Allahabad High Court
Dhruv Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. on 25 July, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 1274, 2019 (6) ALJ 34 (2019) 109 ALLCRIC 346, (2019) 109 ALLCRIC 346
Author: Ram Krishna Gautam
Bench: Ram Krishna Gautam
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Reserved on: 01.07.2019 Delivered on: 25.07.2019 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3813 of 2018 Appellant :- Dhruv Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Jaysingh Yadav,Shiv Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
1. This Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by convict appellants against judgment of conviction dated 07.07.2018 and sentence made therein by Court of Special Judge (Gangster Act) / Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Court No. II) Lalitpur in G.S.T. No. 284 of 2003, arising out of Case Crime No. 25 of 2003, under Section 2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Police Station Bar, District Lalitpur with a prayer for setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence made therein.
2. Learned counsel for convict appellants argued that both the convict appellants have been convicted and sentenced with five years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.6,000/- and in default with further imprisonment of one month, which was a severe sentence, against the evidence on record. Trial Court failed to appreciate facts and evidence placed before it, resulting this perversity. Nine criminal cases were shown as criminal history against appellant Dhruv Singh in gang chart, wherein he has been released and acquitted in all criminal cases mentioned in it. The appellant Kailash was shown to be with criminal history of four cases, but he is on bail in each of them, but this false accusation for offence under Section 2/3 of the Act was got lodged. There was no independent witness of public to prove prosecution case, except police and official witnesses, who were examined before trial Court. Both the convict appellants are neither member of any gang nor they have worked as gangsters. There was no anti-social activities of them. No credible evidence was there. Hence, offence punishable under Section 2/3 of the Act was not made out. Even then, charge sheet was submitted and judgment of conviction with sentence, as above, was passed. Hence, this appeal with above prayer.
3. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the contention of appellants with this mention that trial Judge has appreciated facts and law, placed before, it in correct perspective of law. Accused Karan Singh died during trial, hence trial against him was abated, whereas Dhruv Singh and Kailash were convicted and sentenced as above. After approval of District Magistrate, Lalitpur, gang chart, having nine cases lodged against Dhruv Singh including Case Crime No. 34 of 1981, under Sections 147, 325, 504 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 246 of 2000, under Sections 147, 447, 427, 323 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 323 of 2002, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C. read with Section 26 of Forest Act, Case Crime No. 9 of 1987, under Sections 394, 302, 411 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 189 of 1998, under Sections 41/109 Cr.P.C., Case Crime No. 7 of 1984, under Sections 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C., Case Crime No. 131 of 1996, under Sections 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C., Case Crime No. 106 of 1996, under Sections 107, 116 Cr.P.C., Case Crime No. 324 of 2002, under Section 25 Arms Act, lodged at Police Station Bar, District Lalitpur, was in gang chart. Four cases including Case Crime No. 34 of 1981, under Sections 147, 325, 504 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 246 of 2000, under Sections 147, 447, 427, 323 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 323 of 2002, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C. read with Section 26 of Forest Act and Case Crime No. 40 of 1987, under Section 60 of Excise Act, at Police Station Bar, District Lalitpur was against accused Kailash and on the basis of above gang chart this Case Crime No. 25 of 2003, under Section 2/3 of the Act was got registered and investigated, resulting submission of charge sheet. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial for the charges levelled against them. Prosecution had examined PW-1 informant Abdul Rajjak, the then S.O. of Police Station Bar, PW-2 Udai Bhan Singh, an employee of Forest Department, PW-3 Gulab, an independent public witness, PW-4 Mansha Ram Yadav, the then Head Constable, who had proved prosecution case beyond doubt and on the basis of those cogent evidence, judgment of conviction with sentence, as above, was passed. Hence, this appeal is baseless.
4. Heard Sri Shiv Prasad, learned counsel for appellants and Sri K.K. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for State. Perused the impugned judgment and record of trial Court.
5. Station Officer Abdul Rajjak of Police Station Bar (PW-1) got this case registered at Police Station Bar under Section 2/3 of the Act on the basis of gang chart approved by District Magistrate, Lalitpur against Dhruv Singh, Kailash and Karan Singh on 16.01.2003, which was got investigated and charge sheet was filed, cognizance over it was taken and after hearing learned counsel for accused Dhruv Singh, Kailash and Karan Singh as well as learned A.G.A., Special Judge, vide order dated 09.07.2004, framed charges for offence punishable under Section 2/3 of the Act against them. Charge was read over and explained to accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. PW-1 Informant Abdul Rajjak, the then S.O., who proved sanction of District Magistrate, Lalitpur (Ext.Ka-1) on record over the gang chart against those three accused persons with proof of First Information Report (Ext.Ka-2) filed and lodged as Case Crime No. 25 of 2003, under Section 2/3 of the Act at Police Station Bar, District Lalitpur against those three accused Dhruv Singh, Kailash and Karan Singh at 16.30 P.M. on 16.01.2003. This was under signature of this witness, scribed by Kamta Prasad, under his dictation, and on the basis of this Ext. Ka-2. Chick F.I.R. No. 5 of 2003 of this Case Crime No. 25 of 2003, under Section 2/3 of the Act was got registered, having signature of this witness over it, proved and exhibited as Ext. Ka-3. Registration of this case was entered in General Diary Entry at report no. 29 at 21.30 P.M. of 16.01.2003 by Constable Mansha Ram Yadav, posted with this witness and under acquaintance of his writing and signature. Carbon copy, prepared under one and common process, duly certified by this court witness under his signature, has been proved on record as Ext. Ka-4.
6. PW-2 is Udai Bhan Singh, an employee of Forest Department and witness of occurrence dated 26.11.1996, when at about 1.00 A.M., this forest employee, along with another employee Ahmad Khan, was at surveillance duty in the forest, when four persons were busy in cutting wood of sandal tree and they were identified under light of torch to be Karan, Sirnam, Pappu and Bhola and when torch light was flashed, they ran from spot, but Sirnam was apprehended from spot, whereas rest have managed to escape. One saw was recovered from spot, whereas one saw and cycles was recovered from the possession of Sirnam. 12 logs of Sandal wood was lying thereat. The person apprehended was taken at police station where report was got lodged upon written report of this witness. Photocopy of same Chick FIR as paper no. 9A/2 was on record, which, as per his knowledge, was correct one and signature of this witness was original on same. Another occurrence of same type was occurred on 17.10.1997 while this witness along with Devendra Kumar Chaturvedi was in surveillance of sandal tree, some of miscreants were found to cut sandal wood tree. Two of them were apprehended at about 4 A.M. from forest. They were Laxman and Mulla. Rest two could manage to ran from spot, but they were identified to be Karan with one unknown. Seven logs of sandal wood with saw were recovered from spot. Recovery memo was got prepared and on the basis of above, First Information Report was got lodged at police station concerned. On the basis of above First Information Report was got lodged at police station, carbon copy of same is attached with file and as per information of this witness same was correct one. This was Case Crime No. 229 of 1996. This Karan, Sirnam, Pappu and Bhola are criminals and they used to commit theft of sandal wood. They used to earn money from those trees, resulting terror in society.
7. PW-3 Gulab was having enmity regarding land from accused persons. PW-4 Mansha Ram Yadav, who has proved Chick F.I.R. and general diary entry Ext.Ka-3 and Ext. Ka-4.
8. Statements of accused Dhruv Singh and Kailash were recorded, in which false accusation on the basis of enmity and conspiracy of Gulab, resident of same village, with whom there is litigation regarding land, was said.
9. Learned trial Judge heard learned counsel for both sides and passed judgment of conviction against convict appellants. They were heard on quantum of punishment and sentence, as above, was awarded to them.
10. Section 2(b) of the Act provides definition of Gang:-
"'Gang' means a group of persons, who acting either singly or collectively, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person, indulge in anti- social activities, namely-
(i) offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1860), or .........."
11. Who is gangster. This was decided by Full Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P., 1987 (24) ACC 164 (FB) that Clause (c) of Section 2 defines the word "Gangster". It means a member or leader or organizer of a group which indulges in the kind of activities set out under the various sub-clauses of clause (b) of Section 2, by use of violence or threat or show of violence or intimidation etc.
12. The term "gangster" has been defined in Section 2(c) and it means a member or leader or organizer of a gang, and includes any person who in the activities of the gang enumerated in clauses (b) whether before or after the commission of such activities or harbours any person who indulges in such activity.
13. Gangsterism is aimed at creating special organisations and groups to commit murder, use violence and take people for a ransom or other demands, forcible deprivation of freedom often involving torture, black-marketing, etc. Gangsterism could also mean the destruction of buildings, ransacking and similar acts in a cruel manner to terrorise the people.
14. Section 3 of the Act provides penalty.
"Penalty.-(1) A gangster, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than two years and which may extend to ten years and also with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees:
Provided that a gangster who commits an offence against the person of a public servant or the person of a member of the family of a public servant shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years and also with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees."
(2) Whoever being a public servant renders any illegal help or support in any manner to a gangster, whether before or after the commission of any offence by the gangster (whether by himself of through others) or abstains from taking lawful measures or intentionally avoids to carry out the directions of any Court or of his superiors officers, in this respect, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years but shall not be less than three years and also with fine.
15. This Act provides special rules of evidence under Section 4. Hence the object of legislation for enactment of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (U.P. Act No. 7 of 1986 (as passed by the U.P. Legislature) was an Act to make special provisions for the prevention of, and for coping with, gangsters and anti-social activities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
16. Apex Court in Saju v. State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 175 has propounded at para 8 that in a criminal case the onus lies on the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the accused was directly and presently connected with the acts or omissions attributable to the crime committed by him. It is a settled position of law that act or action of one of the accused cannot be used as evidence against another. However, an exception has been carved out under Section 10 of the Evidence Act, the Court must have reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons had conspired together for committing an offence. It is only that the evidence of action or statement made by one of the accused could be used as evidence against the other.
17. In order to attract the provisions of Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act, the essential requirements are being enumerated below:-
(i) There should be a group of persons, who acting singly or collectively;
(ii) By violence or threat or show of violence or intimidation or coercion or otherwise;
(iii) With object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal pecuniary material or other advantage for himself or for any other person;
(iv) Indulge in anti-social activities categorized in fifteen categories of Section 2(b).
18. Meaning thereby, persons forming group may be said to be a gang if they by use of violence, threat show of violence intimidation, coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order of if unlawfully gaining temporal, pecuniary material or other advantages either for himself or for any other person indulged in any of the anti-social activity enumerated under clause (1) to (XV) and those persons indulging in aforesaid activities as member, leader, organizer of the gang may be treated as gangster and may be liable for punishment under Section 3 of the Act.
19. This Court in Ram Raheesh v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (73) ACC 559 has propounded that in order to attract the substantive offence of Section 3 of the Gangsters Act, the ingredients as provided in the definition of the word "Gang" under Section 2(b) and that of word "Gangster" under Section 2(c) are to be fulfilled.
20. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Dixit (supra) at paragraph 75 and 76 of judgment has held as under:-
75. While laying down so, we should not be oblivious of the avowed object of the Act. Under the ordinary criminal law, it is sometimes difficult to bring to book the overlords of crime and underworld because they seldom operate in person or in the public gaze. They indulge in clandestine operations which threaten to tear apart the very fabric of society. It is this purpose which the Act seeks to achieve.
76. But nevertheless we must sound a note of caution. Provisions of the Act cannot be used as a weapon to wreak vengeance or harass or intimidate innocent citizens or to settle scores on political or other fronts. The prosecution has to bear in mind that it has to bring home the guilt. Then, there is a further provision for appeal. Thus, the power of judicial review of this Court has been preserved. If it is ultimately found that a person was proceeded with in sheer bad faith out of malice and by way of political vendetta the authorities do not enjoy any immunity under Section 22 of the Act. This immunity is confined only to acts done in good faith.
77. In Clause (b) of Section 2 the word used is 'indulged in anti-social activities'. We may note here that the offences for which Sections 2 and 3 of the Act can be attracted must be those which have been committed after the enforcement of the Ordinance or the Act. It is not possible to convict a person for the activities, which could be and were of the nature defined in Section 2, indulged into by him before the Ordinance or the Act. Article 20 recities two limitations upon the law making power of every legislative authority as regards retrospective criminal legislation. It prohibits......(i) the making of ex post facto criminal law. i.e. making an act a crime for the first time and then making that law retrospective, (ii) infliction of penalty greater than which might have been inflicted under the law which was in force when the act was committed. From the language also, we find that Section 2 of the Act is prospective in nature and does not take within it the activities which were indulged into before.
21. Apex Court in Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh; AIR 1973 SC 2773 has propounded that in a criminal trial, the onus is upon prosecution to prove the different ingredients of offence and unless it discharges that onus, it cannot succeed.
22. Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Bhajan Singh; AIR 1975 SC 258 has propounded that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof.
23. In Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs. State of Maharashtra; AIR 1981 SC 765 Apex Court has propounded that falsity of defence does not establish prosecution case.
24. In Pratap Vs. State of U.P.; AIR 1976 SC 966 Apex Court has propounded that prosecution is to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt whereas accused is to prove only till establishing preponderance of probabilities in.
25. In Narbada Prasad v. Chhaganlal & Ors.; AIR 1969 SC 395, Apex Court has held that in an appeal the burden is on appellant to prove how the judgment under appeal is wrong? He must show where the assessment has gone wrong?
26. Under above perspective of law the impugned judgment and the evidence placed on record is to be appreciated.
27. Charges levelled against Kailash, Karan Singh and Dhruv Singh was that they are an organized gang and being leader and member of above gang by violence, threat of violence and show of violence, they used to commit crime, thereby disturb public peace and public order and with a view of gaining undue temporal, pecuniary, material and other advantages used to commit offence punishable under Chapter XVI, XVII or XXII of the Indian Penal Code given in gang chart. As 18 cases were against them, hence they committed offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act. Accused pleaded not guilty and prosecution was to prove those essential ingredients.
28. PW-1 Abdul Rajjak, who was informant of this case and was Station Officer of Police Station Bar, in his statement on oath in examination-in-chief has said that while being busy in surveillance in his area, he took cognizance on the basis of information given by his personal informer that Dhruv Singh, Kailash and Karan Singh Yadav, resident of Gaindora, all members of a gang led by Dhruv Singh and Laxman Singh, are history sheeters and they are of long criminal history. Public abstains from giving any evidence against them. This was gone through from record of police station and found to be a true information. Hence, there was no other option than to take action under this Act. Gang chart was prepared on 12.01.2003, which was got approved by the then District Magistrate, Lalitpur. Above gang chart is under his handwriting and signature and Ext.Ka-1 on record. Meaning thereby, none of above accused person was doing any crime or was of public terror or involved in any offence provided under Chapter XVI, XVII or XXII of the I.P.C. nor they were involved in anti-social activities within the knowledge of this S.O. Rather an information by informer was given and on the basis of above information police record of police station was searched and on the basis of cases written in it gang chart was got prepared and thereafter approved from the then District Magistrate, Lalitpur and this Ext. Ka-1 was got lodged at police station concerned i.e. no offence under knowledge of this PW-1 was there except on the basis of information and going through record of police station. When cross examined this witness has categorically said that "gang chart maine apni marji se taiyar kiya tha. Kisi ke kehnepar nahi kiya tha. Thane ka record dekh kar taiyar kiya tha. Kitne baje se kitne baje tak taiyar kiya tha, main nahi bata sakta hun. Pradarsh Ka-1 gang chart ka taskara maine G.D. me ankit nahi kiya tha. Pradarsh Ka-2 me gang chart ki nakal maine nahi ki thi. Gang chart ki nakal pradarsh Ka-3 me bhi nahi hai."
[I have prepared gang chart at police station. This was under my own volition and not on the basis of saying of someone else. Rather it was on the basis of record of police station. When it was prepared was not under his answer. This has neither been written in Ext. Ka-1 nor in G.D. Entry (Ext.Ka-2) nor in Ext. Ka-3.] (English translation by Court itself).
29. This witness has categorically said that he had never visited home of accused persons nor there was any declaration of prize against them by State nor this witness is under knowledge of property of accused persons. "gang chart taiyar karne ke purva main abhiyuktgano ke ghar nahi gaya tha.......Shashan dwara mulzimano ke upar koi inam ghoshit nahi kiya gaya tha. Mulzimano ki sampatti ke bare me maine jankari nahi ki thi. Mulzimano ko apraadh karte huye maine nahi pakda hai."
[Prior to preparation of gang chart, I never visited house of accused persons.........No prize declaration by State was there against accused persons. I am not aware of property of accused persons. I have not apprehended any of them while committing any offence.] (English translation by Court itself).
30. Meaning thereby, neither informant PW-1 visited house of accused persons nor he is aware of their property nor they were ever apprehended by him while committing offence nor there was any prize declaration by State against them nor this witness was under personal knowledge of accused persons. Hence, with a view to Section 2(b) of the Act for gang and offence, which is punishable under Section 3 of the Act and ingredients of charge framed, as above, this witness is of no importance because neither he is aware of property of accused persons nor he has ever visited their house nor they were ever apprehended by him, while committing offence nor there was any declaration of any prize against them nor this witness was ever aware of whereabouts of these accused persons. This witness got this case registered on the basis of information given by informer and record of police station, whereas in all the nine cases, shown in gang chart against convict appellant Dhruv Singh, he had been acquitted. Judgment of all those cases were on record, in which no case was proved, but for the sake of argument and appreciation of evidence placed before trial Court testimony of PW-2 reveals that he is an employee of Forest Department and he tried to establish that these accused persons were involved in theft of sandal tree and wood of Forest, for which two cases were said to have been alleged by this forest employee. One was said to be of 26.11.1996, when this witness along with Ahmad Khan was in surveillance duty in forest, where he found four persons under the light of torch doing cutting of sandal wood. They were identified to be Karan, Sirnam, Pappu and Bhola, but present convict appellants were not apprehended on spot nor was there any recovery from them nor it was any act causing terror in society. Rather it was an act of wood theft in the night in the forest area and those persons were not apprehended on spot. It was said that three of them could manage to run and one was apprehended with cycles and saw. He was Sirnam. Present two appellants were neither apprehended on spot nor was there any recovery from them and they have been acquitted of above offence. The next occurrence was of 17.10.1997 when this witness along with one other Devendra Kumar Chaturvedi was in surveillance of forest. Four persons were seen under light of torch while cutting sandal wood and they all run from spot. After search in the forest two of them could be apprehended. They were Laxman and Mulla. Third one was recognized as Karan. Fourth was unknown. But admittedly present convict appellants were neither apprehended on spot nor was there any recovery from them nor they were there except one Karan and Karan had died. Trial against him stood abated. So far as convict appellants are concerned, neither they were apprehended on spot nor this case was against them nor any property of them, said to be maintained or procured out of above offence of theft, could be said by this court witness. In cross examination, this witness has categorically said that all four run from spot and in subsequent chase and search two persons were apprehended from forest, but none of convict appellants were there nor they were named in it. Specifically this witness has replied in his cross examination that "yeh kahna sahi hai ki maine Kailash, Karan Singh, Dhruv Singh ko range hatho nahi pakada. Thane me jo surakshakarmi ham logo ke saath baramadshuda saaman thane lekar gaye the aur saman ko thane rakhkar chale aaye the. Maine iss surakshakarmiyon ki baat maine apni tahriri report me nahi likhi thi. Yah log dainik vetan bhogi log hai. Dainik vetan bhogi logon ke naam isliye nahi likhaye hai ki wah log sarkari karmchari nahi hai."
[It is true that Kailash, Karan Singh and Dhruv Singh were never caught red handed by this witness. The forest security employees, who took the accused at police station and came back from there were not written in report or were never named because they were daily wagers.] (English translation by Court itself).
31. Neither those recovered goods were proved before trial Court nor they were placed on record nor both the convict appellants were named in above case or stood on trial in above case. This witness has categorically answered that he is not aware as to whom these convict appellants have extended threat or how many cases against them are pending. Meaning thereby, this witness and his testimony is not of this nature to prove the existence of essential ingredients of offence for which charge was levelled against convict appellants.
32. PW-3 Gulab, admittedly an inimical witness, against whom some property dispute was said to be there and it was specifically said by each of convict appellants in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that there was a dispute in between Gulab and convict appellants regarding land for which he became instrumental for getting this case lodged. This PW-3 Gulab in his testimony has said about the same quarrel regarding land, which was purchased by family member of convict appellants from Panna Lal, who was co-tenure holder with father of this Gulab. This witness has categorically said in cross-examination that accused persons did tress pass in the land of Panna Lal and got it occupied, but he has said that as this land was purchased from Panna Lal, hence in case of this occupation this witness or his family members have no objection except a request for getting above land allocated before possession otherwise to be in joint possession. Hence, testimony of this witness is of no any assistance to prosecution for proving that there was any violence, or show of violence or use of violence for commission of any offence under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the I.P.C. or doing any act for earning property or money, as above, required for offence of gangster under this Act.
33. PW-4 is Head Constable Mansha Ram Yadav. He is formal witness of Chick FIR (Ext. Ka-3) and entry in General Diary of police Station (Ext. Ka-4), which is just a formal statement about registration of this case which was said to be formally got registered.
34. These all were evidence before trial Court, but trial Court failed to appreciate essential ingredients for offence punishable under this Act and alleged proof of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Even rule of evidence in this said Act regarding above offence could not be taken into consideration because no property or valuable things were recovered from the possession of convict appellants nor it was proved to be earned or procured out of above anti-social activities. Rather there was no evidence at all except a formal registration of case on the basis of formal approval given by District Magistrate concerned over gang chart prepared on the basis of information of hidden informer and record of police station, in which all cases ended under acquittal. Moreso, sanction given by District Magistrate filed as paper no. 5-A on record is also with no application of mind by District Magistrate nor with any mention of gang chart having specific offence given under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the I.P.C. or offence by way of earning property or likelihood of creating any terror in public thereby abusing public order.
35. This judgment of trial Court was not substantiated with evidence on record and prosecution was not successful to prove the fact against convict appellants. Hence, this appeal merits its allowance.
36. Accordingly, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 07.07.2018, passed by the Trial Court, is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted of all the charges. The appellants are in jail. They shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
37. Keeping in view the provisions of section 437-A Cr.P.C. appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court before it, which shall be effective for a period of six months, along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
38. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court's record be sent back to the court concerned for immediate compliance.
Order Date :- 25.07.2019 NS