learned Judge had concurred with the view taken in R.Jagadeesan's

case cited supra, had directed the document to be sent for examination in the

said Laboratory.

19. It is in these circumstances, the same question, almost vexed, has

again come up before me for consideration. The learned counsel for the

petitioner, as I have already stated, pointed out, has contended that the

document should be forwarded to the expert attached to the said Laboratory.

20. Very recently, the President of Central Forensic Science Laboratory,

Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh State was invited to give a lecture in the Tamil Nadu

State Judicial Academy at Chennai on the subject "disputed document". During

the course of interaction, a question was posed to him - Is there any expert

available for offering opinion regarding the age of the ink used for writing the

disputed document? - In categorical terms, he informed that there is no such

expert available not only in his Laboratory but in any Laboratory throughout the

country at present and, therefore, it is not at all possible to offer any

opinion regarding the age of the ink used in the disputed document. When a

specific query was made during interaction to the President as to what had

happened to the documents already sent to his Laboratory seeking such opinion,

he said that the said documents were only returned without offering any opinion.

21. Now, in order to ascertain as to whether there is any expert really

available in the said laboratory since the request is to send the disputed

document to the said laboratory in Hyderabad, this Court through the Registrar

called for remarks from the said laboratory in Hyderabad. The Assistant Director

and Scientist 'C', Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, has given his

remarks through fax message to this Court vide Ref. CFSL(H)DOC/MISC/2012-13

wherein he has stated as follows:-

"This is to submit that as there is no validated method, this laboratory

does not undertake the examination for determining the relative/absolute age of

the ink of the writings/signatures."

From the above fax message from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory,

Hyderabad, it is crystal clear that there is no expert available in the said

Laboratory also to offer any opinion regarding the age of the ink.

22. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to

point out that there is any such expert available in this Country. Therefore,

it is not at all possible to forward the document in question anywhere for the

purpose of getting opinion regarding the age of the ink used for writing the

disputed document.

23. In this regard, I would like to state that the opinion of an expert is

relevant in any proceedings as per Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act reads thus:-

"45. Opinion of experts.- When the Court has to form an opinion upon a

point of foreign law or of science or art, or as identity of handwriting or

finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in

such foreign law, science or art or in questions as to identity of handwriting

or finger impressions are relevant facts.

Such persons are called experts.

Illustrations

(a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison. The

opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is

supposed to have died are relevant.

(b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was,

by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the Act, or

that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law.

The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited

by A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind

usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which they

do, or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are

relevant.

(c) The question is whether A wrote a certain document. Another document

is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinions

of experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same

person or by different persons are relevant. "

24. A reading of the above provision would make it crystal clear that an

expert is the one who has got special skill in science or art or in questions as

to identity of handwriting or finger impressions. Here the identity of

handwritings and finger impressions would denote an expert who can compare the

disputed handwriting or finger impression with the admitted handwriting or

finger impression. Such experts are available and, therefore, the documents are

sent to those experts for opinion. But, there is no such expert available in

India to offer any opinion regarding the age of the ink used for writing the

disputed document so as to satisfy the requirements of Section 45 of the

Evidence Act.

25. In this regard, we may come back to the judgement of Justice

S.Nagamuthu in R.Jagadeesan's case cited supra, wherein it is not the view taken

by the learned Judge that there is no scientific method available for

ascertaining the age of the ink used for writing the disputed document. The

learned Judge has only held that there is no expert available, who can

scientifically examine the same. Even now, the learned Judge had ascertained

from the Forensic Science Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, that

there is no expert , who can offer such opinion. Now, the Assistant Director,

Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad has also stated that there is no such

expert available anywhere in India. Thus, it is crystal clear that, as of now,

there is no expert available in India. In A.Sivagnana Pandian's case cited

supra, Justice S.Palanivelu has stated that in Forensic Science it is possible

to ascertain the age of the ink. Regarding such conclusion arrived at by the

learned Judge, I have no different opinion. Science has developed so much and

that it is possible. As per the leading books referred to by the learned Judge,

there is a scientific method available. But, knowing a method alone would not

serve the purpose to implement the method. Equipment's are necessary and person

with the expertise knowledge is also necessary. If only there is a person who

has special skill in the field who is armed with sufficient equipment's, then

only he can use the known scientific method to offer his opinion. But, in

respect of age of the ink though there are scientific method available in India,

there is neither such scientific expert available nor equipment available. It is

because of these reasons, I have to necessarily hold that for getting an opinion

regarding the age of the ink, the disputed document cannot be sent anywhere as

of now. I would make it clear that in future, if any expert emerges and

equipment's are also made available, then, after identifying him, the court may

forward the disputed documents to him for opinion. Until such time, the document

cannot be sent anywhere for the purpose of getting opinion regarding the age of

the ink used for writing the disputed document.

26. Now coming back to the facts of the present case, the defence of the

petitioner/accused is that the signature in the disputed cheque was not made by

him. But, already, R.W.2 an expert has offered opinion that it would have been

made only by him. It is only as an after thought that he has filed the present

petition for forwarding the document to ascertain the age of the ink. This in my

considered opinion is only a devise to unnecessarily drag on the proceedings.

Thus, the criminal revision petition fails and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

27. In the result, the criminal revision petition is accordingly

dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

ssl/gr

To

The Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

" இயற்கை வேளாண் ஞானி நம்மாழ்வார் " அவர்களின் சொந்தக் குரலில் இயற்கை வழி வேளாண்மை சார்ந்த அனைத்து குறுந்தகடுகளும் தற்போது நமது "வானகத்தில்" கிடைக்கும்.

 

குறுந்தகடு தொடர்புக்கு :

" இயற்கை வேளாண் ஞானி நம்மாழ்வார் " அவர்களின் சொந்தக் குரலில் இயற்கை வழி வேளாண்மை சார்ந்த அனைத்து குறுந்தகடுகளும் தற்போது நமது "வானகத்தில்" கிடைக்கும்.

( குறிப்பு : இந்த குறுந்தகடு நன்கொடை மூலம் கிடைக்கும் தொகையானது சமுதாயத்தின் எதிர்கால நலன் கருதி வானகத்தின் இயற்கை வழி வேளாண் ஆராய்ச்சிப் பணிகளுக்கும், நூலகம் அமைக்கவும் செலவிடப்படும். )
தபால் அல்லது கூரியர் கட்டணம் சேர்த்து அனுப்ப வேண்டுகிறோம்.

குறுந்தகடு தொடர்புக்கு :
M. செந்தில் கணேசன் Cell : 9488055546
வானகம், சுருமான்பட்டி, கடவூர், கரூர் மாவட்டம் - 621311.

பகுதி - 1
ஏன் வேண்டும் இயற்கை வேளாண்மை ?
1. இதில் ஏன் வேண்டும் இயற்கை வேளாண்மை ? மற்றும்
2. உழவில்லாத வேளாண்மை (மசானபு ஃபுகோகா அவர்களின் ஒற்றை வைக்கோல் புரட்சி மற்றும் வாழ்கையில் கற்றுணர்ந்த பாடங்களை ) குறும்படம் மூலம் "நம்மாழ்வார் " அவர்களின் சொந்தக் குரலில் விளக்கும் குறுந்தகடு.
சிடியின் நன்கொடை : ரூ. 100/-


பகுதி - 2
1. இன்று உலகையே அச்சுறுத்திக் கொண்டிருக்கும் பூச்சிக்கொல்லியான " எண்டோசல்பான் "பயன்பாட்டால் சீரழிக்கப்பட்ட வளமான கேரளாவின் காசர்கோட்டில் நிகழ்ந்த கொடுர பாதிப்பை குறும்படம் மூலமும்,
2. விதையிலே நஞ்சைக் கலந்து கடும் எதிர்ப்பை சந்தித்துக் கொண்டிருக்கும் " மரபணு மாற்ற பயிர்களின் " பாதிப்புகள் மற்றும் சூழ்ச்சிகளை "நம்மாழ்வார் " அவர்களின் சொந்தக் குரலில் விளக்கும் குறுந்தகடு.
சிடியின் நன்கொடை : ரூ. 50/-


பகுதி - 3
1.உலக அளவில் ஏற்பட்டுள்ள நோய் மற்றும் சத்துக்குறைபாட்டிற்கான தீர்வுகளான சிறுதானியங்களின் பயன்பாடுகளை விளக்கும் குறும்படம் மற்றும்
2. நிரந்த வேளாண்மையின் தந்தை பில்முல்சன் அவர்களின் வட்டப்பாத்தி முறைபற்றி செய்முறை மூலம் விளக்கும் குறுந்தகடு.
சிடியின் நன்கொடை : ரூ. 100/-


பகுதி - 4
1." நம்மாழ்வார் "அவர்களின் சுவரில்லாத பள்ளிக்கூடமான "வானகத்தின்" மூலம் கற்று உருவானமுன்மாதிரி பண்ணைகள்.
சிடியின் நன்கொடை : ரூ. 100/-


பகுதி - 5
தொகுதி - 1 மற்றும் தொகுதி - 2
இயற்கை வாழ்வியல் என்றால் என்ன?
1.இயற்கை மற்றும் இயற்கை வழி விவசாயம் பற்றியும், " நம்மாழ்வார் "அவர்களின் வாழ்கை அனுபவங்களை பகிர்ந்து கொள்ளும் குறுந்தகடு
இரண்டு சிடியின் நன்கொடை : ரூ. 200/-

பகுதி - 6
இயற்கை இடுபொருட்கள் தயாரிப்பது எப்படி?
1. இயற்கை வழி விவசாயம் செய்யத் தேவையான இயற்கை உரங்களான (அமிர்தகரைசல், மீன் அமிலம், பழக்கரைசல்) மற்றும் பூச்சி விரட்டிகள், தயாரிப்பது மற்றும் உபயோகிப்பது பற்றிய செய்முறைகளை விளக்கும் குறுந்தகடு
இரண்டு சிடியின் நன்கொடை : ரூ. 100/-