Policing the POLICE
By Maxwell Pereira
Is it a fact that the police do not respond to complaints made at police stations? The majority of complaints against police personnel and their functioning stem from the perceived evils of non-registration of cases, and the so-called rude, crude and unwarranted behaviour on the part of the police personnel, at times leading to the misuse of authority. It’s often alleged that the usual method of attending to complaints is so harsh that people do not like to visit the police station. What then is the Police Department doing to remove this malady and ensure that the citizens of Delhi get a proper hearing?
Perhaps not everyone knows about the vast public-grievances redressal machinery that exists within the Delhi Police Department. Checking against non-registration of cases and looking into complaints relating to mis-behaviour are just two of the various types of complaints that are looked into by vigilance cells created in the office of the Commissioner of Police. Follow-up on investigations in registered cases, and watch over persons of doubtful integrity are the other important areas covered.
It has been the endeavour of the Police Department to advocate free registration of all reported crime. The effort throughout has been to improve the functioning and role of the staff posted in the police station reporting rooms, relying on the time-tested advise of psychologists that granting a patient hearing to a complainant is nine-tenths the job done.
Proper follow-up, of-course, is essential. But whether or not this follow-up materializes, becomes a secondary issue. More often than not, it depends on whether the complexities of law and the circumstances of the case finally solve the case. Well, we may not always succeed. The fact remains that not everything reported at police stations can be taken at face value. The instructions to our reporting rooms staff are to ensure that the complainant does get a hearing, and that at least he goes away satisfied that the process for redressal of his grievance has been set in motion.
The police is often accused of not taking prompt cognizance of grievances. Unfortunately, the term “cognizance” also plays a major role in the perceived police response, since the majority of the complaints made to the police are of a non-cognizable nature, where police intervention in the form of registration of a case is not possible in terms of enacted law. This is something not every complainant knows. The level of awareness being what it is, the fact remains that the public’s role expectation regarding police functions is often at variance with the legally assigned role for the police.
The year 1995 began with a decision to renew emphasis on free registration of crime in the Capital, with the realization that a free and transparent system of registration of cases was the first and inevitable step towards refurbishing the police image. The stress on a statistical comparison of crimes and reliance on statistics-based evaluation also encourages a tendency to burk (police parlance for non-registration of crime) cases and minimize crime. While such reliance presents a distorted picture to the public eye, this system has far graver consequences – it enables criminals to escape the clutches of law with impunity. Public resentment and castigation become inevitable.
As against this scenario, prompt and free registration of cases has the advantage of projecting the correct crime situation, enabling logical assessment of requirements and infrastructure to meet the challenges in battling crime. It satisfies the needs of aggrieved citizens, who have been increasingly finding themselves helpless before a rash of lawlessness and crime. Undoubtedly, the emphasis on free registration would provide the much needed fillip to the police image, and result in eliciting public cooperation essential to effective policing. As witnessed over the past 15 months, the snowballing effect of free registration has helped us in policing the city better, and in making Delhi Police a force to reckon with.
What else does the police do to check against non-registration? In all cognizable cases where an FIR is registered, the Duty Officer is required to ensure that a copy of the FIR is given to the complainant immediately and wherever it has not been possible for the complainant to collect the FIR copy immediately for whatever reason, it is mandatory for the police station to send a copy of it by post to the complainant. To check that this instruction is complied with, pre-paid letters are sent by supervisory levels to complainants picked up at random from among registered cases, with a questionnaire requesting the complainant to send us feedback on whether or not his complaint was correctly recorded, whether the copy of the FIR was given to him, and whether he has been dealt with courteously with proper behaviour. This feedback does act as a deterrent to the would-be-aberrator.
Then, the SHO is required to remain available in the police station at a fixed time so that complainants can meet him. The doors of the supervisory levels including those of the ACP, the Addl. DCP and the DCP at the district level, the Range ACP and the Commissioner of Police at the Police Headquarters are ever open to the aggrieved individual. It is pertinent to mention here that during 1995, the Vigilance unit received 40,549 complaints, of which 37,153 were sent to he concerned units.
The Vigilance Branch also contacts complaints at random to ask about their experiences at the police stations. Even here, the emphasis is on the immediate issue of the copy of the FIR and the return of the articles seized by the police to the lawful owner. The Commissioner of Police has further constituted a high power checking team from the Police Headquarters under the command of an independent ACP for frequent surprise checks at police stations. The team lays emphasis on spot corrections and recommends action only in extreme cases.
With all this redressal grievance machinery available in addition to the people’s own elected representatives ready at hand to pursue their causes, it would be a tall call to claim that one’s complaint still does not get a hearing. In Delhi, at least!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An IPS Officer, Maxwell Pereira is the Additional CP (Southern Range), Delhi Police
Published in The Indian Express on 27.7.1996 Better Living /Crime Beat Column
Saturday 27 July 1996
Saturday 29 June 1996
Rapping the GANGSTA
By Maxwell Pereira
Has the spectre of gangsterism and hired killings lifted its head once again in the Capital, as is being speculated in the aftermath of the Personal Point triple-murder?
It may sound odd, especially since the Delhi Police has prided itself over its success in keeping the ‘mafia’ out of the city. So, let me explain. When one talks of crime and criminals in a city, what comes to mind invariably is the ‘underworld’, thanks to the influence of Hollywood blockbusters. And unlike in Bombay, there’s no activity that fits the term ‘underworld’ or ‘organised crime’ in Delhi.
Not that the kingpins of organized crime haven’t made attempts to make inroads into Delhi. You may recall the arrest in 1993 of five notorious criminals belonging to the Dawood Ibrahim gang. These arrests made by the Delhi Police were widely acclaimed and we’re still experiencing their fallout – for instance, it’s not been long since we witnessed high drama over the arrest of a former union minister on charges of harbouring some of these very gangsters.
The Delhi Police, in fact, has thwarted several such attempts by gangsters – like Bombay’s Vinod Bikramaiah and Sunil – to penetrate the Capital. Police investigations revealed their designs to seek an alliance with the criminal gangs of Delhi and western Uttar Pradesh to take root and strike terror in northern India.
This was when gangsters in western U.P. were taking advantage of the fact that Delhi’s borders have always been notional; the Capital’s faceless society, moreover, offers a perfect haven for criminals seeking anonymity. As a result, instances of these criminals extorting ‘protection money’ from businessmen on both sides of the Delhi- UP border were no longer a rarity. And within Delhi, there were others who discovered a lucrative career in forcibly evicting lenants and grabbing expensive plots of land under dispute.
It was only a matter of time before this reservoir of muscle power graduated into the arena of kidnappings for ransom. Even when the accused were caught, the investigation and prosecution of these cases posed a problem because hardly any evidence was forthcoming, with neither the victims nor the potential witnesses cooperating with the police. It was clear that the moneyed class was not only in the grip of a fear psychosis, but also was becoming increasingly cynical about the police machinery’s ability to contain the crime graph.
Having served in the Delhi Police during those ominous years, I witnessed both the seamy and the bright side, the latter being the force’s determination to contain the menace. Detecting the malady even as it was taking root and spreading slowly but steadily, and sensing in its early stages the future possibilities, the Delhi Police spent considerable time researching the trends, identifying the gangs, and planning suitable strategies to control these criminals.
As a first step, to improve surveillance over known criminals, the professional efficiency of Delhi’s policemen was sought to be increased by streamlining the process of maintaining police station records. Then, steps were taken to ensure prompt, impartial and professional investigation of cases, without, of course, ignoring the demands of preventive policing.
A special drive was started to battle the threat from gangs operating on the Delhi-UP border, with a determined effort to exterminate them. Special teams were formed in all the nine police districts of Delhi, and in the Crime Branch, to begin the crackdown on identified gangs. And recognizing the sensitive nature of the cases, the Crime Branch Special Cell handpicked investigating officers and put them through intensive training.
The efforts yielded results, with more than 50-odd important gang members falling into the police net in a span of less than a year. Thanks to the coordinated efforts of the Delhi and Ghaziabad police forces, major gangsters were either arrested or eliminated in encounters, and they included Mohinder Fauzi, Tejpal, Satbir Gujjar, Gopal Thakur, Narinder alias Babu Tyagi, Naresh alias Nasso, Brij Mohan Tyagi.
The crowning moment came last year with the daylight encounter in Mehrauli on March 28 that accounted for the dreaded Rajbir Ramala; it was followed by more action, this time in Faridabad on July 20, when Ram Pal Gujjar was ‘done’ in, both in daring operations executed by Delhi’s West District Police team personally led by the DCP. Naturally, today, the Delhi Police has reasons to be confident that the final nail has been driven into the coffin of gangsterism.
Even so, there are bound to be the small-time operators like Ravi Prakash and Pinki – their names figure among those accused of the Personal Point murders – who are aspiring to graduate big time, with no dearth of unscrupulous people ever ready to hire them to do their dirty work. There’s no room for lowering our vigil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published in The Indian Express on 29.6.1996 Better Living /Crime Beat Column
By Maxwell Pereira
Has the spectre of gangsterism and hired killings lifted its head once again in the Capital, as is being speculated in the aftermath of the Personal Point triple-murder?
It may sound odd, especially since the Delhi Police has prided itself over its success in keeping the ‘mafia’ out of the city. So, let me explain. When one talks of crime and criminals in a city, what comes to mind invariably is the ‘underworld’, thanks to the influence of Hollywood blockbusters. And unlike in Bombay, there’s no activity that fits the term ‘underworld’ or ‘organised crime’ in Delhi.
Not that the kingpins of organized crime haven’t made attempts to make inroads into Delhi. You may recall the arrest in 1993 of five notorious criminals belonging to the Dawood Ibrahim gang. These arrests made by the Delhi Police were widely acclaimed and we’re still experiencing their fallout – for instance, it’s not been long since we witnessed high drama over the arrest of a former union minister on charges of harbouring some of these very gangsters.
The Delhi Police, in fact, has thwarted several such attempts by gangsters – like Bombay’s Vinod Bikramaiah and Sunil – to penetrate the Capital. Police investigations revealed their designs to seek an alliance with the criminal gangs of Delhi and western Uttar Pradesh to take root and strike terror in northern India.
This was when gangsters in western U.P. were taking advantage of the fact that Delhi’s borders have always been notional; the Capital’s faceless society, moreover, offers a perfect haven for criminals seeking anonymity. As a result, instances of these criminals extorting ‘protection money’ from businessmen on both sides of the Delhi- UP border were no longer a rarity. And within Delhi, there were others who discovered a lucrative career in forcibly evicting lenants and grabbing expensive plots of land under dispute.
It was only a matter of time before this reservoir of muscle power graduated into the arena of kidnappings for ransom. Even when the accused were caught, the investigation and prosecution of these cases posed a problem because hardly any evidence was forthcoming, with neither the victims nor the potential witnesses cooperating with the police. It was clear that the moneyed class was not only in the grip of a fear psychosis, but also was becoming increasingly cynical about the police machinery’s ability to contain the crime graph.
Having served in the Delhi Police during those ominous years, I witnessed both the seamy and the bright side, the latter being the force’s determination to contain the menace. Detecting the malady even as it was taking root and spreading slowly but steadily, and sensing in its early stages the future possibilities, the Delhi Police spent considerable time researching the trends, identifying the gangs, and planning suitable strategies to control these criminals.
As a first step, to improve surveillance over known criminals, the professional efficiency of Delhi’s policemen was sought to be increased by streamlining the process of maintaining police station records. Then, steps were taken to ensure prompt, impartial and professional investigation of cases, without, of course, ignoring the demands of preventive policing.
A special drive was started to battle the threat from gangs operating on the Delhi-UP border, with a determined effort to exterminate them. Special teams were formed in all the nine police districts of Delhi, and in the Crime Branch, to begin the crackdown on identified gangs. And recognizing the sensitive nature of the cases, the Crime Branch Special Cell handpicked investigating officers and put them through intensive training.
The efforts yielded results, with more than 50-odd important gang members falling into the police net in a span of less than a year. Thanks to the coordinated efforts of the Delhi and Ghaziabad police forces, major gangsters were either arrested or eliminated in encounters, and they included Mohinder Fauzi, Tejpal, Satbir Gujjar, Gopal Thakur, Narinder alias Babu Tyagi, Naresh alias Nasso, Brij Mohan Tyagi.
The crowning moment came last year with the daylight encounter in Mehrauli on March 28 that accounted for the dreaded Rajbir Ramala; it was followed by more action, this time in Faridabad on July 20, when Ram Pal Gujjar was ‘done’ in, both in daring operations executed by Delhi’s West District Police team personally led by the DCP. Naturally, today, the Delhi Police has reasons to be confident that the final nail has been driven into the coffin of gangsterism.
Even so, there are bound to be the small-time operators like Ravi Prakash and Pinki – their names figure among those accused of the Personal Point murders – who are aspiring to graduate big time, with no dearth of unscrupulous people ever ready to hire them to do their dirty work. There’s no room for lowering our vigil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published in The Indian Express on 29.6.1996 Better Living /Crime Beat Column
Saturday 1 June 1996
A Necessity Called POLICE INFORMERS
A Necessity Called POLICE INFORMERS
By Maxwell Pereira
There has always been a stigma attached to the term ‘police informer’. Not many, though, have given it much though. There was a time when the police were considered a tool in the hands of the British imperialists – to be used to oppress and to run the writ of the ruler. The police were looked upon with suspicion, avoided, and those who provided them with any kind of information were at once considered anti-community and ostracized. It’s no wonder then that police informers faced social boycott.
But this is history and happened a long time ago. A change was required when the firangi colonizers sailed off our shores, never to return. Now, the police are no longer an oppressor’s or ruler’s tool, but are the peoples’ own guardians – of the people, by the people and for the people. Even if some do not consider them to be the protectors of society, the fact remains that they are required to be so. Thus, there’s a need to reconsider the subject of providing information to the police, and whether an informant is to be ostracized or lauded.
The law of the land expects its citizens to immediately report any knowledge of the commission of a crime to the nearest police station. The concept of community policing and a people-friendly police can be built only on the firm foundations of mutual trust between the public and the police. For this purpose, there’s a need to share information. Without an active, alert and alive public, and with such information not forthcoming, no amount of police vigilance can ensure the desired or required level of security in today’s environment of militancy and terrorism.
Under these circumstances, the project ‘Crime Watch’, a scheme launched by the Delhi Police for enlisting citizens’ participation in detecting and preventing crimes, assumes significance. The scheme is an attempt to lay stress on community-based policing, since no police force can function effectively and earn the confidence of the people without their participation. With prevention of crime being right on top of the Delhi Police agenda, the police have been endeavouring to devise various methods to keep it under check.
This need is felt in the face of prevailing socio-economic factors that are bound to push the crime graph higher. The same socio-economic developmental factors are now sought by the police to edge closer to the public while attempting to prevent and solve crime.
The age-old reluctance because of apathy, indifference, ignominy of being branded a ‘police branded a ‘police informant’, or the sheer fear of retaliation as the case may be – to furnish information about criminal activity to the police needs to be overcome. The idea of ‘Crime Watch’ was devised to tap people – from different status or walk of life – for information which could lead to the arrest of suspects, or recovery of stolen property.
The main thrust of the scheme is to provide cash rewards and incentives to people furnishing information that leads to the arrest of suspects, with the added safeguard and promise of anonymity to those who so desire. Anyone who wants to give information about crime, militant activity, or ‘wanted’ criminals and other such offenders, can dial 100 and ask for the ‘Crime Watch’ desk. The informant need not reveal his or her identity. If the information helps the police, the informant will be rewarded. And if anonymity is desired, the informant can ask the ‘Crime Watch’ cell for a code number, and use it later if a reward is announced. All the informant has to do is to approach the police with his code and collect the cash prize.
Similar projects have been successfully used in other countries. In New York alone, over one thousand cases were solved between 1988 and 1994 with the help of a similar scheme called ‘Crime Stoppers’. Anonymous callers helped the New York Police to solve 263 murder, 327 cases of robbery, 69 cases of attempted murders and 14 cases of rape, besides furnishing information leading to the recovery of property worth $ 2.2. million, and drugs worth $ 1 million.
Rewarding people who furnish information to the police, especially the information which has led to solving major crimes, is nothing new. However, people are still reluctant to come forward readily to provide information. ‘Crime Watch’ and the incentives it offers is an attempt to help the people overcome this inhibition.
It is hoped that the citizens of Delhi take the initiative as far as community policing is concerned and realize that the police is on their side. Shankar Sen, Director General (Investigation) at the National Human Rights Commission, recently said in a letter to me: “I feel that the strongest bulwark against crime is a vigilant citizen, willing to help the police and provide useful information.” There is need to heed this advice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell Pereira is the Additional CP (Southern Range), besides being a prolific writer.
Published in The Indian Express on 1.6.1996 Better Living /Crime Beat Column
By Maxwell Pereira
There has always been a stigma attached to the term ‘police informer’. Not many, though, have given it much though. There was a time when the police were considered a tool in the hands of the British imperialists – to be used to oppress and to run the writ of the ruler. The police were looked upon with suspicion, avoided, and those who provided them with any kind of information were at once considered anti-community and ostracized. It’s no wonder then that police informers faced social boycott.
But this is history and happened a long time ago. A change was required when the firangi colonizers sailed off our shores, never to return. Now, the police are no longer an oppressor’s or ruler’s tool, but are the peoples’ own guardians – of the people, by the people and for the people. Even if some do not consider them to be the protectors of society, the fact remains that they are required to be so. Thus, there’s a need to reconsider the subject of providing information to the police, and whether an informant is to be ostracized or lauded.
The law of the land expects its citizens to immediately report any knowledge of the commission of a crime to the nearest police station. The concept of community policing and a people-friendly police can be built only on the firm foundations of mutual trust between the public and the police. For this purpose, there’s a need to share information. Without an active, alert and alive public, and with such information not forthcoming, no amount of police vigilance can ensure the desired or required level of security in today’s environment of militancy and terrorism.
Under these circumstances, the project ‘Crime Watch’, a scheme launched by the Delhi Police for enlisting citizens’ participation in detecting and preventing crimes, assumes significance. The scheme is an attempt to lay stress on community-based policing, since no police force can function effectively and earn the confidence of the people without their participation. With prevention of crime being right on top of the Delhi Police agenda, the police have been endeavouring to devise various methods to keep it under check.
This need is felt in the face of prevailing socio-economic factors that are bound to push the crime graph higher. The same socio-economic developmental factors are now sought by the police to edge closer to the public while attempting to prevent and solve crime.
The age-old reluctance because of apathy, indifference, ignominy of being branded a ‘police branded a ‘police informant’, or the sheer fear of retaliation as the case may be – to furnish information about criminal activity to the police needs to be overcome. The idea of ‘Crime Watch’ was devised to tap people – from different status or walk of life – for information which could lead to the arrest of suspects, or recovery of stolen property.
The main thrust of the scheme is to provide cash rewards and incentives to people furnishing information that leads to the arrest of suspects, with the added safeguard and promise of anonymity to those who so desire. Anyone who wants to give information about crime, militant activity, or ‘wanted’ criminals and other such offenders, can dial 100 and ask for the ‘Crime Watch’ desk. The informant need not reveal his or her identity. If the information helps the police, the informant will be rewarded. And if anonymity is desired, the informant can ask the ‘Crime Watch’ cell for a code number, and use it later if a reward is announced. All the informant has to do is to approach the police with his code and collect the cash prize.
Similar projects have been successfully used in other countries. In New York alone, over one thousand cases were solved between 1988 and 1994 with the help of a similar scheme called ‘Crime Stoppers’. Anonymous callers helped the New York Police to solve 263 murder, 327 cases of robbery, 69 cases of attempted murders and 14 cases of rape, besides furnishing information leading to the recovery of property worth $ 2.2. million, and drugs worth $ 1 million.
Rewarding people who furnish information to the police, especially the information which has led to solving major crimes, is nothing new. However, people are still reluctant to come forward readily to provide information. ‘Crime Watch’ and the incentives it offers is an attempt to help the people overcome this inhibition.
It is hoped that the citizens of Delhi take the initiative as far as community policing is concerned and realize that the police is on their side. Shankar Sen, Director General (Investigation) at the National Human Rights Commission, recently said in a letter to me: “I feel that the strongest bulwark against crime is a vigilant citizen, willing to help the police and provide useful information.” There is need to heed this advice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell Pereira is the Additional CP (Southern Range), besides being a prolific writer.
Published in The Indian Express on 1.6.1996 Better Living /Crime Beat Column
Saturday 18 May 1996
You Can’t Beat This SUPERCOP! - 18 May 1996
By Maxwell Pereira
After our success in solving the recent Vasant Kunj murders. I wrote to the residents of the Southern Range about the modus operandi of the domestic Tika Ram, who had eliminated an entire family, and of the ‘Delhi strangler’, Neeraj, who used to befriend young maids to gain access to their employers’ households and then murder the women after looting the houses.
In my letter, I had also informed the residents of the need for them to get to know the beat constables of their respective areas, of how important the role of these police functionaries was in the prevention of crime in residential areas. From the flood of responses, it seems, my efforts was not entirely wasted.
Now, let me go down memory lane to the days when I was policing a district. It used to upset me when everyone wanted to meet only the commissioner. Or the Deputy Commissioner. And not anyone lower. “Oh no! Not the constable,” people would exclaim in horror. How can anyone talk to a constable? He’s such a rustic – so crude! He doesn’t even know how to behave. In any case, how would it help? One has heard that all he does is collect haftas. It’s best to avoid him like the plague.
But then, I would really insist on asking everyone: “Have you met the SHO? Or the Division Officer? Do you know the name of your beat constable?” Invariably, the answer would be ‘no’. And I would try to motivate the complainants to know these very important functionaries, who really mattered. I would tell them that it may be a good idea to get to know the constable who stays awake at night to walk the beat, “to ensure your safety and security”.
I would insist that the division officer and the beat constable be invited to meetings with residents’ welfare associations. “Once you get to know the beat constable, share a cup of tea with him, and raise him to your level”. I would reason, “he would be wary of you missing his presence and most of all would be proud of knowing you, proud of being associated with you, proud of your acceptance of him and the recognition given to him by you”.
My efforts were not in vein. I remember how I had to face opposition from the residents of certain colonies when I sought to transfer some of my policemen to other beats. They did not want me to change their beat constable. By then, they all knew him well. And he was their protector. He worked to ensure that there was no crime in the area.
A retired Major General expressed similar sentiments to me the other day at a function of the federation of welfare associations of Vasant Kunj. The function had been organized to felicitate Delhi Police on the commendable job done in solving the Vasant Kunj murders. The retired Major General asked me whether I could reconsider the transfer of the beat constable of his area. The reason? He had served only four months on that beat (so, it was too early for him to be considered for a transfer) and had already got to know all the residents. More importantly, all the residents knew him. They did not want to lose him so soon. I agreed too, most heartily.
A retired adviser to the Railway Board has written to me from Vasant Vihar that there used to be a system of issuing cards to residents, giving the local beat constable’s name. The constable made it a practice to knock on each resident’s doors once in 10-to-15 days, to have a chat and check on problems, if any. The gentleman suggests that this system of the beat constable getting in touch with residents be revitalized.
But this is already being practised by our beat constables in the Senior Citizens’ Scheme – the idea is to be in touch with a vulnerable section of the population. Nonetheless, we welcome suggestions. The Director General (Investigations) at the National Human Rights Commission, Mr. Shanker Sen, for instance has written stressing the need for residents to know their beat constables. He suggests that officers even of the rank of ACP and DCP should drop in on residents accompanied by the beat constables and introduce them to the people.
We don’t have to look far for the worth of our beat constables. In the 1995 Annual Review of Delhi Police achievements, we had as many as 17 beat constables listed for extraordinary good work, which ensured out-of-turn promotions for many of them. Heading the list, naturally, was Constable Abdul Nazir Kunju, who was responsible for preventing the ‘tandoor’ murder case from going undetected.
It’s these 17 constables, and a number of their colleagues, who are the real policemen – they keep working silently, their work going unnoticed, only their mistakes making bold headlines in newspapers. These are the ones whose contribution is to be recognized, whose worth needs to be acknowledged by the people whom they serve.
In yet another letter addressed to me, Rotarian Govind Shahni from
“I am very happy to have met such a pleasant man who really wants to cooperate with members of the society as a fellow citizen. I wish to congratulate and salute the police for presenting to the society honest and polite policemen like Kabuli Chand.”
I can keep on relating many more similar experiences, but have not chosen to do so because of space constraints. We must treat them as officers, which they are, and not as inconsequential functionaries. It is in our interests to try and improve the stock of these beat constables, raising their living standards to a desirable level.
**Published in The Indian Express on 18.5.1996: Better Living supplement/Crime Beat Column
Maxwell Pereira is the Additional CP (Southern Range), besides being a prolific writer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)