Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Serajul Gazi @ Sirajul Gazi & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 20 December, 2011
Author: Girish Chandra Gupta
Bench: Girish Chandra Gupta
1 FORM NO.(J1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Present:
Hon'ble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta And Hon'ble Justice Kalidas Mukherjee CRA No.188 of 2010 Serajul Gazi @ Sirajul Gazi & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal Advocate for the appellants: Mr. Sekhar Basu Mr. Subhasish Roy Ms. Koel Mukherjee Advocate for the State: Mr. Shiladitya Sanyal Mr. Rudradipta Nandy Hearing concluded on: 13.12.2011 Judgment delivered on: 20.12.2011 GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA J.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 6th February, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basirhat, North 24 Parganas, in Sessions Trial No. 57 (10) 06 connected with Sessions Case No. 3 (1) 06 ( Jamal Gazi and Seven Others Vs. State) by which the learned Trial Judge convicted the appellants of the offence punishable under Section 304 (1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code while the rest of the five accused persons were acquitted altogether. The appellants were also acquitted of the charge under Sections 148/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment 2 for 10 years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The convicts have come up in appeal.
The case of the prosecution briefly stated is that the accused Selima leaving her two minor children at the matrimonial home had gone back to her father's house situate at a distance of less than 1 K.M. Samad her husband on the fateful day in the evening brought her back forcibly while she continued to raise hue and cry. After Salima had reached her matrimonial home and her in-laws were trying to reason with her so as to bring about a conciliation between the couple, the enraged relations of Selima broke into the house of Samad armed with deadly weapons. They dragged him into the courtyard and killed him on the spot. The in-laws of Selima who had sought to rescue were also somewhat injured The incident took place on 30th April 1994 at about 9/9.30 p.m. The F.I.R was lodged in the morning at about 6.45 hours on the basis where of Swarup Nagar Police Station Case No. 35 dated 1st May 1994, under Sections 147/148/149/325/326/448/304/109 of the Indian Penal Code was started against eight accused persons including the said Salima. Ultimately all of them were charged for the offences under Sections 148/149/304/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned Trial Judge arrived at the following conclusion:-
" Now, if we read the statement of P.W.1 and the contents of the FIR together, it will not be difficult to arrive at a conclusion that the accused Siraj, Raizul @ Patol, Gazi and Jamal Gazi, inflicted knife and ballam blow on the person of Samad Sardar in the night of 30/4/1994 around 9.00 p.m. Indeed, FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence, but it can be used as corroborative piece of evidence. FIR maker P.W.1 Abdul Ohab Sardar has been cross-examined at length, and in his cross examination, nothing is elicited to cast doubt about the 3 involvement of said three accused in the incident of death of Samad Sardar, by inflicting knife and ballam blow, unworthy of credence.
What to talk about the intention behind it, was that on the fateful night Samad Sardar, since deceased, as it remains undisputed, took his wife accused Selima Bibi to his house, after a 1 ½ months of her stay at her father's house and as such taking her out of her father's house, she raised a shout and this created a deep repercussion in the minds of accused who inflicted knife and ballam blow, on the person of Samad and it was well within their knowledge that such blow could take away his life.
The FIR case that the accused Siraj Gazi. Riajul @ Patol Gazi, and Jamal Gazi inflicted knife and ballam blow, on the person of Samad Sardar and this resulted his death, finds stand in corroboration of its maker (P.W.1) and P.W.6 Nazrul Sardar beyond any shadow of doubts."
Mr. Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned trial Judge relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.6. P.W.6 according to him is a post occurrence witness. Therefore the only one left is the P.W.1 according to him. He contended that the credibility of the P.W.1 was seriously shaken by the evidence of the daughters of the deceased examined as P.W.8 and P.W.9.
The credibility of the P.W.1, according to him, vanished by the evidence of P.W.10 who deposed that " Ohab told me that perhaps the men of his in-laws house murdered Samad." Mr. Basu accordingly submitted that P.W.1 was not sure as to who the assailants were. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to an outright acquittal.
His Second submission was that in the FIR it was alleged that the incident took place before Jilipi Bibi, the grand mother of the deceased, and two legitimate daughters of the deceased. The said Jilipi Bibi was not examined and the daughters 4 did not support the case of the prosecution which is another reason why the appellants should be acquitted.
The third submission made by Mr. Basu was that the P.W.8, a daughter of the deceased, did not support the case of the prosecution but she was not declared hostile. Therefore, her evidence is binding upon the prosecution. In support of his submission he relied upon the judgment in the case of Javed Masood and Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan reported in (2010) 2 C Cr LR ( SC) 44 wherein the following view was taken.
" Suresh Kumar ( P.W.18) is a Police Constable who along with driver Ranjit Singh ( P.W.30) went in the gypsy to the spot and lifted the injured person into gypsy to take him to the hospital. He stated in his evidence that at that time except himself, driver Ranjit singh (P.W.30) and Circle Inspector nobody else was present. He specifically stated that Chuttu (P.W.5), Rayees (P.W.14) and Noor (P.W.13) were not present at the place of occurrence at the time when he reached the scene of offence, Laxshmi Narayan ( P.W.29) is another Policeman who corroborated the evidence of Constable Suresh Kumar ( P.W.18) stating that he and Constable Suresh Kumar and driver Ranjit Singh ( P.W.30) kept the body of the injured ( deceased) in the gypsy and went to Sahadat hospital. There was crowd near the injured person but no relative of deceased was present. In the same manner Ranjit Singh (P.W.30) driver of the gypsy corroborated the evidence of P.W.18 and P.W.29 stating that no one was present when they have lifted the body from the scene of occurrence and placed the same in gypsy. All of them were police personnel and on duty at the relevant time. There is no reason for them to depose falsely. It is nobody's case that PWs 6,27,29 and 30 are not independent witnesses. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.6 and no valid reason has been suggested as to why his evidence cannot be relied on and taken into consideration. The evidence of P.W.6, if it is to be taken into consideration, makes the presence of PWs 5, 13 and 14 highly doubtful at the scene of occurrence. We do not find any reason whatsoever to discard the 5 evidence of P.W.6 who is an independent witness. He was not present at the actual scene of offence when the deceased was subjected to attack even though P.W.5, in his evidence stated as if P.w.6 was also present at the time of attack. But P.W. 6 in categorical terms stated, by the time he went to the scene of offence within a couple of minutes, the deceased was lying dead in a pool of blood and neither P.W.5 nor PWs 13 and 14 were present at the scene of offence. P.W.5 is none other than the brother of deceased and a highly interested witness whose evidence was required to be carefully scrutinised and precisely for that reason we have looked into the evidence of P.W.5 with care and caution. The testimony of Mohammad Ayub (P.W.6) cannot easily be surmounted by the prosecution. He has testified in clear terms that P.Ws 5,13 and 14 were not present at the scene of occurrence. It is not known as to why the public prosecutor in the trial Court failed to seek permission of the Court to declare him "hostile". His evidence is binding on the prosecution as it is. No reason, much less valid reason has been stated by the Division Bench as to how evidence of P.W.6 can be ignored."
The fourth submission of Mr. Basu was that the discontent between the husband and wife which is the basis of the case of the prosecution is also rendered unbelievable by the evidence of the daughters of the deceased.
The fifth and last submission was that the written complaint though was lodged on the following morning but the same appears to have been signed by the learned Magistrate almost a week thereafter.
Mr. Sanyal, learned Advocate appearing for the state contended that there is unimpeachable evidence to show the complicity of the appellants and that of the other accused persons let-off by the learned Trial Court on flimsy ground but that cannot be a reason why the appellants should also be acquitted. He contended that the daughters of the deceased came to give evidence almost 12 years after the date of the incident. When the incident took place they were minors. When the trial took 6 place they were married women. The persons facing the trial were their maternal uncles and the mother. He submitted that the judgment in the case of Javed Masood has no manner of application to the facts and circumstances of this case. He concluded by saying that the judgment should not be interfered with and the appeal should be dismissed.
We propose to answer the questions raised by Mr. Basu after we have examined the matter in some detail. It can at once be pointed out that the case of the prosecution is in three stages.
(a) The accused Salima Bibi went back to her father's house leaving the minor children at the matrimonial home. Her husband Samad after about 1½ months forcibly brought her back. Salima raised hue and cry because she was not willing to come back.
(b) The inmates of the matrimonial home tried to reason with Salima so that she would continue to remain in the household of her husband.
(c) The seven accused persons, armed with deadly weapons, broke in the house of deceased; dragged him into the courtyard and assaulted him with deadly weapons which claimed his life. The witnesses who went to rescue were also assaulted and some were prevented. The victim died on the spot.
We now propose to tabulate evidence in support of each of the stages of the case of the prosecution. The evidence with respect to the first stage of the case of the prosecution is as follows :-
(i) The written complaint in that regard reads as follows :-7
"It is to be mentioned that Samd's wife went away to his paternal house just one and half month ago due to some family altercation and trouble expressing her unwillingness to continue the family-relation. Yesterday when Samad was bringing her wife in his house, his wife began to scream and she said to her uncle and her cousin brothers that her husband was taking her away."
(ii) The defacto complainant during his evidence in Court deposed in that regard as follows:-
" Samad Sardar is my brother, whose father-in-laws house is at Bhaduria. Selima Bibi is the wife of my said brother and they have two daughters. Salima Bibi left the house of my said brother 1 ½ months prior to the incident. My said brother brought Salima Bibi from her father's house at about 9/9.30 p.m. on the date of incident."
Except for suggesting to the witness that the evidence given by him as regards discontent between the husband and the wife culminating in her departure from her matrimonial home and forcible restoration, there is no cross-examination touching the aforesaid evidence of the PW 1.
(iii) The PW 1 during his cross-examination deposed as follows:-
"The house of Selima's father is about 1½ k.m. away from my house. Selima is now residing in Kolkata at her father's house but I cannot say the actual address."8
PW 2, another family member, deposed in that regard as follows:-
"After quarrel Selima Bibi left Samad and went to her father's house which is situated less than a kilometer away from the house of Samad. Selima Bibi resided at her father's house since about one and half months prior to the date of the incident. On the date of incident at about 9.00 P.M. Samad Sardar forcibly brought Selima Bibi to his house from her father's house."
PW 2 in her cross-examination was asked as regards the date when Selima left the matrimonial house which she was unable to furnish. No further cross-examination was made.
(iv) PW 3, wife of the PW 1, deposed in that regard as follows:-
"Selima Bibi is the wife of Samad Sardar. Selima Bibi stayed at her father's house since about one and half months prior to the death of her husband. On that date Samad took his wife to his house but Selima Bibi did not agree to reside with Samad."
In her cross-examination she deposed that the distance between the matrimonial house and the father's house of the accused Selima was 10 minutes walk. She was suggested during cross-examination that Selima did not reside at her father's house for one and half months. She was also suggested that the deceased did not bring back Selima on the date of incident. Both the suggestions were denied by the witness.
(v) PW 4, father of the deceased, deposed in that regard as follows:-
9"Samad brought his wife to our house from his in-law's house on the date of incident at about 9.00 p.m. The wife of Samad was then residing at her father's house for about two months and at that time two daughters of Samad were residing with him. Following a quarrel the wife of Samad left her husband's house."
There is no serious cross-examination except for asking the witness as to whether he disclosed this fact to the police to which he answered in the affirmative. The I.O. (PW 13) during his cross-examination did not contradict the witness.
(vi) PW 5, a cousin of the deceased, deposed in that regard as follows:-
"The wife of Samad left two children in the house of Samad and as such Samad was in trouble. On the date of incident Samad brought his wife at about 9.00 p.m. from his father-in-law's house."
He was asked during his cross-examination as to the date when the husband and wife quarreled to which he answered that he was unable to furnish the date. Except for suggesting that he had deposed falsely there is no cross-examination touching the aforesaid deposition of this witness. It is however true that the PW 13 deposed that these facts were not disclosed by the PW 5 during his examination under Section 161 CrPC but this omission can by no stretch of imagination be construed as a contradiction. In order to amount 10 to a contradiction, the earlier statement has to be inconsistent with what he deposed in Court which is not the case here.
(vii) PW 6, another cousin of the deceased, deposed in that regard as follows:-
"The wife of Samad left the house of Samad after a quarrel to her father's house about 1 or 1½ months prior to the incident. Thereafter Samad brought his wife from her father's house forcibly to his house. Samad is my cousin brother."
He during his cross-examination was also asked to furnish the date when the accused wife left the house of the husband, which he was unable to furnish. His further cross-examination is restricted to a suggestion that his evidence was untrue.
P.W.8, one of the daughters of the deceased, during her cross-examination deposed that the relationship between her parents was good.
P.W.9, yet another daughter of the deceased, deposed that accused Salima is her mother and other accused persons are her maternal uncles. She was not inclined to disclose the other facts to the Court. She was declared hostile and the statement made by her during examination under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were put to him which she denied.
From the aforesaid evidence we have no manner of doubt as regards the truth of the first limb of the case of the prosecution which as a matter of fact is the genesis of the entire incident. The accused Salima, wife of the deceased, during her examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C restricted her reply to a very short answer 11 stating that the allegations were false. The evidence of the P.W.8 that the relationship between her parents was good was not even supported by the accused Salima.
P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.6 have each supported the case of the prosecution that they had been to the room of the deceased in order to convince the accused Salima so that she continued in the household of her husband. There is no significant cross-examination on this aspect of the matter. We as such find no reason why should this part of evidence be disbelieved. Therefore the second limb of the case of the prosecution is also proved.
The evidence in support of the third limb of the case of the prosecution indicated above may be tabulated as follows:
The written complaint with respect to this part of the case of the prosecution reads as follows :-
" After bringing Samad's wife to his house, the cousin brothers of Selima Bibi, W/O Samad.... 1. Sirajul Gazi 2. Patal @ Riyajul Gazi S/O Mamood Box Gazi 3. Jamal Gazi 4. Alamgir Gazi 5. Jhangir Gazi S/O Khodabox Gazi 6. Nizanur Gazi son of chattar Gazi and uncles of Selima 7. Mamood Box Gazi 8. Didar Box Gazi son of Late Sonai Gazi 9. Khoda Box Gazi son of Late Mujibar Gazi 10. Chattar Gazi son of Late Rahim Box Gazi--
- such persons attacked Samad with weapons stick, knife and spear after reaching in Samad's house and at the same time they assaulted Samad fatally all on a sudden. Sirajul Gazi, Patal @ Riyajul Gazi injured Samad at the different parts of his body with knife and Jamal Gazi pierced Samad's belly 12 with a spear and due to such attack, the entrails remaining in the belly of Samad came out. I and Ohab Sardar tried to resist those persons but they did not pay any attention to us. Moreover through the intervention and provocation of Salima Bibi W/O Samad, those persons murdered Samad."
P.W.1, the maker of the F.I.R, deposed in that regard as follows :-
" But at the time the relatives of Salema Bibi i.e. accused persons who are identified in dock came in a body towards our house being armed with lathi etc.. and attacked us. My said brother Samad Sardar was dragged by them to our courtyard and we protested. All the accused persons assaulted us by lathi and the branch of wood. At that time Siraj Gazi and Patal stabbed my said brother on his persons by the knife and Jamal Gazi assaulted on his belly by a ballam causing heavy bleeding injury. Then Samad fell down on the earth and died. Jhangir and Alamgirh caught hold Samad Sardar and other accused persons caught hold us so that we would not go to rescue Samad. Thereafter the accused persons fled away."
The following suggestion was given to the P.W.1 on behalf of the defence "Not a fact that at the time of incident all the accused persons did not attack us being armed with lathi."
This suggestion leaves no manner of doubt as regards the genuineness of the case of the prosecution.
The following evidence of the P.W.2 has remained uncontradicted:-
13" But, when we were convincing Selima in the house of Samad Sardar then Siraj Gazi, Patal Gazi, Jamal Gazi, Jahangir Gazi, Alamagir Gazi and others being armed with knives and 'ballam' entered into the room of Samad Sardar and dragged him to our courtyard."
The following evidence of the P.W.3 Rashida wife of the P.W.1 has remained uncontradicted:
" Accordingly we the other family members went to the room of Samad and tried to convince Selima Bibi so that she may reside there. At that time Siraj Gazi, Patal Gazi, Alamgir Gazi, Jamal Gazi, Jhangir Gazi, Mijan Gazi and Sattar Gazi Didar Box Gazi, Mamud Gazi came to the house of Samad being armed with knives and Ballams and they dragged Samad from the room to the courtyard under banana tree. Then Jhangir and Alamgir cought hold Samad from behind after catching his hands covering the banana tree and then Patal Gazi and Siraj Gazi stabbed with knife on Samad's belly and chest causing bleeding injury. Jamal Gazi also hit on the right side belly of Samad by a ballam. Thereafter all the accused persons fled away for that 'Nari Bhunri' came out from the belly of Samad."
P.W.4, father of the deceased, deposed that at the time of the incident the P.Ws.1,2,3,5 and 6 were present. This part of his evidence has remained uncontradicted. However considering the evidence of the I.O. ( P.W.13) as also to be on the safe side we shall not take into account the evidence of the PWs 5 and 6 on this part of the case of the prosecution.
14Uncontradicted evidence of the P.W.7, a neighbour, is that he came to the place of occurrence after hearing the hue and cry and saw the victim lying seriously wounded. He came to know from the mother, brothers and daughters of the deceased that "Jamal, Jhangir, Patal, Siraj, Gazi and others came there and tied him and stabbed. He also identified the accused persons on the dock. Only contradiction brought to our notice was that P.W.7 during his examination under Section 161 Cr.P.C did not tell the I.O. that the victim had been tied by the accused persons before being assaulted. Whether, he was tied or not tied is not important. The important question is whether these are the persons who stabbed the victim. In that regard his evidence has remained absolutely firm.
P.W.8, one of the daughters of the deceased, deposed as follows :-
" On that date of incident in the night at about 10 p.m. when my father was in the courtyard due to hot spell, then some persons called my father who then went there on the road. After some time we heard a shouting from the road and my mother and we the two sister went to the P.O. and found my father lying on the road, on receipt of bleeding injury on his person."
P.W.9, another daughter of the deceased, altogether refused to divulge anything and she was declared hostile. The evidence of these two witnesses cannot be relied upon for the following reasons:-
(a) P.W.9 admitted that the accused Salima was her mother and rest of the accused persons were her maternal uncles. She, therefore, had the motive to save the mother and the maternal uncles and was not likely to tell the truth after 12 years of the incident.15
(b) We already have noticed above the evidence of P.W.7 who deposed that he had ascertained the names of the assailants amongst others from the daughters of the deceased.
(c) The fact that the daughters at the time of the incident had no intention of shielding the guilty persons is more than clear from the evidence of the P.W.7 which finds further support from the statement made by the PW 9 during her examination under Section 161 CrPC which was put to her by the prosecution after she was declared hostile.
P.W.10 another neighbour deposed as follows :-
" One day at about 9.30 or 10.00 p.m. I heard cry from the house of Samad Sardar and as such I went there I found Samad lying on his courtyard. On my query the elder brother of Samad told me that Samad was murdered Ohab told me that perhaps the men of his in-law's house murdered Samad. Samad was lying with bleeding injury and his entrails were coming out from his belly. He also told me that the said murder was caused due to family matter. Ohab did not mention any name of the murderer to me. The parents of Samad told me that Sattar, Alamgir, Mijan came to the P.O. and murdered Samad. I know all the accused persons who are present in dock and identified. On the following day in the morning police came to our village. I was examined by the Police."
The I.O. ( P.W.13) as regards the evidence of the P.W.10 deposed as follows during his cross examination :
"P.W.10 did not state to I.O. that Ohab told him that perhaps the member of in- law's of Samad murdered him."16
The word 'perhaps' used by the witness during his examination in Court may be due to the fact that he was deposing as regards the incident after 12/13 years which is long enough time to cloud the memory of a truthful witness. The word 'perhaps' was not used by him during his examination under Section 161 CrPC which we already have indicated above. There is as such no doubt in our mind that he had contemporaneously told the police what was ascertained by him from Ohab the brother of the deceased. Mr. Basu tried to take the wind out of sail of the prosecution by contending that P.W.1 was in doubt as to the identity of the assailants according to the evidence of P.W.10. We are unable to agree with him. P.W.10 on the contrary has established the case of the prosecution on all fours. He is an independent witness which adds to his credibility. The fact that P.W.10 and P.W.7 were told as regards the identity of the assailants immediately after the incident by the rest of the witnesses lends further assurance to the court as regards the soundness of the case of the prosecution. Reference in this regard may be made to Section 6 of the Evidence Act which provides as follows :-
" Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction. Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
Illustrations
(a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact."17
Considering the evidence on record we have no doubt in our mind that the case of the prosecution was proved to the hilt. The learned trial Judge in his over cautious approach, convicted only those persons who had dealt the deadly blows to the deceased and acquitted the others. There is no cross appeal preferred by the State. Therefore to that extent fate of the case is sealed. But that by no means weakens the case of the prosecution as against the appellants. Now, we shall proceed to deal with the points raised by Mr. Basu.
The first, second and third point has not impressed us. P.W.6 is not a post occurrence witness according to the uncontradicted evidence of P.W.4. We have however not taken into consideration the evidence of P.W.6 in our discussion made above with respect to the third limb of the case of prosecution. We already have indicated our reasons why the daughters cannot be believed. The mere fact that a witness was not declared hostile who had not supported the case of the prosecution is not enough to dislodge the case of the prosecution. That could be a mistake or lapse of the learned Public Prosecutor. The evidence of such a witness is also required to be believable. We already have demonstrated above why the PW 8 cannot be believed. The Court is concerned to see that an innocent is not punished and a guilty is not spared. That object cannot be achieved by relying on any technicality or any mistake on the part of the learned advocate conducting the case of the prosecution. In the case of Javed Masood and Anr. (Supra) relied upon by Mr. Basu no different view was expressed. Their lordship in that case considered the factual background threadbare and came to the conclusion that the P.W.6 in that case though himself was not an eye witness had adduced believable evidence to show that that the so called eye witnesses were no where near the scene. It is in those circumstances that their lordships relying on an earlier judgment held that the evidence of the P.W.6 was 18 binding upon the prosecution. This judgment in our view has no manner of application to the facts and circumstances of the case.
We already have indicated that the use of the word 'perhaps' by the P.W.10 during his examination in Court is due to lapse of time and memory. The witness was examined in the years 2007 whereas the incident took place in 1994. The I.O. has confirmed during the cross examination that the 'perhaps' word was not used by him while he was examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. contemporaneously. We also have indicated above that besides P.W.1 there are other dependable witnesses which the learned Trial Court failed to notice.
The fourth submission of Mr. Basu has also not impressed us. We have discussed above the evidence in that regard threadbare which goes to show unmistakably that there was discord between the husband and wife. The wife had left the matrimonial home leaving the minor children. The husband forcibly brought her back. On her way she raised hue and cry and provoked her kinsmen who shortly thereafter came in a body armed with deadly weapons and killed the victim like an animal.
The fifth point of Mr. Basu has also not impressed us. It is a fact that the written complaint was signed by the learned Magistrate almost a week after the written complaint was received but it appears from the F.I.R. that it was despatched on 2nd May, 1994. There is as such no scope for any tampering. The mere fact that the learned Magistrate signed it on 11th May, 1994 without anything more being pointed out to us is not even enough to raise any doubt as regards the genuineness of the written complaint.
19All the points raised by Mr. Basu have thus been disposed of.
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed.
The appellants are directed to surrender within four weeks in order to serve out the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court in default the learned Trial Court shall take all coercive measures to secure the presence of the appellants.
Lower Court Records with a copy of this judgment be send down to the learned Trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action.
Urgent xerox certified copies of this judgment , be delivered to the learned Advocate for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities.
(GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA J.)
I agree. (KALIDAS MUKHERJEE J.)