web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

CrPC 300 – Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence

Posted on March 21, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.

(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub- section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub- section (2) thereof.
(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub- section (1) of section 220.
(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last- mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.
(4) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.
(5) A person discharged under section 258 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first- mentioned Court is subordinate.
(6) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 , (10 of 1897 ) or of section 188 of this Code. Explanation.- The dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the accused, is not an acquittal for the purposes of this section. Illustrations
(a) A is tried upon a charge of theft as a servant and acquitted. He cannot afterwards, while the acquittal remains in force, be charged with theft as a servant, or, upon the same facts, with theft simply, or with criminal breach of trust.
(b) A is tried for causing grievous hurt and convicted. The person injured afterwards dies. A may be tried again for culpable homicide.
(c) A is charged before the Court of Session and convicted of the culpable homicide of B. A may not afterwards be tried on the same facts for the murder of B.
(d) A is charged by a Magistrate of the first class with, and convicted by him of, voluntarily causing hurt to B. A may not afterwards be tried for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to B on the same facts, unless the cage comes within sub- section (3) of this section.
(e) A is charged by a Magistrate of the second class with, and convicted by him of, theft of property from the person of B. A may subsequently be charged with, and tried for, robbery on the same facts.
(f) A, B and C are charged by a Magistrate of the first class with, and convicted by him of, robbing D. A, B and C may afterwards be charged with, and tried for, dacoity on the same facts.

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged CrPC 300 - Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence Double Jeopardy | Leave a comment

Article 20 of the Constitution of India

Posted on March 21, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences

(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence
(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once
(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself
 

Article 20(2) : It is protection against Double Jeopardy in Criminal cases.

 
For a similar relief in Civil Cases, the principle of ‘Res Judicita‘ has to be invoked instead of Double Jeopardy, as Civil cases only involve Damages and compensation and not penal punishments as in Criminal Cases.
Posted in The Constitution Of India | Tagged Article 20 - Protection in respect of conviction for offences Double Jeopardy PIL - CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 Must Go From Statute Book Res Judicita | Leave a comment

Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 10 January, 2014

Posted on March 20, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Apex court held some key aspects in this landmark judgment such as,

  1. What is the stage at which power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised?
  2. Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. could only mean evidence tested by cross examination or the court can exercise the power under the said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned?
  3. Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word “evidence” is limited to the evidence recorded during trial?
  4. What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood convicted?
  5. Does the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charged or who have been discharged?
Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 10 January, 2014

Citations : [2014 SCC CRI 2 86], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 623], [2014 SUPREME 1 132], [2014 SLT 1 465], [2014 AIOL 21], [2014 SCC 3 92], [2014 CRIMES SC 1 133], [2014 AIR SC 1400], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 1 772], [2014 ALLMR CRI SC 801], [2014 AIR SC 667], [2014 CRLJ SC 1118], [2014 JLJR SC 2 385], [2014 SCALE 1 241], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 26], [2014 KLJ 1 410], [2014 AIC 135 86], [2014 ALD CRL SC 2 152], [2014 PLJR 2 482], [2014 KHC 1 170], [2014 ALLCC 85 313], [2014 CCR SC 1 244], [2014 ADJ 1 727], [2014 LW CRL 1 440], [2014 UC 1 304], [2014 CGLRW SC 1 491], [2014 RLW SC 1 727], [2014 SCJ 2 366], [2015 NCC 1 613], [2014 AD SC 1 609], [2014 JT SC 1 412], [2014 CAL LJ 2 75], [2014 KLT SC 1 336], [2014 AIR SCW 667]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78958066/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af56e4b014971141618b


The latest case law from SC on this subject is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 5-Judge Constitutional Bench Decision Article 20 - Protection in respect of conviction for offences Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty CrPC 319 - Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order Right to Fair Trial | Leave a comment

Kalyan Kumar Gogoi Vs Ashutosh Agnihotri and Anr on 18 January, 2011

Posted on March 20, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

In this Appeal on a Election Petition, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the evidences of the witness are not just hearsay but utter lies.

Kalyan Kumar Gogoi Vs Ashutosh Agnihotri and Anr on 18 January, 2011

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Hearsay Evidence Kalyan Kumar Gogoi Vs Ashutosh Agnihotri and Anr | Leave a comment

Gujarat Pipavav Port Limited Vs Sharda Steel Corporation on 26 March, 2012

Posted on March 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of Gurajat held in this judgment that, disposal of perjury can be done at the end of a main petition/case but it does not stop magistrate to form an opinion by conducting a preliminary inquiry.

Gujarat Pipavav Port Limited Vs Sharda Steel Corporation on 26 March, 2012

 

Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Gujarat Pipavav Port Limited Vs Sharda Steel Corporation Perjury - Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory Perjury - Prima Facie Opinion of Perjury Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC | Leave a comment

CrPC 344 – Summary procedure for trial for giving false evidence

Posted on March 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife
344. Summary procedure for trial for giving false evidence.
(1) If, at the time of delivery of any judgment or final order disposing of any judicial proceeding, a Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class expresses an opinion to the effect that any witness ap- pearing in such proceeding had knowingly or wilfully given false evidence or had fabricated false evidence with the intention that such evidence should be used in such proceeding, it or he may, if satisfied that it is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice that the witness should be tried summarily for giving or fabricating, as the case may be, false evidence, take cognizance of the offence and may, after giving the offender a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished for such offence, try such offender summarily and sentence him to imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or to fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
(2) In every such case the Court shall follow, as nearly as may be practicable, the procedure prescribed for summary trials.
(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the power of the Court to make a complaint under section 340 for the offence, where it does not choose to proceed under this section.
(4) Where, after any action is initiated under sub- section (1), it is made to appear to the Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class that an appeal or an application for revision has been preferred or filed against the judgment or order in which the opinion referred to in that sub- section has been expressed, it or he shall stay further proceedings of the trial until the disposal of the appeal or the application for revision, as the case may be, and thereupon the further proceedings of the trial shall abide by the results of the appeal or application for revision.
Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged CrPC 344 - Summary procedure for trial for giving false evidence | Leave a comment

Shriram Munjaji Raut Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 March, 2011

Posted on March 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Bombay High Court has given 1 month imprisonment for a person for giving false evidence in a case. And maximum fine allowed under 344 CrPC, which is paltry Rs.500/- And if Rs.500/- not paid, 1 more week of imprisonment.

So 1 week of imprisonment = Rs.500/- ???

Shriram Munjaji Raut Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 March, 2011

 

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged IPC 193 read with CrPC 344 Perjury - Costs Levied or Imprisonment For Perjury Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC Shriram Munjaji Raut Vs The State of Maharashtra | Leave a comment

Jagdish Prasad Vs State and Others on 23 March, 2009

Posted on March 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a facepalm experience for the ADJ who said that,

“Mere recording of a finding to the effect that an offence punishable under section 193 of the Penal Code was committed would not answer requirement of section 340 of the Code. When primary question was answered in affirmative then secondary and most effective proposition was to be answered to the effect whether it was expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an action in the matter. No such step was taken by the Trial Court to see that it was expedient in the interest of justice to take such action. In such a situation, order impugned is shrouded with illegality. In cannot be allowed to stand.”

For which, the High Court of Delhi gave a befitting answer, such as from Para 18,

In the considered view of this Court, when the learned MM in the order dated 9th September 2005 observed “I am, therefore, of the opinion that Smt. Veena has committed an offence under Section 193 IPC and she ought to be prosecuted for the same”, the requirement of Section 340 CrPC as explained by the Supreme Court stood satisfied. In other words, the opinion formed by learned MM was obviously only a tentative or a prima facie one. This is plain from the expression “ought to be prosecuted”. Further, the same expression “ought to be prosecuted” also indicates the formation of an opinion that it was expedient in the interest of justice that Respondent No.2 should be prosecuted. Therefore, both the requirements of law as explained by the Supreme Court in relation to Section 340 CrPC stood completely satisfied by the order dated 9th September 2005 passed by the learned MM. This Court is, therefore, unable to agree with the conclusion reached by learned ASJ to the contrary.

Jagdish Prasad Vs State and Others on 23 March, 2009

 

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Jagdish Prasad Vs State and Others Perjury - Prima Facie Opinion of Perjury Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC | Leave a comment

Babubhai Mervanbhai Patel Vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary and Anr on 26 August, 2010

Posted on March 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

A fine of Rs.40,000/- was levied on the pejurer for lying repeatedly on affidavits as well as under oath by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court.

Babubhai Mervanbhai Patel Vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary and Anr on 26 August, 2010
Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Babubhai Mervanbhai Patel Vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary and Anr Perjury - Costs Levied or Imprisonment For Perjury | Leave a comment

Shashi Vs Sunny Bhumbla on 9 January, 2012

Posted on March 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

After Perjury proceedings were re-instated by HC here, knife filed a petition to turn RCR filed by husband into a MCD petition and consequently Divorce is granted by High Court of Punjab and Haryana, after paying a settlement amount of Rs.1,25,000/-

Shashi Vs Sunny Bhumbla on 9 January, 2012

Index of Divorce matters here.

Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged HM Act 13(B) - MCD Granted After Settlement Mutual Consent Divorce Shashi vs Sunny Bhumbla | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts
  • Newer posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
exsecular

exsecular

Verified account @exsecular ·
8 Nov

Chor era ( don’t forget they hired 24 lawyers against Ram mandir ) to Modi Era 🚩🚩🔥🔥🚩🚩

Reply on Twitter 2119236931808862565 Retweet on Twitter 2119236931808862565 255 Like on Twitter 2119236931808862565 890 X 2119236931808862565
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
bjp4india

BJP

Verified account @bjp4india ·
8 Nov

This never gets old... Happy Diwali to you-know-who! 😉🪔

Reply on Twitter 2119407089118302307 Retweet on Twitter 2119407089118302307 3300 Like on Twitter 2119407089118302307 23630 X 2119407089118302307
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
ani

ANI

Verified account @ani ·
7 Nov

#WATCH | Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh: At Ram ki Paidi, visitor Simona from Ukraine says, "... My sister invited me. I really like everything here. I am amazed by how beautiful everything looks..."

Reply on Twitter 2119119499194675541 Retweet on Twitter 2119119499194675541 898 Like on Twitter 2119119499194675541 7122 X 2119119499194675541
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
think_andhra

Think Andhra

@think_andhra ·
8 Nov

ఢిల్లీలో చంద్రబాబు నివాసం.. జన్‌పథ్‌ 1లోని 100 ఏళ్ల చారిత్రక భవనానికి కొత్త రూపు!

#Chandrababu #1Janpath #CMResidence #LutyensDelhi #thinkandhra

Reply on Twitter 2119384437049667945 Retweet on Twitter 2119384437049667945 24 Like on Twitter 2119384437049667945 212 X 2119384437049667945

Recent Posts

  • Chaudhary Manish Singh Vs State of UP and Anr on 30 Oct 2026 November 12, 2026
  • Ravichandragouda R Patil Vs KSBC and Anr on 18 Nov 2025 November 7, 2026
  • Sushila Vs Joginder on 13 Sep 2023 November 6, 2026
  • Thangam Venkatesh Vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors on 23 Oct 2026 October 29, 2026
  • Mukul Mittal Vs Sr. Superintendent at RPO Delhi on 02 Feb 2026 October 27, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Parvinder Singh Khurana Vs Enforcement of Directorate on 19 May 2026 (1,283 views)
  • Pune Bar Association Vs Union of India on 22 May 2026 (945 views)
  • Surety Affidavit Format – Draft, Legal Requirements & Sample Template (820 views)
  • Second Anticipatory Bail Application – Is It Legally Possible? Complete Strategy (605 views)
  • Sachin Arora Vs Manju Arora on 02 Jul 2026 (601 views)
  • How to Handle Hostile Witnesses in Criminal Trials – Complete Defence Strategy (570 views)
  • Ravi S Vs Sahana Devi A and Ors on 18 Jun 2026 (569 views)
  • Application for Permanent Exemption from Appearance – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (514 views)
  • How to File a Complaint Against an Advocate in India – A First-Timer’s Complete Guide (511 views)
  • Birendra Kumar Tiwari Vs Neetu Tiwari on 07 Dec 2022 (450 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (454)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (438)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (392)Landmark Case (391)1-Judge Bench Decision (387)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (304)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (102)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (73)Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC (71)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (63)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (44)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (43)CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents (43)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (43)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (773)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (329)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (193)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (170)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (97)Legal Procedure/Tool (86)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (72)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (64)LLB Study Material (60)General Study Material (56)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (55)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (53)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (48)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (45)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (29)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (28)

Recent Comments

  • Aman Kumar on Case Lifecycle Explorer – BNS s.85, DV Act and Maintenance
  • ShadesOfKnife on How to Challenge Ex Parte Orders in Criminal and Matrimonial Proceedings – Legal Remedies
  • pradeep jain on How to Challenge Ex Parte Orders in Criminal and Matrimonial Proceedings – Legal Remedies
  • Lawyer Sonia on Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC)
  • vinod gupta on Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation

Archives of SoK

  • November 2026 (3)
  • October 2026 (19)
  • September 2026 (13)
  • August 2026 (6)
  • July 2026 (19)
  • June 2026 (19)
  • May 2026 (24)
  • April 2026 (33)
  • March 2026 (42)
  • February 2026 (30)
  • January 2026 (21)
  • December 2025 (2)
  • November 2025 (3)
  • October 2025 (17)
  • September 2025 (12)
  • August 2025 (5)
  • July 2025 (10)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (28)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (97)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS feed: Cloudflare Status Cloudflare Status

  • MNL (Manila) on 2026-11-24 November 24, 2026
    Nov 11, 22:14 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in MNL (Manila) datacenter on 2026-11-24 between 18:00 and 22:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users in the affected region. For PNI / CNI customers […]
    Cloudflare Status

RSS feed: List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 13.143.130.168 | SD November 12, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 569 | First: 2026-09-28 | Last: 2026-11-12
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati and Advocate Suprajaa Rajan
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 467 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel