Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Md. Adil vs State Of West Bengal on 5 June, 2015
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subrata Talukdar CRA 207 of 2012 Md. Adil
-vs.-
State of West Bengal
For the appellant : Ms. Minoti Gomes
Ms. Meenal Sinha
For the State : Mr. Manjit Singh, Ld. P.P.
Mr. Anand Keshri
Heard on : 03.03.2015 & 17.03.2015
Judgement on : 05/06/2015
Subrata Talukdar, J.: The present appeal is directed against the judgment and sentence of conviction dated 21st February, 2012 and 22nd February, 2012 passed by the Ld. 2nd Additional Fast Track, Bichar Bhavan, Calcutta in Sessions Trial No. 01/(3) of 2011 arising out of Sessions Case No. 27 of 2010. By the judgment and sentence of conviction the appellant herein was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10, 000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the charge punishable under Section 489 (B) IPC. The appellant was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the charge punishable under Section 489 (C) IPC.
All the sentences were to run concurrently and the period of detention undergone by the appellant during investigation, enquiry and the trial to be set off under Section 428 CrPC.
The short case of the prosecution as emanates from the complaint lodged by one, Nirmal Kumar Ghosh, Sub-inspector (for short SI), Special Task Force (for short STF) with the officer-in-charge, New Market Police Station is as follows:-
That the said Nirmal Kumar Ghosh received a credible source information with regard to trafficking in Fake Indian Currency Notes (for short FICN). The said source information was received on 11th December, 2009 and conveyed that a person would come to the crossing of Lenin Sarani and Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road under the jurisdiction of New Market P.S. with FICN from outside Kolkata to circulate the FICN in the market.
Acting on the source information, the complainant, SI Nirmal Kumar Ghosh along with a team of STF personnel reached the crossing of Lenin Sarani and Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road at 12:05 hours on the appointed date, i.e. 11th December, 2009.
At about 14:00 hours when the police team with the source arrived near a shop by the name of style of "Western Auto" located at 3A, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kol-13, they could all hear a heated conversation which was taking place inside the shop. Thereafter the police team along with the source entered inside the shop where the source identified the person as the alleged trafficker in FICN. The team found that the person identified by the source was engaged in a war of words with the person sitting over the counter on the issue of the genuineness of the FICN tendered.
Further, according to the complaint the man sitting across the counter disclosed his identity as Pranesh Chowdhury, the owner of the said shop. Pranesh stated to the police that on 11th December, 2009 at about 13:45 hours the person identified by the source arrived at the shop and asked to be shown different varieties of helmets. Accordingly, Pranesh showed several helmets to the person who, chose one helmet and asked the shopkeeper to prepare the bill quickly.
On being asked by the shopkeeper of his name and address to be put on the bill, the said person disclosed his identity as Md. Adil of 874 Chitle Kabar, Jama Masjid, Delhi-6. The said person tendered a total amount of Rs. 1500/- one one thousand rupee note and one five hundred rupee note. On checking the notes Pranesh found them to be fake and he asked the person to replace them. The said Md. Adil disagreed with the shop owner and started an altercation with him.
In the meantime the police team lead by SI Nirmal Kr. Ghosh, the complainant arrived and called upon the person to disclose his identity which he disclosed as Md. Adil, son of Late Mubasrirullah of 874 Chitle Kabar, Jama Masjid, Delhi-6. The police team thereafter followed the regular formalities prior to searching the person in presence of the shop owner. On searching the person of Md. Adil 20 FICN of Rs. One thousand each bearing the nos. 5A 6643011 to 5A 6643030 of a total value of Rs. twenty thousand along with 60 FICN of Rs. Five hundred each of a total value of Rs. thirty thousand were recovered from his person. He was thereafter charged with the offence of passing off the FICN as genuine currency and therefore punishable under Section 489B, 489C and 120B IPC. The seized notes along with other items were collected on the spot after observing the necessary legal formalities. Pursuant to the written complaint the First Information Report (for short FIR) was lodged at the New Market Police Station on the same date, i.e. 11th December, 2009 Ms. Meenal Sinha, Ld. Advocate appearing for appellant led by Ms. Minoti Gomes, Ld. Counsel makes the following points:-
i) That no General Diary Entry (for short GDE) was filed prior to carrying out the seizure on 11th December, 2009.
Relying upon Section 155 CrPC, Ld. Counsel argues that the provisions of Section 155 CrPC were violated.
ii) On the evidence of DW1, a brother of the appellant appearing at page 48 of the paper book, Ms. Sinha highlights the fact that prior to the purported incident of 11th December, 2009 there occurred an incident of abduction when the appellant was taken away from his house in Delhi on the 25th of November, 2009. According to the evidence of DW1 on 25th November, 2009 at about 2 pm 2/3 persons wearing plain clothes came to their house in Delhi and stated that they were searching for the appellant. Thereafter the said persons took the appellant away from the house. Since then there was no trace of the appellant inspite of the fact that DW1 lodged complaint with the local Chandni Mahal Police Station and also sent a telegram to the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi.
Ms. Sinha submits that there is documentary evidence of such telegram being sent to the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and such documentary evidence in the form of the telegram cash receipt has been marked as Exbt.A (with objection). Moreover, the certified copy of the telegram has been marked as Exbt.B (with objection). Several other documents with regard to the efforts made by DW1 to put the police authority on notice of the fact that the appellant has been mysteriously taken away from his house on 25th November, 2009 are marked as Exbts. C to F (with objection). On 27th November, 2009 DW1 preferred an application before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Tees Hazari Court, New Delhi praying for an investigation into the alleged abduction.
iii) On the basis of the alleged incident that took place on 25th November, 2009 and, on the strength of the documents marked Exbts. A to F on behalf of the defence (with objection), Ms. Sinha argues that the incident of 11th December, 2009 has been set up by the police. According to Ld. Advocate the appellant has been framed in a case relating to seizure of FICN.
iv) Ms. Sinha thereafter takes this Court to several discrepancies in the evidence tendered by the prosecution. According to Ld. Advocate it is strange that PW1, SI Nirmal Kr. Ghosh had stated in his complaint that he organized a team for carrying out the raid on 11th December, 2009. However, strangely none of the raiding team members were examined. There is no mention of the other team members who participated in the raid on 11th December, 2009 either in the written complaint or in the formal FIR. The very basis of identification of the appellant, who was the source who purportedly provided information to the complainant, was also not examined and neither was the source identified.
The above noted evidence on behalf of the prosecution, according to Ld. Advocate, raises serious doubts with regard to the veracity of the prosecution case.
v) Next, taking this Court to the seizure of FICN Ms. Sinha forcefully argues that the quantity of seized FICN which appears at page 10 of the paper book from the evidence of PW1 does not tally with the seizure of FICN indicated in the complaint at page 4 of the paper book. Ld. Advocate also points out to this Court that the number of envelopes in which the seized FICN were kept after the raid do not tally with the evidence and identification given in Court by PW1.
Therefore, according to Ld. Advocate there are obvious discrepancies with regard to the quantity of seized FICN when the evidence of PW1 is compared with his written complaint.
vi) Thereafter taking this Court to pages 23 and 34 of the paper book Ms. Sinha argues that there are discrepancies with regard to the identity of the shop room. At page 23 of the paper book PW3, Pranesh Chowdhury, the owner of the shop has been cross-examined. Pranesh in his cross- examination states that the trade licence in respect of the shop, "Western Auto" was not checked. Ld. Advocate also points out that from the evidence of PW6, one Bhupal Ch. Mazumdar, also an SI of STF, Lalbazar who took charge of the investigation it transpires that after taking charge of the investigation PW6 in his cross-examination states that he never visited the place of occurrence at Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata. Neither the PW6 makes any enquiry whether there was the shop in the name of style of "Western Auto" on Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road.
Therefore, Ms. Sinha points out that since the shop was not verified by the Investigating Officer and such conduct viewed in the background of the alleged abduction of the appellant from his house in Delhi on 25th November, 2009 raises a strong suspicion with regard to his implication in a false case.
vii) Ms. Sinha also submits that the seizure was made during day time. The shop in which the appellant was purportedly apprehended is said to be located in a busy shopping area. The appellant was apprehended at peak shopping time. However, strangely there are no independent witnesses to the search and seizure. Furthermore, in addition to the fact that the trade licence of "Western Auto" was not seized, as would appear from the evidence of PW3, Ld. Counsel for the appellant argues that there is no signature of the appellant as purchaser on the cash memo.
viii) Again comparing the evidence of PW5, who is the expert examiner of FICN, Ld. Advocate submits that the amount of seized notes admitted to have been received by the PW5 varies. Citing the previous evidence of PW1 and others, Ms. Sinha, points out that the seized FICN were kept in three sealed envelopes. However, from the evidence of PW5 it transpires that the FICN was kept only in two sealed envelopes. There is, therefore, variance in the evidence of PW5 with the evidence of PW1 as also with the contents of the written complaint that indicate that the FICN was seized in three sealed envelopes.
Taking this Court to the evidence of the said Bhupal Ch. Mazumdar, PW6 Ld. Advocate submits that PW6 as the Investigating Officer states that two sealed packets were deposited. However, there was no evidence that the sealed FICN packets were only opened in presence of the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
ix) Ms. Sinha further points out that no question was put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 CrPC with regard to the alleged use of FICN by him. Ld. Counsel argues that not only no independent witness was present at the time of search and seizure, additionally no 'malkhana' witness was produced. From the evidence of PW5, the expert it does not appear that the sample notes which were sent for inspection were at all received back. Therefore, Ms. Sinha argues that Section 489B should not apply to the facts of the present case.
x) Ld. Counsel for the appellant in support of her submissions relies upon the following decisions:- 2012 (2) Cr C C 658; AIR 2001 SC 3074; AIR 1979 SC 1705 & 1990 Cr L J 215.
xi) Ld. Counsel finally makes the point that since the signature of the appellant-accused does not appear from the cash memo and such fact would emerge from the evidence of PW3, Pranesh, it cannot be conclusively proved that the helmet was purchased by the appellant. Ld. Counsel also submits that it transpires that four sample notes were sent for expert examination and such four notes have not been produced before the Ld. Trial Court.
Per contra, Sri Anand Keshri, Ld. State Counsel lead by the Ld. Public Prosecutor makes the following submissions:-
a) The raiding team has acted on source information and the incident of 11th December, 2009 has been corroborated from several sources, viz. the evidence of PW1, PW3 and others in the prosecution. It is clear from the evidence of PW1 and the written complaint that the raiding team acted on a source information and in view of the corroboration of the actual incident in the evidence, the question of further identification and examining the source who provided the information does not arise.
b) Taking this Court to the evidence of PW1, SI Nirmal Kr.
Ghosh, Ld. State Counsel submits that both the incident and the identification of the appellant stood confirmed. The FICN was seized from the spot and a huge number, viz. 59 pieces of five hundred notes and 19 pieces of one thousand notes were seized from the trouser pocket of the appellant. In addition the appellant was attempting to pay for the helmet with one one thousand rupee note and one five hundred rupee note which were seized from his hands and therefore were part of the total illegal consignment of FICN being carried by him.
c) Ld. State Counsel points out that Exbt.1 is the sheet-anchor of the prosecution case. Exbt.1 is the seizure list. The seizure list has not been at all challenged by the defence. The entire seizure of FICN on the spot on the date of the incident is recorded in the seizure list. The signature of Pranesh and his employee one, Narayan Ch. Dey who was in the shop at the relevant time have been appended to the seizure list. PW1 himself has signed on both pages of the seizure list and signature of persons as aforementioned have been marked as Exbts.
Therefore, according to Ld. State Counsel there is no confusion with regard to seizure of the FICN on the particular date, i.e. 11th December, 2009 from the appellant, who was identified by the source.
d) Sri Keshri, next submits that the evidence of PW3, Pranesh, the shop owner completely corroborates the prosecution story. Ld. State Counsel points out that Exbt.5 is the cash memo. From the cash memo it clearly transpires that the necessary particulars were written thereon. Exbt.5 therefore demonstrates the genuineness of the instant transaction which occurred in the shop on the particular date. However, assuming but not admitting that the cash memo, marked Exbt.5 may not be a clinching evidence, Ld. State Counsel argues that even then the contents of the seizure list are enough to connect the appellant with the crime.
e) Ld. State Counsel continues his arguments by taking this Court to the evidence of the expert examiner of FICN, viz. PW5. From the evidence it transpires that only four notes were not part of the package which returned from the expert. However, the mere absence of four notes out of the huge seizure of FICN does not, according to Ld. State Counsel, take away from the substance of the allegations against the appellant.
f) Ld. State Counsel points out that the appellant has even not denied that he did not sign the seizure list. The appellant, with reference to Question no.21 of his examination under Section 313 CrPC appearing at page 39 of the paper book appears to have admitted the seizure. In view of the admitted seizure there can be no possibility of any other view apart from the complicity of the appellant in the crime.
g) With reference to the evidence of PW4, Narayan Ch. Dey the employee of the shop room, Ld. State Counsel submits that although PW4 was declared hostile he has identified his signature on the labels of the seized packets and on the bills. Such would appear from portions of the evidence of PW4 at page 26 of the paper book. It is settled law that the evidence of a witness declared hostile may not be altogether ignored if, found to be otherwise relevant.
h) On the point of the alleged abduction of the appellant- accused from his home at Delhi on 25th November, 2009, Ld. State Counsel submits that the purported presence of a telegram receipt or other documents showing the attempt at sending information to the police - which have not been treated as a formal complaint - cannot be claimed to be an unimpeachable rebuttal of the search and seizure of FICN from the appellant on 11th December, 2009.
i) Ld. State Counsel makes the further point that no animus has been demonstrated in the evidence of the prosecution against the accused. Nothing emerges from the evidence that the members of the raiding police team harboured a prior animosity against the appellant. In the absence of proof of any animus, according to Ld. State Counsel, it is difficult to digest the story of abducting the petitioner from Delhi and thereafter saddling him with a false complaint in Kolkata.
j) In support of his above noted arguments Ld. State Counsel relies upon the following decisions:- 2011 Cr LJ 2493; 1995 Cr LJ 2658 & 2010 (2) AD 364.
Having heard the parties and considering the materials on record this Court finds that there is a consistency in the evidence pertaining to the identification, search and seizure of 11th December, 2009. The various evidence given by the PWs are not contradictory in their essentials making the prosecution case acceptable.
This Court, for instance notices the elaborate evidence of PW1 which describes in details the quantity of FICN seized along with the serial number of notes. The relevant portion of the evidence is reproduced below:-
"These are the said fake indian currency notes of denomination of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 which I seized at the spot but out of those fake indian currency notes, I find two notes of each category i.e. 1000 rupees notes bearing No. 5AG643011 & 5AG643012 are not found. Similarly two fake indian currency notes of denomination of Rs. 500 bearing No. 7AP422517 & 7AP422518 are also not found. Rest of the fake indian currency notes of denomination of Rs. 1000 and Rs. 500 are found and identified by me before the Ld. court. These 18 pcs. notes fade indian currency notes of Rs. 1000 bearing Nos. 5AG643011 to 5AG643030 which were seized by me, are marked Mat. Exts. I to I/17. These are the 58 pcs. of fake indian currency notes of Rs. 500 bearing Nos. 7AP422519 to 7AP422527 i.e. 9 pcs., 7AP422531 (a pc.), 7AP422543 to 7AP422549 (7 pcs.), 7AP422551 to 7AP422552 (2 pcs.), 7AP422554 to 7AP422556 (3 pcs.), 7AP422558 to 7AP422564 (7pcs.), 7AP427626 to 7AP427627 (2 pcs.), 7AP427629 (1 pc.), 7AP 427631 to 7AP427635 (5 pcs.) & 7AP 427637 to 7AP427642 (6pcs.), which I seized at the spot, are marked Mat. Exts. II to Ii/57.
I also find 8 envelops but the label attached to be sealed envelops are not found here. All the envelops which I find now relate to the case No. 'J2' 340/09. The four brown coloured envelops which I find today are labeled and signed by four person, one of SI, S.T.F. with dated- 30.12.09 and marked DD Malkhana No. 594/09.
I also seized one cash memo from the shop at the spot and I packed, sealed and labeled the said cash mem. This is the said sealed envelop and a lebel is pasted on it. I signed on the said label and the intercepted person Md. Adil and both the two witnesses also signed on the said label."
It is further noticed that even the cash memo, being Exbt.5 was seized at the spot. From the evidence of PW5, viz. the expert examiner of notes the quantity of notes seized by PW1 along with their corresponding serial numbers are corroborated. The relevant portion of the evidence is reproduced below:-
"I am now posted as Assistant Works Manager in Currency Note Press, Nasik Road. In the year 2010, I was posted in same post and in the same capacity.
Our office received 60 pcs. Notes of 500 Rupee denomination each and 20 notes of 1000 Rupees denomination each from Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Task Force, Lalbazar, Kolkata and concerned officer of our Organisation received those notes. Subsequently those notes were given to me for examination as to whether those notes were forged notes or genuine notes.
Thereafter, as per the order of the General Manager of Currency Notes Press, those notes were examined by me and found that those notes were counterfeit notes.
Thereafter, after examination of those notes, I prepared a report. After preparation of the report, I put my signature of the report. This is the said original report containing four pages which bears my signature and I put my three signatures on the report. This is the said report and this report is marked is marked as Ext. 14 and my signatures are marked as Ext. 14/2 and 14/3 respectively.
This is the forwarding Memo bearing No. 03/STF dated 2.1.2010 by which the said notes were sent to our office. This forwarding Memo containing 2 pages is marked as Ext. 15. This is the case paper prepared in our office prepared by Forgery Detection Cell of our office. This is case paper which is marked as Ext. 16. This is the envelop containing opinion and report forwarded to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Labazar, Kolkata. This envelop is marked as Ext.17.
These are the 60 pcs. Notes of 500 Rupees denomination each bearing No. 7AP-422517 and other 59 notes. Out of those 60 pcs of 500 Rupee Notes I found 59 pcs. Of such notes at present. In the last note of the said bundle, C N P diary No. 34/10 dated 13.1.2010 has been mentioned. The notes (already marked Mat. Ext. II to Mat. Ext. II/57) are identified by the witness. This is the envelop by which we received the said 60 pcs. of rupees 500 denomination notes each. This envelop is marked as Mat. Ext. II/58 (objected to). This is the said envelop by which we returned back those 60 pcs. of forged currency Notes of Rupee 500 denomination each to Deputy Commissioner of Police, STF, Labazar, Kolkata. This envelop is marked as Mat. Ext. II/59. Our office received 20 pcs. of notes of 1000 Rupees denomination each bearing No. 5AG 643011 and other 10 notes. Out of said 20 pcs of notes I find now 18 pcs of such notes. In the last note our office sealed with CNP Diary No. 34/10 dated 13.1.2010. these are those 18 notes, (already marked as Mat. Ext. I to I/17), identified by the witness. This is the envelop by which our office received 20 pcs. of 1000 Rupee notes. This envelop is marked as Mat Ext. I/18. (objected to). This is the envelop by which after examination we returned 20 pcs. of 1000Rupee notes to Deputy commissioner of Police, Special Task Force, Lalbazar, Kolkata. This envelop is marked as Mat. Ext. I/19.
After examination, my findings are the referred suspected notes of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 denomination are counterfeit notes due to the above mentioned reasons and absence of other security features of relevant designs already mentioned in the report. In my report I have incorporated of relevant designs as already mentioned in the report. In my report, I have specifically mentioned, examination details and quality of prints."
This Court therefore is persuaded enough to notice the parity of evidence between PW1 and PW5 with regard to the contents of the seizure. It is also noticed that prior to the search of the appellant at the shop on 11th December, 2009 PW4, Narayan Ch. Dey, an employee of the shop has indicated that the members of the police raiding team were first searched before the appellant by PWs3 and 4. Thereafter, search was conducted by the police team. In such view of the matter it emerges before this Court that the correct sequence of search and seizure has been followed by the police team.
With regard to seizure of the FICN it is the evidence of PW2, SI of New Market Police Station that there were three sealed packets with PW1 when he arrived at the said police station with the appellant- accused. On the arrival of the raiding police team with the appellant at New Market Police Station the general diary entry was lodged. The second GD was recorded when the appellant was handed over to STF, Lalbazar for further investigation. To the mind of this Court the sequence of events indicated by PW2 in his evidence does not show any intentional lapse or laches on the part of the dealing police station to lodge the GDE thereby causing delay.
This Court is further inclined to notice the very consistent evidence of PW3, the owner of the shop. PW3 has testified that he put his signature on the seizure list, on the three envelopes and on the cash memo. PW3 has specifically testified to the fact that Rs. fifteen hundred FICN was in the hands of the appellant that is one one thousand rupee note and one five hundred rupee note.
PW3 has also testified to with precision the price range of the helmet negotiated with the appellant. PW3 has stated that the price of the helmet was between Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 1050/- and for payment it is a normal human response to hand over a rounded figure of Rs. 1500/- over the counter. Such rounded figure of 1500/- was admittedly handed over by the appellant and refused to be accepted by PW3 on the ground that the same were fake.
Moreover, PW3 has indicated to a normal course of business transaction which was admitted to have taken place with the appellant in the shop room on 11th December, 2009 by stating that the appellant was asked to indicate his name and address for putting the same on the cash memo. Such cash memo was seized and marked as Exbt.5. PW3 has further stated in his cross-examination that he can produce the carbon copy of the cash memo. PW3 has strongly denied the preparation of any false bill in favour of the appellant.
Now noticing the evidence of PW4 this Court finds that although he was declared hostile still his evidence essentially confirms the sequences of events narrated by PW3. PW4 states that he put his signature on three envelopes that formed part of the seizure list. He also corroborates the seizure of 19 pieces of Rs. 1000/- and 59 pieces of Rs. 500/- FICN from the body of the appellant. PW4 also mentions that he is the signatory to the seizure list and could not be shaken in cross-examination.
As noticed above in this judgment the quantity and serial number of notes in respect of which there is a parity of evidence between PWs 1 and 5 also finds reflection in the evidence of PW6, the investigating officer. PW6 admits in the evidence on the sequence of events given by the previous PWs and further states that one denomination of Rs. 500/- FICN and Rs. 1000/- FICN respectively bearing the serial numbers of 5AG and 7AP were handed over to the National Investigating Agency for investigation. It is also the evidence of PW6 that the FICN was personally handed over by him to the experts at the laboratory in Nashik.
This Court therefore finds that efficient advocacy on behalf of the appellant to cast a shadow of doubt in the mind of this Court on the authenticity of the identification, search and seizure must take a backseat when the evidence of the PWs is considered in its essential entirety. This Court also finds substance in the argument of Ld. State Counsel that no animus could be found against the appellant by any member of the police who formed part of the raiding team and particularly PW1. This Court notices that the bold evidence of DW1 with regard to the alleged abduction of the appellant from their house in Delhi on 25th November, 2009 has crumbled in cross-examination which is worth reproducing here:-
"I am carrying on business in New Delhi. I have no papers or documents to produce before the Ld. Court that I am carrying on business. I have poor knowledge in English I have not asked for any identities cards or whereabouts of the persons wearing plain clothes who came to my house. I used to go in the hand loom exhibition for running by business there but apart from the said exhibition. I stay at my house. I am not in a position to produce any paper at present before the Ld. Court to show that I attended exhibition for business but I am in possessi9on of such papers which are lying in my house. I did not mention in any of the documents marked exhibits in this case that the Kolkata Police had taken away my elder brother Md. Adil, the accused of this case. I came to know on 14.12.2009 from the local people of New Delhi that Md. Adil was arrested by Kolkata Police in New Market Police Station Case No.313 of 2009. It is not a fact that having been tutored by the accd. Md. Adil, I deposed falsely."
In the backdrop of the above discussion this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment and sentence of conviction impugned in this appeal.
CRA 207 of 2012 stands accordingly dismissed. Urgent certified photocopies of this judgement, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all formalities.
(Subrata Talukdar, J.)