S. Anas vs. M/S. Ideal Publication - Kerala High Court, 22 March 2019

These two petitions have been filed by the first and second accused in S.T.No.900 of 2018 and 821 of 2018 respectively pending on the files of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (N.I.Act Cases), Kozhikode, (for short 'the court below') seeking to quash the proceedings therein.

S.T.No.900 of 2018 was filed by the first respondent before the court below under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (For short ‘the N.I.Act’) alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act against the petitioners. The allegation therein was that a cheque for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, which was drawn by the first petitioner, the owner of the second petitioner business concern and issued to the first respondent, a publishing company towards cost of an advertisement published by it on 25.1.2018, was dishonoured on presentation before the bank for the reason ‘Funds Insufficient’ in the account of the first respondent wherefrom the cheque was drawn. Annexure-I is

Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 4 the copy of the complaint launched as above before the court below. From the averments in the complaint, it is revealed that on getting the cheque dishonoured from the bank for the reason ‘Funds Insufficient’, a statutory notice was caused to be issued on the petitioners by the first respondent, informing the factum of dishonour of the cheque, it's reasons and demanding payment covered by the cheque within 15 days. The notice was neither replied to nor payment as demanded by the notice was made. Thereupon the prosecution was launched by Annexure-I complaint. The complaint was taken cognizance of by the court aforesaid as S.T.No.900 of 2018. For quashing S.T.No.900 of 2018, Crl.M.C 305 of 2019 was filed by accused 1 and 2. 3. S.T.No.821 of 2018 is another prosecution launched by the complainant, the first respondent herein, under Section 142 of the N.I.Act alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act against the petitioners. A copy of the said complaint, which formed the basis for registration of S.T. No.821 of 2018 was produced alongwith

Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 5 this petition as Annexure-I. The averment of the first respondent in Annexure-I complaint was that a cheque bearing No.341889 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- issued by the petitioners herein to the first respondent towards discharge of a liability of Rs.2,00,000/-, towards costs of an advertisement made in a magazine of 'Madhyamam' was dishonoured for the reason ‘Funds Insufficient’. As per the averments in Annexure- 1 complaint, on getting the cheque dishonoured for the reason, a statutory notice was caused to be served on the petitioners informing the factum of dishonor of the cheque for the reason funds insufficient and demanding payment of the amount covered by the cheque within 15 days. The payment as demanded was not made within 15 days' time granted by the notice and accordingly prosecution was launched, the copy of which is produced alongwith the proceedings on hand as Annexure-1. The complaint was taken cognizance of by the court as S.T. No.821 of 2018. Annexure I complaint and all further proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are sought to be quashed in Crl.M.C. No.1111 of 2019. Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 6

The contention of Sri.B.Pramod, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the proceedings on hand was that filing of complaints as Annexure I was only an abuse of process of the court. According to him, advertisement of the second petitioner was never published in Madhyamam daily as alleged by the first respondent. According to him, Annexure-II produced in Crl.M.C. No.1111 of 2019 was only a notice or information about the exhibition, which was scheduled to be conducted by the first respondent and is not an advertisement as alleged by them. Annexure-III produced in Crl.M.C. No.1111 of 2019 is advertisement tariff of the first respondent, wherein the costs payable for various advertisements offered to be published during the Expo are referred to. According to the learned counsel the amount shown in the respective cheques on the basis of which the prosecutions have been launched, does not tally with the cost of advertisements shown in Annexure III advertisement tariff of the first respondent, and therefore, the cheques involved in the case cannot be said to be supported by consideration. The

Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 7 further contention advanced by the learned counsel was that an advertisement or publication of the petitioners undertaken to be published or advertised can only be released by the first respondent after issuing a release order alongwith the advertising material, on them. According to him, the petitioners have not received any release order from the first respondent in respect of the alleged advertisement made on 25.01.2018 and therefore it cannot be stated that an advertisement of the petitioners was published by the first respondent as alleged in the complaint. Based on an agreement dated 04.01.2018, appended to Crl.M.C. No.305 of 2019 as Annexure-II and Crl.M.C. No.1111 of 2019 as Annexure IV it is contended by the learned counsel that the cheques involved in the prosecutions were issued by the petitioners to the first respondent and as per the agreement all claims and disputes arising out of the terms and conditions of the agreement have been agreed to be settled by resorting to arbitration as a first step. It is pleaded by the learned counsel that in view of a particular term incorporated in the

Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 8 agreement, the petitioners are not liable to be prosecuted in respect of allegations raised in Annexure-I complaint. Raising contentions of the nature as above, the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the Crl.M.Cs seeks for quashing the prosecutions pending on the files of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (N.I.Act Cases), Kozhikode as S.T. Nos.821 of 2018 and 900 of 2018. 5. The learned counsel for the first respondent has filed counter statement in both petitions on hand. He has also produced Annexure R1(a) to R1(d) to substantiate the contentions taken in the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is contended by the first respondent that the prosecutions launched by them by filing private complaints was taken cognizance of by the court for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. According to them by a letter of authorization dated 16.02.2011, the first respondent has been authorized to conduct cases on behalf of Madhyamam daily and Annexure R1(a) produced alongwith the counter affidavit is a copy of such letter of authorization. According to him, an

Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 9 advertisement was published by the first respondent in a magazine of Madhyamam namely 'Arogya Madhyamam' on 25.1.2018 and Annexure R1(b) produced alongwith the counter statement is theof the said advertisement. It is submitted that the advertisement was forwarded by an e-mail sent by the petitioners alongwith instructions and directions to one Mr.Ashokan K.R., a staff of the first respondent, demanding to publish the same in Madhyamam weekly and it was forwarded by him to the first respondent on 11.12.2017. Annexure R1(c) is theof the e-mail referred to above and produced alongwith the counter affidavit. It is contended that a letter to acknowledge that Mr.K.R.Ashokan is a legal correspondent of Madhyamam, authorised to collect advertisements on behalf of Madhymam and the said letter of acknowledgment is produced alongwith the counter affidavit as Annexure R1(d) in both proceedings on hand. The second petitioner was called for the meet, which was conducted by the first respondent at Sharja in the name “Come on Kerala” and accordingly he participated in the meet

Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 10 availing full facilities as assured by the first respondent. The further contention was that the cheques, which formed the basis for launching the prosecutions, were issued towards costs of the Advertisement, published by the first respondent on behalf of the petitioners and therefore, the liability thereunder is nothing but a legally enforceable debt. Raising contentions of the nature, the learned counsel for the first respondent addressed this Court that Annexure I complaints in the proceedings on hand are not liable to be quashed for the reason that discharge of the liability for which cheques have been issued, is a legally enforceable debt and therefore the cheques which formed the basis for launching the prosecutions, are supported by valid considerations.

Crl.M.Appl No.4 of 2019 was also filed by the first respondent alongwith some documents with a prayer to accept those as additional evidence for consideration in the proceedings on hand. The documents sought to be accepted are photocopies of some documents. It is averred in the petition that the documents sought to be considered are

Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 11 Annexures R1(e) to R1(h), allegedly, publications dated 19.01.2018, 22.01.2018 and 26.01.2018 made by the first respondent on behalf of the petitioners in Gulf Madhyamam. Moreover, it cannot be gathered that the alleged publications are actually made in Gulf Madhyamam on dates referred to therein. But for the writings found on the documents, appears to have been written from the office of the lawyer representing the first respondent, it is not gathered that, those are publications made by the first respondent in Gulf Madhyamam on the dates stated by the first respondent. Evenif it is taken for granted that Ext.R1(h) are publications made by the first respondent on behalf of the petitioners in Gulf Madhyamam, those have no relevancy in adjudication based on Annexure I in the proceedings on hand, since the issue in those is totally centered on advertisement of the petitioners published by the first respondent in it's weekly named Arogya Madhyamam. For the reason the application filed by the first respondent as Crl.M.A.No.04 of 2019 was dismissed and the documents were not received for consideration.

Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 12

According to the learned counsel the specific case of the first respondent was that an advertisement of the petitioner was published by them on 25.01.2018 in Arogya Madhyamam and Annexure II appended to Annexure I in each proceedings on hand, is a copy of it. As per the allegations in Annexure I, Rs.4,00,000/- was the liability, to discharge which, cheques have been drawn and issued by petitioners. When viewed in the backdrop of the rates of different types of advertisements offered to be published as per Annexure III Advertisement Tariff of the first respondent, the maximum costs, an advertisement will carry is Rs.1,60,000/-. First respondent has no case in Annexure I that apart from Annexure II other advertisements of the petitioner had also been published in Arogya Madhyamam or any other Magazines belonging to the first respondent. The allegation of the first respondent in Annexure I that the cheques had been drawn and issued by petitioners in their favour to discharge a liability of payment of costs of advertisement dated 25.01.2018 is devoid of merits for the reason that as per Annexure III, the

Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 13 advertisement tariff conceded as issued by the respondent, the maximum costs that is chargeable for an advertisement is Rs.1,60,000/-. Therefore, consideration or execution of cheques is not liable to be drawn prima facie from the allegations in Annexure I or any materials produced alongwith. It is impracticable for the complainant to improve his case by adding to what was pleaded in Annexure I complaints, referred to in the respective proceedings on hand.

With the rival contentions in mind, this court ventured to see whether Annexure-I complaint in the respective proceedings are liable to be quashed as prayed for by the petitioners. Paragraph 3 of each of Annexure I complaints incorporates the crux of the allegations of the first respondent and therefore apposite extraction hereunder:

Paragraph 3 of Annexure-I complaint in Crl.M.C. No.1111 of 2019 reads: “The first accused is in charge and is responsible for conducting Manara Bio Pharma, the second accused. The first accused placed an order to the head office of the complainant for advertisement and the complainant published the advertisement on 25.1.2018. Towards the payment of the charge to this advertisement published, both the accused, as

Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 14 per Bill No.86846 owed Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant. To discharge a part of this liability, the first accused executed, signed and issued a cheque bearing

No.341889

dated

28.2.

2018

for Rs.2,00,000/- to be drawn on Federal Bank, Aroor Branch.”

10.

Paragraph 3 of Annexure-1 complaint in Crl.M.C. No.305 of 2019 reads: “The first accused is in charge and is responsible for conducting Manara Bio Pharma, the second accused. The first accused placed an order to the head office of the complainant for advertisement and the complainant published the advertisement on 25.1.2018. Towards the payment of the charge to this advertisement published, both the accused, as per Bill No.86846 owed Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant. To discharge a part of this liability on 28.3.2018, the first accused executed, signed and issued a cheque bearing No.341890 dated 31.3.2018 for Rs.2,00,000/- to be drawn on Federal Bank, Aroor Branch.”

11.

The averments of the first respondent as contained in the extracted paragraphs above would impress that an advertisement of petitioners was published on 25.01.2018 towards discharge of payment of Rs.4,00,000/-, i.e. cost of the advertisement as per bill number 86846, cheques bearing Nos.341889 and 341890 respectively, each for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn from Federal Bank, Aroor had been allgedly issued on

Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 15 28.02.2018 and 31.03.2018. Therefore, a total sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was allegedly due to the first respondent from petitioners and towards the discharge of the said liability that cheques bearing Nos.341889 and 341890 dated respectively 28.02.2018 and 31.03.2018 each for Rs.2,00,000/- were allegedly issued.

12.

The cheques referred to therein have been presented before Federal Bank Ltd, Nadakkavu Branch, Kozhikode but got bounced for the reason 'funds insufficient' and intimated through memos respectively issued from the banks. In respect of those dishonoured cheques, statutory notices have been issued as referred to but, demand made by the notices were disobeyed by the petitioners and thereby the first respondent was constrained to launch prosecutions. List of documents appended to Annexure I in the respective prosecution include only seven documents. Two sets of identical documents have been produced in Annexure I complaints in the proceedings on hand. Admittedly Annexure IV produced alongwith the proceedings on hand was an agreement dated 04.01.2018 executed among

Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 16 Madhayamam Daily, represented by its Marketing Manager, Mr.Junais K, as the first party and Manara Bio Pharma, represented by its Managing Partner Mr.M.S.Anas as the second party. The second party to the agreement being a concern was represented by the first respondent. The complainant in Annexure I in both proceedings on hand is M/s Ideal Publications, Trust Publishers of 'Madhayamam Daily'. Therefore, the complainant is the first party to the agreement and Annexure IV is nothing but an agreement entered into between the petitioners and the first respondent.

13.

Clause 'a' to 'd' of Annexure IV are extracted herein below: “a. The cost of the Stall participation is Rs.5,25,000/- (including GST) and Manara Bio Pharma shall pay the amount in advance to Madhyamam as per the following schedule: SL NO Cheque No Bank Amount 1 341888 Federal Bank 1,25,000 2 341889 Federal Bank 2,00,000 3 341890 Federal Bank 2,00,000 b. GST shall be applied as per the government norms upon Manara Bio Pharma.

Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 17 c. This is a direct deal between Madhyamam & Manara Bio Pharma and the involvement of any third party shall not be allowed. d. Madhyamam shall provide advertisement space to Manara Bio Pharma worth Rupees 5,25,000/- (including GST) and the advertisement space must utilize within 12 Months from the date of this agreement with existing tariff at the time of ad release. Advertisement will be released upon duly signed Release Order from Manara Bio Pharma ad the cost of which shall be adjusted in total amount. The release orders and advertising materials of Manara Bio Pharma should be sent one week prior to the release date.”

14.

As per clause 'a' of Annexure IV agreement for stall participation in the trade on business expo namely 'Come on Kerala' in Sharjah proposed to be held on January 25, 26 and 27 of 2018, the second party to the agreement shall pay a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- as advance to 'Madhyamam' as per the schedule shown therein. Accordingly, three cheques bearing Nos.341888, 341889 and 341890 respectively for Rs.1,25,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- had been issued by petitioners to first respondent.

15.

As per clause 'd', advertisement space worth Rs.5,25,000/- (including GST) shall be provided by Mahyamam to Manara Bio Pharma and the advertisement space shall be

Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 18 utilized within 12 months from the date of the agreement i.e, 04.01.2018 in consonance with the tariff exists at the time of release of the advertisement. It is also provided therein that, advertisements will be released only upon duly signed release orders from Manara Bio Pharma and the cost of which shall be adjusted against the total amount for which three cheques are given in advance. Its is further provided that, the release orders and advertising materials of Manara Bio Pharma should be sent one week prior to the release order. Therefore, on executing the agreement as Annexure IV, the petitioners are entitled to get their advertisements published to a maximum cost of Rs.5,25,000/- in any of the magazines of Madhyamam Daily and towards the cost of advertisements, the first respondent shall get the liability discharged by encashing the cheques referred to above. As the allegations in Annexure I complaint in the respective petitions stand, an advertisement of the petitioners was published by the first respondent in 'Arogya Madhyamam' on 25.01.2018. As per the allegations in Annexure I complaint, cheque bearing Nos. 341890 and

Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 19 341889 have been issued by the petitioners in advance meant for discharge of payment of cost of advertisement made on 25.01.2018 in Arogya Madhyamam.

16.

Therefore, as revealed from the allegations the consideration for the cheques was the cost of advertisement referred to in Annexure I complaint as published in Arogya Madhyamam on 25.01.2018. Apart from the aforesaid advertisement, the complainant has no case in Annexure I that other advertisements have also been published in any of the magazines of Madhyamam. Therefore, the consideration for the advertisement dated 25.01.2018, allegedly made by the respondent in Arogya Madhyamam can only be the cost, the advertisement dated 25.01.2018 bears.

17.

Annexure VII in Crl.M.C. No.305 of 2019, which according to petitioners is the logo fixing the tariff for the advertisements proposed to be made by the first respondent in favour of petitioners. The learned counsel for the first respondent has also conceded the same as their logo. The advertisement tariff as contained in Annexure VII logo being

Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 20 relevant for the consideration of the issue on hand is extracted hereunder: “ ADVERTISEMENT TARIFF FULL PAGE `45,000 DOUBLE SPREAD `80,000 FRONT INNER `85,000 BACK INNER `85,000 FRONT GATE FOLD `1,60,000 BOOK MARK `1,50,000 MECHANICAL DETAILS FULL PAGE 24cm (H) X 16 cm (W) FULL PAGE BLEED 26cm (H) X 18 cm (W) DOUBLE SPREAD 24cm (H) X 34 cm (W) DOUBLE SPREAD BLEED 26cm (H) X 36 cm (W)”

18.

It is provided in the logo that first respondent proposes to charge Rs.45,000/- for an advertisement in full page. Rs.80,000/- for double spread, Rs.85,000/- for front inner, Rs.85,000/- for Back inner, Rs.1,35,000/- for Back cover,

Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 21 Rs.1,60,000/- for Front gate fold and Rs.1,50,000/- for Book Mark. The mechanical details such as the area of the advertisements are also incorporated in the advertisement tariff. The complainant failed to state anything in Annexure I complaints about the nature of the advertisement made by them in Arogya Madhyamam on 25.01.2018. The mechanical details of advertisements are also not furnished. Therefore, it is difficult to discern from the allegations in Annexure I complaints to which category referred to Annexure VII logo, the advertisement allegedly published on 25.01.2018 will come. The allegation in Annexure I was that an advertisement of the petitioners was made in Arogya Madhyamam Daily on 25.01.2018, a copy of which is also produced alongwith. Annexure I complaints at the time of launching of prosecution before the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (N.I.Act cases), Kozhikode lacks pleadings regarding the specification of the advertisement dated 25.01.2018 so as to convince the category to which it belongs. Therefore, it is difficult for the complainant to succeed in the prosecution. Whatever be the

Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 22 nature of the advertisement the maximum cost payable for an advertisement as per Annexure VII logo is Rs.1,60,000/-. Therefore, the cost of Annexure II advertisement can cost only to the maximum of Rs.1,60,000/-, the highest price quoted in Annexure VII Advertisement tariff.

19.

It is pertinent to note that, the first two cheques referred to in serial numbers 1 to 3 in Annexure IV agreement produced in the respective proceedings on hand are the basis for launching respective prosecutions as Annexure I. As per Annexure IV agreement cheques referred to in Annexure I were already in the possession of the first respondent even much prior to the publication of the advertisement in controversy itself and undoubtedly two of those have been made use of for the purpose of launching the prosecution. As per Annexure VII for a single advertisement in front gate fold of the magazine, the cost can go to the maximum of Rs.1,60,000/-. The plea of the complainant being centered only to a single advertisement made in Arogya Madhyamam on 25.01.2018 the allegation that two cheques had been given

Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 23 towards cost of that advertisement, is something difficult to swallow. The sum payable as cost for an advertisement (evenif admitted) of the nature of Annexure II, even if it is considered as the costlier one as per Annexure VII logo the maximum costs an advertisement liable to carry is Rs.1,60,000/-. The case of the complainant being so, execution of two cheques each for Rs.2,00,000/- by the petitioners to them, towards the discharge of the cost of a single advertisement dated 25.01.2018 itself turns to be doubtful. Since 1st respondent/complainant has filed a statement admitting Annexure VII in Crl.M.C.No.305 of 2019 as their Advertisement tariff, and Annexure-II in Crl.M.C.No.305 of 2019, Annexure IV in Crl.M.C.No.1111 of 2019 as agreement executed by them with the petitioners, the complainant will not succeed evenif the prosecution is allowed to proceed with. It would only be a futile exercise.

20.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that even if prosecutions on Annexure-I complaints are permitted to be continued, the complainant will not be able to

Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 24 establish the consideration behind the execution of the respective cheques, which formed the basis of those. For the foregoing reasons, the complaints launched before the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (N.I.Act Cases), Kozhikode as S.T.No.821 of 2018 and S.T.No.900 of 2018, which are produced alongwith these proceedings as Annexure I are not liable to sustain. They are liable to be quashed forthwith. In the result, both Crl.M.C.s stand allowed. Annexure I complaint filed by the first respondent and pending consideration on the files of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (NI Act Cases) Kozhikode respectively as S.T.No.821 of 2018 and S.T.No.900 of 2018 are quashed forthwith. MARY JOSEPH vps//NAB JUDGE

Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 25 APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 305/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-IOF THE COMPLAINT IN ST NO.900/2018 OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, (N.I. ACT CASES), KOZHIKODE. ANNEXURE-IIOF THE AGREEMENT DATED 04/01/2018. ANNEXURE-IIIOF THE INVITATION LETTER DATED 20/01/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-IVOF THE LETTER DATED 19/07/2018 SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-VOF THE LETTER DATED 04/09/2018 SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. ANNEXURE VII AOF THE CHART SHOWING THE TARRIFS FOR THE ADVERTISEMENT IN AROGYA MADHAYMAM RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE R1(a) THEOF THE LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION DATED 16.02.2011 BY IDEAL PUBLICATIONS TRUST. ANNEXURE R1(b)OF THE ADVERTISEMENT IN 'AROGYA MADHYAMAM' DATED 25.01.2018 ANNEXURE R1(c) THEOF THE MAIL FORWARDED BY MR.ASHOKAN K R TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11.12.2017. ANNEXURE R1(d) THEOF THE LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 27.02.2019. Crl.MC.Nos.305 & 1111 of 2019 26 APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 1111/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE IOF THE COMPLAINT IN S.T.NO.821/2018 OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,(N.I.ACT CASES)KOZHIKODE. ANNEXURE IIOF THE NOTICE APPEARED IN DAILY DATED 25.01.2018. ANNEXURE IIIOF THE ADVERTISEMENT TARIFF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE IVOF THE AGREEMENT DATED 04.01.2018. ANNEXURE VOF THE INVITATION LETTER DATED 20.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. ANNEXURE VIOF THE LETTER DATED 19.07.2018 SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. ANNEXURE VIIOF THE LETTER DATED 04.09.2018 SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. ANNEXURE VIII AOF THE CHART SHOWING THE TARRIFS FOR THE ADVERTISEMENT IN AROGYA MADHAYMAM RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE R1(a) THEOF THE LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION DATED 16.02.2011 BY IDEAL PUBLICATIONS TRUST. ANNEXURE R1(b)OF THE ADVERTISEMENT IN 'AROGYA MADHYAMAM' DATED 25.01.2018 ANNEXURE R1(c) THEOF THE MAIL FORWARDED BY MR.ASHOKAN K R TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11.12.2017. ANNEXURE R1(d) THEOF THE LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 27.02.2019. ////