Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Fakrul Islam @ Fakru @ Phakru vs Union Of India on 20 December, 2018
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi, Ravi Krishan Kapur
Form No. J(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
&
The Hon'ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
C.R.A. 748 of 2015
Fakrul Islam @ Fakru @ Phakru
Vs.
Union of India
With
C.R.A. 19 of 2016
Naphe Singh
Vs.
Union of India
With
C.R.A. 20 of 2016
Shyam Lama
Vs.
Union of India
For the appellants : Mr. Arnab Chatterjee, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Maity, Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor
Mr. Sanjay Bardhan, Adv.
For the DRI : Mr. Kaushik Dey, Adv.
Heard on : 17.12.2018
Judgment on : 20.12.2018
~2~
Joymalya Bagchi, J.:
Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 29/9/2015 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, N.D.P.S. Act, Siliguri in CR. (NDPS) Case No.12 of 2009 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 years and pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 years and pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under section 29. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Prosecution case as alleged against the appellants is to the effect that on 12/5/2015 one S.K. Chakroborty (P.W.10), Deputy Director of Intelligence, Siliguri Regimal Unit, received information that a consignment of Ganja loaded in a tanker was supposed to go to Kolkata via Siliguri-Fulbari Bypass Road. Under his leadership Debasish Acharjee (P.W.1), Basudev Chakraborty, (P.W.2), Subir Kumar Jana, (P.W.3), Somit Das (P.W.4), Pankaj Kumar (P.W.5) went to Siliguri-Fulbari Bypass Road. They kept surveillance over movement of traffic. At 10.00 p.m. they spotted a tanker near Leucipokhri on Fulbari Road. The tanker was stranded and on interrogation they were informed that it had developed some mechanical problem. The driver of the tanker disclosed his identity as Naphe Singh while the helper stated his name as Shyam Lama. Initially, they claimed that the tanker was empty but upon examination by knocking the tanker from outside it appeared some articles were stored inside the tanker. Accordingly, the tanker was taken to DRI ~3~ Godown. Two independent persons, namely, Bimal Paul (P.W.6) and Shambhu Sha (P.W.9) were requested to witness the search. When the lid of the tanker was opened, number of packets were found stored in the container. 186 packets wrapped in polythene sheets were recovered from the tanker. On physical examination it was suspected that it contained ganja. From the driver's cabin and registration certificate and other papers in respect of vehicle bearing no. WB- 23A/2518 were recovered. A number plate showing registration no. NL-02G/5305 and with connected papers was also recovered. Net weight of the recovered contraband was found to be 3563.28 kgs. Samples were taken from six packets at random and a homogenous mixture of 300 grams of 12 samples were prepared in the presence of the appellants and independent witnesses. The entire consignment was seized and deposited in the godown along with the vehicle. Voluntary statement of appellants Naphe Singh and Shyam Lama was recorded on 13/5/2009 under Section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act wherein Naphe Singh stated that he was introduced to appellant Fakru by another truck driver and on the instruction of Fakru, he had driven the truck loaded with ganja from Assam. Shyam Lama was employed by him as a helper and he travelled with him to Assam and had knowledge that the tanker would be used to carry ganja from Assam to Kolkata. Similar statement was also made by Shyam Lama. Both the appellants were arrested on 13/5/2009. Further statements of Naphe Singh and Shyam Lama were recorded in custody and it was ascertained that one Fakrul Islam, s/o Md. Manohar Ali who had been arrested on 7/10/2009 in Bhangaghar P.S. case no. 105/08 under Section 120B/224/225 of I.P.C. is the person who had instructed them to transport the ganja. Said Fakrul Islam was shown arrested in this case. Subsequently, complaint was filed under ~4~ section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act against the appellant. Charges were framed under the aforesaid sections against the appellants who pleaded not guilt and claimed to be tried.
In the course of trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication.
In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by judgment and order dated 29/9/2015 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid.
Learned lawyer for appellants Naphe Singh and Shyam Lama submitted that the search and seizure in the instant case was not being done in accordance with procedure contemplated in law. Mandatory provisions of law relating to search and seizure have been violated. It is further submitted that the statements of the appellants were not voluntarily obtained and cannot be relied upon. Entire consignment of ganja including the packets have not been produced in the instant case. Hence, the said appellants ought to be acquitted.
On behalf of the appellant Md. Fakru, it is submitted that there is no substantive evidence on record apart from the statements of co-accuseds to connect him with the alleged crime. Contents of the documents exhibited by P.W.7 cannot be treated to have been proved. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for NCB submitted that the evidence of the seizing officer have been supported by independent witnesses. Large consignment of ganja was seized from a tanker which was driven by appellant Naphe Singh and Shyam Lama was his helper. The said consignment was duly seized and samples taken therefrom sent for chemical examination. Voluntary ~5~ statements of the appellants Naphe Singh and Shyam Lama (Ext.1 and 2) were recorded under section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act prior to their arrest disclosing complicity of appellant Md. Fakru. Pursuant to enquiry made through DRI, Guwahati, it was ascertained that appellant Fakru and one Md. Fakrul Islam who was arrested in connection with a case at Guwahati are one and the same person. Conspiracy between the appellants for transporting 3563.28 kgs ganja have been fully established. Evidence of the official witnesses are corroborated by independent witnesses. In view of the fact that inventory list under section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act have been produced in court, non-production of the consignment of ganja would not affect the credibility of the prosecution case.
Let me discuss the rival issues in the light of the prosecution evidence. P.W.1, Debasish Acharjee, was a member of the raiding party. He deposed on 12/5/2009 he was posted as Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI, Pradhannagar. On that day, in the evening, Subir Kumar Chakraborty, Deputy Director, DRI, Pradhannagar (P.W.10), received intelligence that a consignment of ganja loaded in a tanker was supposed to go to Kolkata from North-Eastern region via Fulbari- Siliguri bypass road. Under the leadership of P.W.10, he along with other officers proceeded to Fulbari-Siliguri bypass road to work out the information. On arriving at the bypass road they kept surveillance over traffic. At 10.00 p.m. they spotted a tanker stranded near Leucipokhri. It was claimed that the tanker had developed mechanical problems. Driver of the tanker disclosed his identity as Naphe Singh while the helper stated that his name was Shyam Lama. Initially, they stated that there was nothing in the tanker but on examining the tanker from outside and knocking on the body of the tanker, the members of the raiding party suspected ~6~ that there were articles inside the tanker. Accordingly, appellants were requested to take the tanker to the DRI godown at State Warehouse Corporation, Babu Para, Siliguri. They requested two independent witnesses, namely, Bimal Paul (P.W.6) and Shambhu Sha (P.W.9) to join the search. When the lid of the tanker was opened, a number of packets were seen in the chamber of the tanker. 186 packets covered in polythene sheets of different colours were taken out from the tanker. It was suspected that the said packets contained ganja. From the driver's cabin registration certificate, insurance policy, etc., of vehicle bearing No. WB-23A/2518 were recovered. Number plate showing registration No. NL-02G/5305 along with registration certificate, insurance paper was also recovered. Net weight of the entire consignment was found to be 3563.28 kgs. Six samples each weighing 20 grams were drawn in duplicate. Altogether 300 grams were drawn as samples. The samples were sent for chemical examination. Samples were kept in envelopes and the envelopes were sealed. Appellants Naphe Singh and Shyam Lama as well as the independent witnesses put their signatures on the envelopes. Six envelopes containing the samples were identified by the appellants. His signatures were also identified. He recorded the statement of Naphe Singh. Naphe Singh stated that he knew only Hindi but he could not write. Nikhil Sahani (P.W.12) was brought to record his statement. P.W.12 read over the statement to Naphe Singh. He proved the statement of Naphe Singh (Ext.1). Sanjay Sharma, another Hindi writer (P.W.13), recorded the statement of Shyam Lama. Said statement was read over and explained to Shyam Lama. He identified the statement (Ext.2). He identified his signature thereon (Ext.2/1). Thereafter, Shyam Lama and Naphe Singh were arrested. He identified the registration certificate of vehicle No. WB-23A/2518 and ~7~ other documents. He identified the number plate of vehicle No. NL-02G/5305. He collected chemical examination report from the chemical examiner (Ext.12). Pursuant to the statement made by Naphe Singh and Shyam Lal, DRI Guwahati and DRI Kolkata offices were requested to make follow up equiries. DRI Guwahati Office was requested to make enquiry about the name and address of Naphe Singh, particulars of vehicle bearing no. NL-02G/5305 from the office of R.T.O., Nagaland. DRI Kolkata was requested to provide particulars of vehicle bearing no. WB- 23A/2518 from the concerned R.T.O.'s office and to verify the address of Shyam Lama. DRI Kolkata submitted report regarding vehicle bearing no. WB-23A/2518 that the vehicle was registered in the name of one Avtar Singh of B.T. Road, Kolkata. It was registered as a heavy goods vehicle. Report of DRI Kolkata was marked as Ext.14. Summons were issued upon Avtar Singh, the registered owner of vehicle no.WB-23A/2518. Report from DRI Guwahati was marked as Ext.17 with objection. Address of the Naphe Singh could not be ascertained. Naphe Singh and Shyam Lama were again interrogated in Siliguri Special Correctional Home. They reiterated their earlier statements. Statement of Naphe Singh on 4/6/2009 (Ext.18) was recorded by Pankaj Kumar and that of Shyam Lal (Ext.19) was also recorded by the said officer. Subsequently, on 9/10/2009, a letter (Ext.20) was issued by S.K. Mohanta, Deputy Director, DRI Guwahati (P.W.7) that one Md. Fakrul Islam, S/o Md. Manohar Ali of village Borhawar, P.O. and P.S. Morajhar, Dist. Nagaon, Assam was arrested in connection with Bhangaghar P.S. station case no. 105/08 dated 7/10/2009 under sections 120B/224/225 of I.P.C. According to the report, the said Md. Fakrul Islam and Fakru are the same person. Thereafter, appellant Md. Fakru Islam alias Fakru was interrogated and his statement was recorded (Ext.21). He was ~8~ shown arrested in the instant case. Subsequently, complaint was filed (Ext.24) against the appellants. Photographs of the seized vehicle (Ext.26) was also exhibited.
Basudev Chakraborty (P.W.2), Subir Kumar Jana (P.W.3), Somit Das (P.W.4) and Pankaj Kumar (P.W.5) are the members of the raiding party. They have substantially corroborated the evidence of P.W.1.
P.W.8, Mahesh Thakur, was the driver of the vehicle bearing no. WB02-9386 which was used by Subir Kumar Chakraborty (P.W.10) and other officers to go to the spot. He has also corroborated the prosecution case.
P.W.10, Subir Kumar Chakraborty, deposed that on 12/5/2009 around 5/6 p.m. he received intelligence regarding movement of an oil tanker containing ganja. He formed a team comprising of the aforesaid intelligence officers and proceeded to the spot. Thereafter, they apprehended a vehicle bearing no. WB-23A/2518 and enquired of the driver and the helper of the vehicle. Initially, they denied carrying any article in the vehicles, but subsequently the driver disclosed that the container contained ganja. They took the container to the godown. He sent the samples of the seized articles for chemical examination. He proved the forwarding letter issued to the chemical examiner (Ext.12). He proved the report of the chemical examiner received by him (Ext.14).
P.W.11, Ramendra Nath Makhal, is the Judicial Magistrate who had inventorised the seized articles and issued certificate in terms of section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act (Ext.38/1).
P.W.6 and 9 are the independent witnesses. P.W.6, Bimal Paul, deposed he is a tailor having a tailoring shop at Pradhannagar. On 12/5/2009 around 09.30 p.m. he had gone to the house of his elder brother near Tarai School. While he was ~9~ returning home around 11.30/12.00 midnight, he found a crowd in the vicinity of the Godown of DRI. He also found a tanker standing in front of the Godown. DRI officers told him that there was contraband article like ganja in the tanker and proposed that he might witness the search. He consented to it. The driver and khalasi disclosed their identities before him. 186 packets suspected to be ganja were recovered. Articles were weighted and was found to be 3500 kgs. Officers took samples of ganja from the packets. Seizure list was prepared and he signed on the seizure list (Ext.30/1). In cross-examination, he stated he had been witnesses in other cases also.
P.W.9, Shambhu Sha, deposed on 12/5/2009 he was going from his residence to Gurung Basti when he found a crowd in front of the godown. DRI officers requested him to witness the search. He found a tanker in front of the godown. 186 packets were brought out from the tanker. The packets were weighted in a weighing machine belonging to DRI officers. The weight of the seized article was found to be 3563 kgs. Samples were taken from the packets and put it envelopes. He put his signature on the seizure list as well as envelopes. In cross-examination, he stated he is illiterate and cannot read any paper, however, contents of the paper was read to him.
P.W.12 and 13 recorded the statement of appellant Naphe Singh and Shyam Lal respectively. P.W.12, Nikhil Sahani, deposed on 13/5/2009 he was requested to record the statement of one person named Naphe Singh. He recorded the statement as stated by Naphe Singh (Ext.1). He read over the statement to Naphe Singh who put his LTI on the statement. He identified Naphe Singh. In cross-examination, he ~ 10 ~ stated that the portions of the statement written in English were written by DRI officers.
P.W.13, Sanjay Sharma, stated that he recorded the statement of one person named Shyam Lama. He read over and explained the statement and thereafter Shyam Lama put his LTI. He, however, could not identify Shyam Lama in court.
P.W.7, Shyam Kanu Mahanta, was posted as Deputy Director, DRI at Guwahati at the time of occurrence. He received letter from Siliguri DRI to carry out follow up enquiry in this case. He received the letter in May, 2009. He deputed Subir Das and Goutam Das to undertake enquiry. After enquiry they gave a report to him which he forwarded to DRI Siliguri (Ext.17). He issued another letter dated 9/10/2009 to DRI Siliguri regarding identity of Md. Fakrul (Ext.20). Letter dated 19/10/19 was issued by DRI Siliguri for serving of production warrant to Kamrup Central Jail and obtained an endorsement thereon. Upon enquiry made by his officers, they could not identify the address of Fakrul Islam or Md. Fakrul. One Fakrul Islam was arrested by local police and this ws intimated to DRI Siliguri. Md. Fakrul Islam and Fakrul, accused in this case, are one and the same person. Nothing substantial could be unravelled with regard to registration and other details of the offending vehicle.
From the evidence on record it is clear that intelligence was received by P.W.10 on 12/5/2009 around 05.00 p.m. that a vehicle would carry ganja from North-Eastern region to Calcutta through Siliguri-Fulbari bypass road. P.W.10 formed a team comprising of P.W.s 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and left for the spot Siliguri- Fulbari bypass road in a official vehicle driven by P.W.8. Around 10.00 p.m. they noticed a vehicle at Leucipokhri which was stranded due to mechanical failure. They ~ 11 ~ interrogated the driver and helper of the vehicle who disclosed their identities as Naphe Sigh and Shyam Lama. Initially, the said appellants stated that there was nothing inside the vehicle. On further examination and knocking on the body of the vehicle, the raiding party suspected that the container was not empty. Accordingly, the appellants were requested to drive the vehicle to the godown of DRI. At the spot the members of the raiding party requested P.W.6 and 9 to join the search. Upon opening the lid of the container of the vehicle, 186 packets covered in polythene sheets of different colours were recovered. Weight of the packets were found to be 3563.28 kgs. Seizure list was prepared. The entire consignment was seized and seized under a seizure list which was written by P.W.1 and signed by the witnesses and the appellants Naphe Singh and Shyam Lama. Samples were drawn and kept in envelopes which were also signed by the said persons. The entire consignment of narcotic substance was examined and duly certified by Magistrate Ramendra Nath Makhal (P.W.11) under section 52-A Cr.P.C. (Ext.38/1). Chemical examiner's report was proved as Ext.12. It is argued that P.W.6 is a stock witness and has been examined in other DRI cases also. I find that the evidence relating to search and seizure of a huge quantity of ganja from a vehicle driven and controlled by Naphe Singh and Shyam Lama is established from the evidence of the members of the raiding party. Their evidence is substantially corroborated by P.W.6 and 9.
Under such circumstances I am loath to reject the evidence of P.W.6 merely because he is a witness in other cases also. It is relevant to note that other independent witness (P.W.9) has not been cited a witness in any other case and his version cannot be discarded to be a stock witness.
~ 12 ~ Hence, I am of the view that search and seizure of the narcotic from the appellants Naphe Singh and Shyam Lama in the instant case was duly proved through the evidence of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses. It has been argued that neither the entire consignment of ganja nor 186 polythene packets have been produced in court. P.W.11, Judicial Magistrate deposed that he duly certified the entire consignment of 3563.28 kgs. of ganja at DRI Guwahati and in view of section 52-A(3) of the N.D.P.S. Act the court is entitled to treat such certificate (Ext.38/2) as primary evidence and the prosecution is not required to produce the consignment of narcotic substance.
In view of the aforesaid facts and in the light of the law declared in Union of India Vs. Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379, I find no substance in the submission that the entire consignment of ganja was required to be produced in the instant case.
In addition to the aforesaid evidence of seizure of the narcotic substance from the appellants Naphe Singh and Shyam Lal, they also made voluntary statements (Ext.1 and 2) which were duly scribed by P.W.12 and 13 and read over and explained to them. These statements were recorded prior to the arrest of the appellant and hence, cannot be said to be involuntary in nature. I am, however, not inclined to rely on the subsequent statements of Naphe Singh and Shyam Lal recorded by P.W.5 (Ext.19 and 21) which were recorded when the said appellants were in jail custody.
In the light of the aforesaid evidence I am inclined to hold that the appellants were in conscious possession of 3563.28 kgs. of ganja and were transporting the said consignment of ganja in the tanker which was apprehended at Leucipokhri, Siliguri on 12/5/2009 at 10.00 p.m., as aforesaid.
~ 13 ~ However, with regard to appellant Fakrul Islam @ Fakru I find the prosecution case is essentially based on the statements of co-accused Naphe Singh and Shyam Lama recorded on 13/5/2009 and on 4/6/2009 respectively. Enquiry report (Ext.20) forwarded by S.K. Mohanta, Deputy Director, DRI Guwahati has also been relied upon to establish that Fakrul Islam who was arrested in connection with Bhangaghar P.S. station case no. 105/08 dated 7/10/2009 is one and the same person. It is pertinent to note the statement of Fakru recorded during enquiry (Ext.21) is an exculpatory one and does not support the prosecution case.
It is trite law that statement of a co-accused under section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act cannot be used against an accused in the absence of corroboration. In this regard, reference may be made to Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, JT 2018 (7) SC 313.
The Apex Court held as follows:-
"10. Even if we are to proceed on the premise that such statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act may amount to confession, in our view, certain additional features must be established before such a confessional statement could be relied upon against a co-accused. It is noteworthy that unlike Section 15 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987 which specifically makes confession of a co-accused admissible against other accused in certain eventualities; there is no such similar or identical provision in the NDPS Act making such confession admissible against a co- accused. The matter therefore has to be seen in the light of the law laid down by this Court as regards general application of a confession of a co-accused as against other accused."
Corroboration which the prosecution has sought to rely are enquiry reports (Ext.17 and 20) which were forwarded by P.W.7 who was posted as Deputy Director, Guwahati. P.W.7 deposed pursuant to query received from DRI Siliguri, he deputed ~ 14 ~ two officers, namely, Subir Das and Goutam Das to make enquiry in the matter and thereafter he forwarded the enquiry reports to DRI, Siliguri. Admissibility of Ext.17 and 20 were challenged by the appellants in the course of the trial. It is pertinent to note that the enquiring officers, namely, Subir Das and Goutam Das, have not been examined in the instant case. Hence, contents of the report (Ext.17 and 20) cannot be proved by their superior, P.W.7. Moreover, opinion of an enquiring officer cannot be said to be proved unless the said enquiring officer is examined in court and subjected to cross-examination. Hence, no probative value can be attached to Ext.17 and 20 and it cannot be said that the said reports have been proved through the deposition of P.W.7. Furthermore, mere production of a document is not proof of the truth of its contents. Trial Court relied on Section 66 of the N.D.P.S. Act to prove the contents of the said documents.
Section 66 of the N.D.P.S. Act reads as follows:-
"66. Presumption as to document in certain cases.-Where any document - (i) is produced or furnished by any person or has been seized from the custody or control of any person, in either case, under this Act or under any other law, or
(ii) has been received from any place outside India (duly authenticated by such authority or person and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government) in the course of investigation of any offence under this Act alleged to have been committed by a person, and such document is tendered in any prosecution under this Act in evidence against him, or against him and any other person who is tried jointly with him, the court shall-
(a) presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the signature and every other part of such document which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which the court may reasonably assume to have been signed by or to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting; and in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested;
(b) admit the document in evidence, notwithstanding that it is not duly stamped, if such document is otherwise admissible in evidence;
~ 15 ~
(c) in a case falling under clause (i) also presume, unless the contrary is proved, the truth of the contents of such document."
An analysis of the statutory presumption contained in the aforesaid provision would show that such presumption would apply to documents which are produced, furnish or seized from the control or custody of a person against whom such document is tendered during trial. It is not the prosecution case that Ext.17 and 20 which have been tendered against the appellants were either produced, furnished or seized from the control or custody of the said appellants. Therefore, the statutory presumption cannot be attracted to Ext.17 and 20, namely enquiry reports produced by DRI officers from their control and custody and tendered against the appellants in the course of trial.
Hence, there is no legally admissible evidence adduced by the prosecution to corroborate the statements of Naphe Singh and Shyam Lama recorded under section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act so as to establish the conspiracy under section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act in the instant case.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am inclined to convict the appellants, namely, Naphe Singh and Shyam Lama for commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. Conviction and sentence of the appellants Naphe Singh and Shyam Lama in CRA No.19 of 2016 and CRA No.20 of 2016 are upheld.
Hence, the said appeals are dismissed and period of detention undergone by the appellants, namely, Naphe Singh and Shyam Lama during investigation, enquiry ~ 16 ~ and trial are directed to be set off against the substantive sentences imposed upon them in terms of section 428 Cr.P.C.
However, I acquit Fakrul Islam @ Fakru @ Phakru, appellant in CRA 748 of 2015, from the charge of commission of offence punishable under section 29 of N.D.P.S. Act. Conviction and sentence of the appellant in CRA 748 of 2015 are set aside.
CRA 748 of 2015 is allowed and the appellant Fakrul Islam @ Fakru @ Phakru is directed to be forthwith released from jail custody, if not wanted in any other case, upon executing a bond to the satisfaction of the trial court which shall remain in force for six months in terms of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be sent down to the trial court at once.
Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be made available to the appellant within a week from the date of putting in the requisites.
I agree.
(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)