TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction warrant obtained from the Court by the investigating agency Whether re-registration of F.I.R. No. RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI is a second F.I. R. and is not permissible there being already a FIR No. 02/2016 registered at P.S. Tandwa arising out of same incident? - Whether N.I. A. could conduct any further investigation in the matter when investigation in the P.S. Case No. 02/2016 having already been completed and charge sheet has been submitted on 10.03.2016 with regard to which cognizance has already been taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra on 11.03.2016? - HELD THAT:- There cannot be any dispute to the proposition that second FIR with regard to same offences is barred. But whether in the present case, FIR dated 16.02.2018 registered by NIA, can be said to be second FIR. Before answering the above question, we need to look into the scheme of the NIA Act, 2008 - NIA Act, 2008 was enacted to constitute an investigation agency at the national level to investigate and prosecute offences affecting the sovereignty, security and integrity of India, security of State, friendly relations with foreign States and offences under Acts enacted to implement international treaties, agre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 167 Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the remand order dated 25.06.2018 was in exercise of power Under Section 309(2). Appeal dismissed. - Criminal Appeal Nos. 816-817 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 10051-10052 of 2018) - - - Dated:- 1-7-2019 - Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph, JJ. JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. These appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 26.09.2018 of High Court of Jharkhand dismissing the Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 277 of 2018 and Crl. Misc. Petition No. 1114 of 2016 Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case and sequence of events are: - 2.1 On 11.01.2016, a First Information Report No. 02/2016, Police Station Tandwa was lodged for offences Under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120-B Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act and Section 17(1) and (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Apart from Petitioner, there were 11 other named Accused. The allegations made against the Accused were that Applicant by showing fear of extremist of TPC Group recovered levy from the contractors, transporters and coal businessman. It was also alleged that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r custody in some other case, request was made on behalf of the National Investigating Agency before the Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi on 22.06.2018 praying for issuance of production warrant. The Special Judge allowed the prayer. Consequently, the Appellant was produced from Chatra Jail on 25.06.2018 and was remanded to judicial custody by order of Special Judge dated 25.06.2018. 2.4 A Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 277 of 2018 was filed by the Appellant praying for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Special NIA Case No. 03 of 2018 including the First Information Report being No. RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI. A further prayer was also made for quashing the order dated 25.06.2018 remanding the Appellant to the judicial custody by order of the Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 26.09.2018 dismissed both, the Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 277 of 2018 as well as Crl. M.P. No. 1114 of 2016, aggrieved against which judgment, these appeals have been filed by the Appellant. 3. We have heard Shri Abhinav Mukherji, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri Aman Lekhi, learned Additional Solicitor General for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a case where scheduled offences were committed and have already been added in P.S. Case No. 02/2016 for which it is NIA, which has to carry on the investigation as per the order of the Central Government dated 13.02.2018. There is no lack of jurisdiction in the NIA to conduct further investigation and submit a supplementary report. It is further submitted that NIA has concluded the investigation and already submitted a charge sheet on 21.12.2018. Whenever a scheduled offence is reported, the Central Government has a wide amplitude of power to direct the NIA to investigate into such offence and while taking over the investigation, the FIR is re-registered, as only the nomenclature changes. It is further submitted that the bail granted to the Appellant on 10.03.2016 in P.S. Case No. 02 of 2016 cannot enure to the benefit of the Appellant in reference to offences Under Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The Appellant had to apply for grant of fresh bail in respect of newly added offences. It is further submitted that the Special Judge has rightly remanded the Appellant exercising power Under Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure, during fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd an application was filed in the Court of Special Judge by the prosecution praying for production warrant, which application having been allowed, the Appellant was produced in the Court on 26.06.2018 and was remanded in judicial custody. 9. The question, as to whether when an Accused is bailed out in a criminal case, in which new offences have been added, whether for arresting the Accused, it is necessary to get the bail cancelled, has arisen time and again, there are divergent views of different High Courts on the above question. On one side, the High Courts have taken the view that for arresting the Accused, who is already on bail, in event of addition of new offences, the earlier bail need to be cancelled whereas the other line of opinion is that for new offences Accused has to obtain a fresh bail order and the earlier bail order shall not enure to the benefit of the Accused. 10. Learned Counsel for the parties have also relied on several judgments of different High Courts in regard to the circumstance when new cognizable and non-bailable offences are added. We may briefly refer to few of the decisions of the High Courts in the above regard. Patna High Court in Sita Ram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court: 25. After hearing the learned Counsels for the both sides at a great length and after analyzing Section 437 Code of Criminal Procedure it transpires that Section 437 relates with bail in cases of non-bailable offence by the magistrate. So far as the first contention which the learned Counsel for the applicants advanced, that because the bail has been granted in the same crime number and therefore by mere change of Section Accused cannot be sent to jail is concerned it is to be noted that case crime number is nowhere mentioned in the aforesaid section, which is the number of police for identification of the case and is a procedural number of the police station. Crime number has no relation with bail under Cr. P.C. In this view of the matter the contention of learned Counsel for the Applicant cannot be accepted and is therefore rejected. Coming to the second contention of the learned Counsel for the Applicant that there is no bar for this Court to direct the Magistrate to accept fresh bail bonds for the newly added offence triable by Court of Session's it is noted that this direction will amount to asking the Magistrate to do something de-hors the law. The conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall be at liberty to arrest the Accused. After investigation, charge sheet was filed Under Sections 302, 406 and 498-A. The Accused was directed to appear before the Magistrate since he did not appear, non-bailable warrants were issued. The Accused had filed an application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure in the High Court. Subsequently, the Accused appeared before the Magistrate, he was admitted on bail even in a case Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The revision petition was dismissed by the High Court against the order releasing the Accused on bail. The complainant had approached this Court. In paragraph Nos. 4 and 9, following observations have been made by this Court: 4. From the facts, as narrated in the appeal, it appears that even for an offence punishable Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, the Respondent-Accused was never arrested and he manipulated the prevention of his arrest firstly, by obtaining an order in terms of Section 438 of the Code and subsequently by a regular bail Under Section 437 of the Code from a Magistrate. 9. ..With the change of the nature of the offence, the Accused becomes disentitled to the liberty granted to him in relation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... There may be numerous grounds for exercise of power Under Sections 437(5) and 439(2). The principles and grounds for cancelling a bail are well settled, but in the present case, we are concerned only with one aspect of the matter, i.e., a case where after Accused has been granted the bail, new and serious offences are added in the case. A person against whom serious offences have been added, who is already on bail can very well be directed to be arrested and committed to custody by the Court in exercise of power Under Sections 437(5) and 439(2). Cancelling the bail granted to an Accused and directing him to arrest and taken into custody can be one course of the action, which can be adopted while exercising power Under Sections 437(5) and 439(2), but there may be cases where without cancelling the bail granted to an Accused, on relevant consideration, Court can direct the Accused to be arrested and committed to custody. The addition of serious offences is one of such circumstances, under which the Court can direct the Accused to be arrested and committed to custody despite the bail having been granted with regard to the offences with which he was charged at the time when bail was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case had been converted into one Under Section 304 Indian Penal Code without any court examining the case on merits, as it stood after conversion of the offence. The procedure laid down for grant of bail Under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, though available to the Respondents-Accused, having not been availed of, the exercise of power by the High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is clearly illegal and the impugned order passed by it has to be set aside. 11. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that charge Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code has been framed against the Respondents-Accused by the trial court and some subsequent orders were passed by the High Court by which the Accused were ordered to remain on bail for the offence Under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code on furnishing fresh sureties and bail bonds only on the ground that they were on bail in the offence Under Section 304 Indian Penal Code. These orders also deserve to be set aside on the same ground. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 1-7-2005 passed by the High Court and all other subsequent orders whereby the Respondents-Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent in Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel (supra) uses the word 'ordinarily' in paragraph 18 of the judgment which cannot be read as that mandatorily bail earlier granted to the Accused has to be cancelled before Investigating Officer to arrest him due to addition of graver and non-cognizable offences. 26. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on an order of this Court dated 07.05.2018 in SLP (Crl.) No. 10179 of 2017 - Manoj Suresh Jadhav and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra. In the above case, the Petitioners were granted bail for offence punishable Under Section 509 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the police added another offence Under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and re-arrested the Accused. The Petitioners filed writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed. This Court in the above case while disposing the special leave petition observed as under: We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. It is not permissible for the Respondent-State to simply re-arrest the Petitioners by ignoring order dated 02.06.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, which was in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of production warrant, the Accused was produced before the Court on 26.06.2018 and remanded to custody. Thus, in the present case, production of the Accused was with the permission of the Court. Thus, the present is not a case where investigating agency itself has taken into custody the Appellant after addition of new offences rather Accused was produced in the Court in pursuance of production warrant obtained from the Court by the investigating agency. We, thus do not find any error in the procedure which was adopted by the Special Judge, NIA Court with regard to production of Appellant before the Court. In the facts of the present case, it was not necessary for the Special Judge to pass an order cancelling the bail dated 10.03.2016 granted to the Appellant before permitting the Accused Appellant to be produced before it or remanding him to the judicial custody. 29. In view of the foregoing discussions, we arrive at following conclusions in respect of a circumstance where after grant of bail to an Accused, further cognizable and non-bailable offences are added: (i) The Accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences. In event of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section 5 of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the Central Government hereby suo-motu directs the National Investigation Agency to take up investigation of the aforesaid case. Sd/- Illegible (Dharmender Kumar) Under Secretary to the Government of India 32. The NIA, which registered the FIR No. RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI dated 16.02.2018, in pursuance of the order of the Central Government dated 13.02.2018, the submission which has been made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the FIR dated 16.02.2018 is a second FIR, hence could not have been registered. It is submitted that with regard to one incident only one FIR can be registered and registration of second FIR is illegal. learned Counsel for the Appellant in support of his submission has placed reliance on judgments of this Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 181; Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 254; Chirra Shivraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 14 SCC 444 and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation Anr., (2013) 6 SCC 348. 33. In T.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 Code of Criminal Procedure only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 Code of Criminal Procedure Thus there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure. 35. The same principle has been reiterated in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (supra) and Chirra Shivraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra). Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... normally with the leave of the court, and where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports; this is the import of Sub-section (8) of Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure. 20. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 Code of Criminal Procedure only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 Code of Criminal Procedure Thus there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports which is evident from Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code. Under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of the Code, only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 of the Code. Thus, there can be no second FIR and, consequently, there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. 58.4. Further, on receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of the police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of the Code. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the date of receipt of the report, whether the offence is a Scheduled Offence or not and also whether, having regard to the gravity of the offence and other relevant factors, it is a fit case to be investigated by the Agency. (4) Where the Central Government is of the opinion that the offence is a Scheduled Offence and it is a fit case to be investigated by the Agency, it shall direct the Agency to investigate the said offence. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, if the Central Government is of the opinion that a Scheduled Offence has been committed which is required to be investigated under this Act, it may, suo motu, direct the Agency to investigate the said offence. (6) Where any direction has been given under Sub-section (4) or Sub-section (5), the State Government and any police officer of the State Government investigating the offence shall not proceed with the investigation and shall forthwith transmit the relevant documents and records to the Agency. (7) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that till the Agency takes up the investigation of the case, it shall be the duty of the officer-in-charge of the police station to conti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irected the NIA to investigate the offence under scheduled offences, NIA was fully competent to investigate the offences and submit a supplementary report. Present is not a case where any charges for offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were available prior to April, 2017, thus, NIA was fully competent to investigate further in the case as per the directions issued by the Central Government vide order dated 13.02.2018. 43. Sub-section (6) of Section 6 prohibits State Government or any police officer of the State Government to proceed with the investigation. In the present case, when order was issued by Central Government on 13.02.2018, it was not competent for police officer of the State Government to proceed with the investigation. We, thus, are of the opinion that FIR, which was re-registered by NIA on 16.02.2018 cannot be held to be second FIR of the offences rather it was re-registration of the FIR to give effect to the provisions of the NIA Act and re-registration of the FIR is only procedural Act to initiate the investigation and the trial under the NIA Act. The re-registration of the FIR, thus, is neither barred nor can be held that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ai Patel and Others, (2017) 4 SCC 177 statutorily noticed the provisions of Section 173(8) as added in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. After noticing the 41st Report of the Law Commission of India in reference to Section 173, this Court laid down following in paragraph Nos. 20 and 21: 20. The newly added Sub-section (8), as its text evinces, permits further investigation by the officer in charge of the police station concerned in respect of an offence after a report under Sub-section (2) had been forwarded to the Magistrate and also to lay before the Magistrate a further report, in the form prescribed, whereupon such investigation, he obtains further evidence, oral or documentary. It is further ordained that on submission of such further report, the essentialities engrafted in Sub-sections (2) to (6) would apply also in relation to all such report or reports. 21. The integration of Sub-section (8) is axiomatically subsequent to the 41st Report of the Law Commission Report of India conveying its recommendation that after the submission of a final report Under Section 173, a competent police officer, in the event of availability of evidence bearing on the guilt or innocen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntary report. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated by the Union of India that NIA has concluded investigation and already a charge sheet has been submitted on 21.12.2018 vide first supplementary charge sheet. We, thus, do not find any lack of jurisdiction in the NIA to carry on further investigation in the facts of the present case. Issue Nos. 4 and 5 48. Both the issues being interrelated are being taken together. 49. We may recapitulate the essential facts for deciding the above issues. F.I.R. No. 2 of 2016 dated 11.01.2016 was registered on 11.01.2016. The Appellant was taken into custody on 11.01.2016 itself. On 10.03.2016, the Appellant was granted bail by the order of High Court. Charge sheet dated 10.03.2016 was submitted before the Court of C.J. M., Chatra, on which chargesheet C.J. M. took cognizance on 11.03.2016 Under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120(B) Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35 Arms Act and 17(1)(2) Criminal Law Amendment Act. The prayer of investigation officer on 09.04.2017 to add offences Under Section 16, 17, 20 and 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was allowed. After notification of Central Government dated 13.02.2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days; if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the Accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,- (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the Accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this Sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter; (b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention in custody of the police under this Section unless the Accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the Accused remained in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the Accused e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of enabling the Accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him. Provided also that - (a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party; (b) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment; (c) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader though present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the Court may, if thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination-in-chief or cross-examination of the witness, as the case may be. Explanation 1.- If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the Accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand. Explanation 2.- The terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Court relying on a Bombay High Court judgment in Mohd. Ahmed Yasin Mansuri v. State of Maharashtra, 1994 Crl. LJ 1854 (Bom.). In paragraph No. 6 of the judgment, this Court has noticed the judgment of Bombay High Court in Mohd. Ahmed Yasin Mansuri v. State of Maharashtra (supra) and observations made by the Bombay High Court. Bombay High Court has observed in the said case that in the Code, no power is conferred for police custody after cognizance of an offence is taken. 55. The observations made by the High Court as quoted in para 6 of the judgment were not approved by this Court. This Court also noticed the provisions of Sections 167 and 309 Code of Criminal Procedure In paragraph Nos. 10 and 11, following has been laid down: 10. In keeping with the provisions of Section 173(8) and the above-quoted observations, it has now to be seen whether Section 309(2) of the Code stands in the way of a Court, which has taken cognizance of an offence, to authorise the detention of a person, who is subsequently brought before it by the police under arrest during further investigation, in police custody in exercise of its power Under Section 167 of the Code. Section 309 relates to the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench judgment the Accused was subsequently arrested during investigation after cognizance was taken. Three Judge Bench explained the words Accused if in custody to relate to an Accused who was before the court when cognizance was taken or when inquiry or trial was being held in respect of him and not to an Accused who is subsequently arrested in course of further investigation. There cannot be any dispute to the above proposition laid down by this Court but the above judgment does not help the Appellant in facts of the present case. In the present case as noticed above, the Accused was before the Court when cognizance was taken or when inquiry or trial was being held in respect of him. In the facts of present case as noted above, the Accused was produced in the Court of Special Judge on 25.06.2018, he was produced under production warrant from jail custody. The Accused was thus very well in custody on the date when he was produced in the Court. Thus, this was not a case that Accused was subsequently arrested during the investigation and was produced before the Court. The Accused was arrested on 11.01.2016 immediately after lodging of the FIR and was granted bail on 10.03.2016. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms of Sub-section (2) of Section 309 which reads as under: 309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.- (1) * * * 61. The above observations do support the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. 62. After having noticed, the relevant provisions of Section 167(2) and Section 309, Code of Criminal Procedure and law laid down by this Court, we arrive at following conclusions: - (i) The Accused can be remanded Under Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure during investigation till cognizance has not been taken by the Court. (ii) That even after taking cognizance when an Accused is subsequently arrested during further investigation, the Accused can be remanded Under Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. (iii) When cognizance has been taken and the Accused was in custody at the time of taking cognizance or when inquiry or trial was being held in respect of him, he can be remanded to judicial custody only Under Section 309(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. 63. We, thus, find substance in submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant that in the present case Accused could have been remanded only Under Section 309(2) Code of Criminal Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
