Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Hamid Mondal & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal on 3 July, 2015
Author: Aniruddha Bose
Bench: Aniruddha Bose
Form No. J (2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Appellate Side
Present :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SANKAR ACHARYYA
Criminal Appeal No. 533 of 2014
Hamid Mondal & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal
For the appellants : Mr. Sandipan Ganguly; adv.
Mr. Kusal Kumar Mukherjee; adv.
For the State : Mr. Subir Banerjee; Ld. APP
Mr. Jayanta Banerjee; adv.
Heard on : 31.03.2015, 06.04.2015, 29.04.2015,
07.05.2015, 14.05.2015
Judgment on : 03.07.2015
SANKAR ACHARYYA, J.
This appeal has been directed on filing petition of appeal by three appellants challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants of the charge under Section 307/34, Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Nadia at Krishnagar in Sessions Trial No. V (May 2007) in connection with Sessions Case No 2(10) of 2006. In the said judgment dated 29.4.2014 order of conviction of three appellants and order of acquittal of an another accused Sariat Mollah @ Mao has been passed and by an order dated 30.4.2014 of that judgment, three appellants have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for further one year of the offence punishable under Section 307/34, Indian Penal Code.
Chequered history of the case in short is that on 10.5.2005 informant Sentu kabiraj (PW 13) lodged a written complaint at Hogalberia P.S. in the District of Nadia against unknown accused persons alleging that his elder brother Bipad Kabiraj (PW 11) had gone to his agricultural land across the fence of Indo-Bangladesh Border Area after submitting his Voter Identity Card before the B.S.F. camp on 8.5.2005. But he did not return home till evening of 8.5.2005. Said matter was reported by the informant at B.S.F. camp. In that evening and then at about 9 p.m. the informant (PW
13) alongwith some members of R.G. party and B.S.F. personnels went to the other side of the aforesaid fence in search of his elder brother and they found Bipad Kabiraj was lying with severe bleeding injuries on his persons. He was taken to Karimpur hospital first with the help of B.S.F. and therefrom he was shifted to Shaktinagar hospital when he was struggling for life. Delay in lodging the complaint has been explained as due to engagement in treatment of Bipad Kabiraj. Said complaint was treated as FIR at P.S. and subsequently, it was forwarded to Court where it was received on 12.5.2005. After a few days, on 2.6.2005 the investigating Police Officer, Sub-inspector Santilal Nandi (PW 17) submitted report in Final Form (in short F.R.T) alleging inter alia that he could not apprehend the gang of criminals as they are smugglers of Bangladesh. Said F.R.T. was not accepted by the learned Magistrate and order was passed for service of notice upon the informant. Said notice was not served case docket (C.D.) and was not produced by I.O. on 27.4.2006 Police Officer of Hogalberia P.S. namely Md. Maskar (PW 16) submitted a prayer before learned Magistrate for permission to reopen the investigation of the case with an another prayer for taking the appellants who were arrested in connection with another case of that P.S. under Section 14, Foreigners Act in custody on production of those persons. Considering the prayer of the said Police Officer as subsequent I.O. of the case F.R.T. was not accepted and permission to reopen the investigation was granted and the appellants of this appeal as accused persons were taken into custody in connection with the case by the learned Magistrate. After completion of investigation PW 16 submitted charge sheet against seven accused persons including the three appellants of this appeal showing four absconder accused namely Mao @ Sariat Mollah, Akati Mondal, Lazibar Mondal and Mohidul Mondal @ Mohid all of village Jamalpur P.S. Doulatpur, District Kustia, Bangladesh under Sections 326/307/34, Indian Penal Code. Cognizance was taken by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Tehatta District Nadia on 8.6.2006. Thereafter, process was issued for apprehending the absconder accused persons but they could not be arrested. The case against them was filed for the present as per order dated 1.9.2006 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Tehatta. The case was committed under Section 209, Cr. P.C. to the Court of Sessions, Nadia. Learned Sessions Judge, Nadia transferred the case after registering its Sessions Case No. 2(10) of 2006 to the 1st Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagar, Nadia. In that Court charge under Section 307/34, Indian Penal Code was framed against these three appellants on 25/5/2007 and trial of the case started. In course of trial, another accused Sariat Mollah @ Mao could be apprehended and produced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Charge under Section 307/34, Indian Penal Code was framed against him also in separate sheet on 26.6.2008. Opportunity was given to said accused Sariat Mollah @ Mao to cross-examine the witnesses who were already examined. Then the trial of four accused persons including the three appellants of this appeal continued and ended on passing the impugned judgment.
In this appeal, learned counsels for the appellants and state respondent have advanced their oral arguments and also submitted brief notes of arguments separately.
Initially, the appellants and the other accused persons were not implicated by name for commission of the offence. Subsequently, their names were implicated during investigation. Defence of the four accused persons including these three appellants in the Trial Court was their false implication in the case and they claimed themselves as innocent. Learned Counsel for the appellants has advanced arguments that impugned judgment is bad in law and on facts and it cannot be upheld. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state respondent has advanced his arguments that the impugned judgment is reasoned one and it cannot be set aside.
Point for decision Is the impugned judgment liable to be set aside?
Decision with reasons In the Trial Court respondent prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. PW 1 Susanta Pramanik wrote the complaint (FIR) as per statement of informant Sentu Kabiraj (PW 13, brother of victim PW 11). He has stated the fact that PW 11 went to the field on the other side of fencing of Indo-Bangladesh Border but he did not return after evening, thereafter, B.S.F. personnels found him lying with injuries in the field and brought by B.S.F. Said fact remains unchallenged during cross-examination. He has stated nothing by name against any of the accused persons.
PW 2 is a B.S.F. constable. According to him PW 13 informed at B.O.P. that his brother went to the field in the morning but did not return and then this PW 2 accompanied Officer Kripal Singh Rathore and Badal Krishna Sarkar and PW 13 went across the fencing on search of PW 11 and they found PW 11 lying in the field with severe injuries on his persons. They brought him (PW 11) and sent to Karimpur hospital. This fact remains unchallenged during cross-examination. He also stated nothing against any accused by name.
During examination-in-chief, PW 3 Badal Krishna Sarkar has also deposed in the tune of PW 2. During cross-examination he has admitted that he made statement before the investigating police officer that after enquiry they came to learn that PW 13 was a smuggler and he had connection with smugglers of Bangladesh. However, the facts stated in his examination-in-chief remains unchallenged and he also did not state anything by name against any accused during trial. Relating to his statement before the I.O. we are of the opinion that smuggling is an offence but nobody has authority to cause hurt or murder or attempt to murder to any smuggler taking the law in own hand without going through the process of law. As such, statement, if any, made by PW 13 before the I.O. as admitted during cross-examination if be treated as true then also nobody can be permitted to get escape of committing the alleged offence in this case on that ground if the case is otherwise proved beyond reasonable doubt.
PW 4 Shri Asish Kumar Mukherjee was posted as Judicial Magistrate at Tehatta Court on 18.5.2006 when he recorded statements of Mintu Mondal (PW 7), Subodh Mondal (PW 10), Khokon Pramanik (PW 8) and Santosh Mondal (PW 6) under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.). Said statements have been marked as Exhibit-2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. His cross-examination on that point was declined. Subsequently, he was again examined on recall and at that time (on 15.5.2013) he stated that he conducted T.I. Parade in respect of suspects Hamid Mondal @ Hamed Mondal, Faisal Mondal @ Fizol @ Md. Milan Mondal and Anarul Mondal. The result of T.I Parade has been marked as Exhibit- 10. According to this PW 4 and Exhibit- 10 the victim PW 11 Bipad Kabiraj identified the said three suspects and stated that he saw the suspects when they assaulted him. Witness Hareram Sarkar also identified those three suspects stating that he saw all those suspects in the field and they were engaged in all criminal activities. At that time also cross-examination of PW 4 was declined from the side of defence. Exhibit- 10 is not a substantive evidence but it is corroborative in nature.
PW 5 Kumaresh Biswas received the FIR at Hogalberia P.S. and recorded it. His cross-examination has also been declined. PW 6 Santosh Mondal is a vital witness as claimed by prosecution during trial and by the learned counsel for the state respondent at the time of hearing this appeal. This PW 6 is co-villager of PW 11 and PW 13. This PW 6 has deposed as an eye-witness of the occurrence. According to him, on the date of occurrence he went to his land for harvesting across the fencing and PW 11 also went for harvesting in his land. He has stated that at about 5-5:30 p.m. when he was about to leave his land at that time Anarul (appellant No. 3). Maidul (absconding) Mao (acquitted in trial) and two others the names of whom he could not recollect at that moment of Bangladesh went to the land of PW 11 and they attacked him. They chopped him and also fired one round. PW 6 witnessed that incident from his own land and being afraid he left the land and went to B.S.F. camp. He has stated that at the time of his deposition Hamid (appellant No. 1), Faisal (appellant No. 2) and Anarul (appellant No. 3) remained present in Court. During his cross-examination he has stated that after reporting the matter to B.S.F. camp he also informed the matter to the members of the family of PW 11. He also narrated the incident without suppressing anything before police of Hogalberia police during investigation. He has also stated that after one year B.S.F. arrested three accused persons when they crossed the border and came to India and they were shown to PW 6 and others by police. He has also stated that when he went to his land on the date of occurrence Mantu @ Mintu (PW 7), Subodh Mondal (PW 10) and Khokan Pramanik (PW 8) also went with PW 6. At the time of hearing this appeal learned Advocate for the appellants has drawn our attention to the examination-in-chief of PW 6. According to him, all the three appellants remained present in Court at the time of recording evidence of the PW 6. He did not mention the names of appellant Faisal and Hamid as the members of the assailants' group but interestingly, PW 6 identified those two appellants also along with appellant No. 3 as present accuseds at the time of his deposition. According to his arguments the persons named by PW 6 in his examination-in-chief on 4.12.2007 were certainly the persons known to PW 6 by name and face both. Therefore, according to PW 6, appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 2 did not take part in the alleged incident. Had there been presence of said two appellants during occurrence there was no reason for the PW 6 not to recollect their names who remained present within his sight at the time of deposition. He has further argued that had it been the fact that the PW 6 was aware about the identity of five accused persons including the three appellants and the acquitted accused and the PW 6 informed the matter to the members of the family of PW 11 (victim), there would have been reflection of the names of the accused persons in the FIR which was lodged subsequently by PW 13 (brother of PW 11). He has concluded his arguments about PW 6 that this witness is not at all trustworthy.
According to PW 6, the PW 7, PW 8 and PW 10 also accompanied PW 6 to his field on the date of occurrence. PW 7 has mentioned the names of PW 6 and PW 10 were also with him on the date of occurrence. According to his evidence, they heard sound of firing and being frightened fled away from the land and went to B.S.F. camp and reported that PW 11 had been attacked and perhaps he might have been murdered. During cross-examination he stated that he did not suppress anything to B.S.F. camp. This PW 7 has claimed that he went for working in the land of PW 6. According to PW 6 the assailants of PW 11 chopped PW 11 and also fired one round. According to PW 7 they heard sound of firing and being frightened fled away to B.S.F. camp. He has not stated claiming himself as eye-witness about any incident of chopping on PW 11 or about any person took part in committing the crime.
`According to PW 6, the PW 8 also accompanied him to his land on the date of occurrence. This PW 8 says that at about 5- 5:30 p.m. he heard hue and cry and a sound of firing and being frightened they fled away from the land of PW 6. They reported the matter at B.S.F. camp and villagers about the incident and thereafter, the villagers went to the spot and brought PW 11 to their village and admitted him at hospital. He also does not corroborate the PW 6 regarding names and identity of the accused persons. He also does not claim himself as an eye-witness of any incident of assault on PW 11. PW 10 Subodh Mondal has stated that he was working in the land of PW 6. At about 5-5:30 p.m. they heard hue and cry at some distance and voice of someone "ORE BABARE". Hearing the hue and cry they proceeded towards that place and in the meantime, they heard sound of firing then being frightened they fled away from the place and informed B.S.F. and they suspected that Bipad (PW 11) was murdered. Thereafter, B.S.F. brought the injured PW 11 and sent him to hospital.
Significantly, PW 7 made statement before PW 4 under Section 164, Cr.P.C. (Exhibit- 2). In that statement he mentioned the names of assailants of PW 11 including the names of two appellants of this appeal (Anarul and Faisal). Interestingly, this PW 7 neither mentioned the names of assailants of PW 11 nor he has identified the accused persons during trial.
PW 10 also made statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. (Exhibit- 3) before PW 4. He has also made statement like PW 7 stating names of assailants of PW 11. During his examination as PW 10 in Court during trial he also did not state name of any assailant of PW 11 and he also did not identify any accused person.
PW 8 also made statement before PW 4 under Section 164, Cr.P.C. (Exhibit- 4). He also made statement mentioning names of some assailants of PW 11 in almost same tune of PW 7 and PW 10 but at the time of recording evidence in Court he neither stated names of assailants of PW 11 not he identified any accused.
PW 6 made statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. (Exhibit- 5) before PW 4. In the evidence of PW 6 he stated that he went to his land on the date of occurrence for harvesting but in his statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. he stated that they went his land for weeding jute crops. We like to mention that weeding is done at the early stage of cultivations of crops but harvesting is the final stage of cultivation. In the same tune of PW 7 and PW 10 this PW 6 stated in a statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. that appellant No. 3, appellant No. 2, acquitted accused Mao and others embraced PW 11 and this PW 6 heard sound of one firing and then all of them including PW 6 fled away. As such in the evidence of PW 6 regarding any incident of chopping or firing one round on PW 11 which has been claimed as seen by PW 6 is not supported by Exhibit- 5. Under such circumstance, the arguments advanced by learned Advocate for the appellants against reliability on PW 6 cannot be ignored by us.
PW 9 Haran Sarkar has stated that on the date of occurrence they were at some distance from the P.O. in Charer - Math. They heard hue and cry and a sound of firing and being frightened they fled away. He has stated nothing against any accused person of the case on 5.12.2007. He was subsequently examined on recall. At that time on 15.5.2013 he stated that he attended T.I. Parade and identified these three appellants at that time. Results of T.I. Parade has been marked Exhibit- 10 which speaks that PW 9 stated before PW 4 that he saw these three appellants in the field but he did not state any overt act done by any of the appellants at the relevant time of alleged occurrence. As such, neither in deposition of PW 9 nor in Exhibit- 10 we find any substantive evidence to implicate the appellants with the alleged crime. We like to reiterate that Exhibit- 10 is not a substantive piece of evidence but it is corroborative in nature when there is absence of substantive evidence, evidence of corroborative nature is no evidence.
Most vital witness of the alleged incident of this case is PW 11 Bipad Kabiraj. According to him, in one morning in the year 2005 he was working in his jute field after getting entry in the B.S.F. camp. At about 5-5:30 p.m. some Bangladeshi entered into his jute field and fired at PW 11 and they also cut left thumb of PW 11 and after that they again fired at PW 11. When he received gunshot injury on his left waist, he fell down and lost his sense. Said miscreants also attacked PW 11 with weapons and he received severe injuries on every part of his body. He regained his sense at Shaktinagar hospital. He was able to recognise the assailants. He identified the three appellants as his assailants. During his cross- examination on behalf of the appellants he stated that he noticed the aforesaid accused persons at Megna Head Quarters of B.S.F. camp and that he was interrogated by police but he did not state to police that the three appellants of this case chopped him and opened fire at him. He admitted that he made statement before the I.O. that he does not know the names of the accused persons. Firstly, he was examined and cross-examined on 21.3.2009 and he was again examined and cross-examined on recall on 6.2.2013. On the subsequent occasion he stated that he identified these three appellants in T.I. Parade also. He was suggested during cross- examination that he identified the accused in jail as per instructions by police, but the said suggestion was denied by him.
According to prosecution case, the occurrence took place on 8.5.2005 (Exhibit- I), the information about the occurrence was lodged at Hogalberia P.S. on 10.5.2005 (Exhibit- 6) and as per order sheet of the case before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Tehatta, the FIR was received from P.S. on 12.5.2005. Firstly, F.R.T. was submitted on 2.6.2005 but it was kept held up. Three appellants were produced in Court in connection with another case with prayer for taking them into custody in connection with the instant case which was made on 27.4.2006 by the second I.O. of the case. T.I. Parade of the three appellants were held on 8.5.2006 when they were identified by PW 6 and PW 9. PW 6, PW 7, PW 8 and PW 10 made statements under Section 164, Cr.P.C. before PW 4 on 18.5.2006. According to the depositions of the aforesaid witnesses police had shown the appellants at P.S. before placing the witnesses in T.I. Parade. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that such type of T.I. Parade is of no help to prove the prosecution story regarding identification of the assailants of PW 11. He has also advanced his arguments before us that as per evidence of PW 6, PW 7, PW 8 and PW 10 in substance the assailants were the known persons of PW 6 only. But at the time of their recording statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. each of them mentioned some names of assailants of PW 11 on 18.5.2006 which cannot be believed at all. According to his arguments the injured victim was placed in T.I. Parade instead of recording his statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. only because the fact that the assailants of PW 11 were not known to PW 11 before the alleged occurrence. Neither during T.I. Parade not at the time of his deposition on oath as PW 11 he stated as to how and in what manner the appellants of this case took part in assaulting PW 11.
PW 13 Sentu kabiraj is the informant of this case he lodged the FIR. He has admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the incident of the case. He does not corroborate the witnesses discussed earlier who have stated that they gave information to the family members of the injured. PW 11 is the brother of this PW 13. It is needless to say that had there been any information before lodging FIR to PW 13 by any person who knew the names of assailants of PW 11, then the names of assailants of PW 11 would have certainly appeared in the FIR.
PW 14 Dr. Rahul Gupta medically treated the PW 11 who was admitted at Krishnanagar Sadar hospital on 9.5.2005. He has described the injuries of PW 11. This PW 14 has proved the injury report as Exhibit- 7 wherefrom it appears that the PW 11 was admitted in that hospital for a few days. According to the evidence of PW 14 the PW 11 or any member of the patient party did not disclose how and in what manner, the PW 11 sustained injuries and by whom. It creates suspicion as to whether this PW 11 was at all aware about identity of his assailants till his discharge from the hospital.
PW 15 is inspector of B.S.F. and he stated nothing either in favour of prosecution not in favour of defence.
PW 16 is the Investigating Police Officer (I.O.) who submitted charge-sheet after investigation. It is pertinent to mention that the occurrence took place on 8.5.2005 and PW 16 started investigation on 27.4.2006. During cross-examination this PW 16 stated that at the time of making prayer for reopening the case he did not obtain any statement by any witness and he did not make prayer for recording the statement of the accused persons under Section 164, Cr.P.C. Putting emphasis on this circumstance learned counsel for the appellants has argued that there was no material with PW 16 for implicating these three appellants in this case. According to him there is no cogent explanation on the part of the prosecution as to why most vital witness PW 11 who is victim of the case was examined after about one year of the occurrence. This delay is sufficient to cook up a false case against accused persons including the appellants of this case. Significantly, names and identity of the appellants were absent within four corners of the case docket (C.D.) till 27.4.2006 and their names were brought on record in this case after their arrest in connection with another case.
PW 17 is the first I.O. who submitted final report in the case. According to him he visited P.O., drew sketch map with index, collected the injury report of PW 11, seized some blood stained earth and sample earth under a seizure list and recorded statements of the witnesses. He did not state the names of the witnesses whose statements were recorded by him. There is no specific claim that the PW 17 recorded any statement of PW 11 during his investigation work. As such obviously, the alleged investigation work done by PW 17 is not proper. We cannot brush aside the arguments that had the PW 17 examined the relevant witnesses and came to learn about the names and identity of the miscreants, certainly there would have been a charge-sheet against accused persons showing them as absconder even on failure of PW 17 to apprehend them. It casts a reasonable doubt that before 27.4.2006 there was no material with the state prosecution to implicate the appellants as accused persons in this case. There is no explanation of delay of two days in sending the FIR from the P.S. to the Court. There is also no cogent evidence regarding explanation of examining the PWs including the victim PW 11 after lapse of about one year. Such circumstances casts a black cloud on the evidence of prosecution against the appellant accused persons relating to the charges framed against them. We find sufficient reason to believe that on the date of occurrence the PW 11 went to the place of occurrence and received injuries as stated in the charge framed in this case. But unless and until it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons who are appellants herein voluntarily caused hurt to PW 11 with intention to commit murder, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to bring home any charge against them.
Learned Advocate for the appellants has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Mr. Brahmananda Nanda reported in 1976 SCC (Cri) 596 and has claimed that inordinate delay of mentioning the names of accused persons either by PW 6 or by PW 11 who are the alleged eye- witnesses, affects the credibility of PW 6 and PW 11. We find strong support to the defence case of the present appellants from the said cited case. Learned Advocate for the appellants has also relied upon an another case of the Apex Court in Alil Mollah & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1996 SCC (Cri) 1028. Following the principles discussed in that ruling and by way of application of the principles in the instant case, we find sufficient reason to express our doubt regarding reliability on the evidence of PW 6 and PW 11. Learned Trial Court has passed the order of conviction and sentence of the present three appellants relying upon the evidence of PW 6 and PW 11. We cannot agree with the said findings of the learned Court below on re-appreciation of the evidence recorded during trial. We do not disagree that even on the basis of a strong evidence of a single witness conviction and sentence of a culprit is very much legal provided the said evidence is independent, reliable and free from any doubt.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has advanced his arguments that delay in recording statement of witnesses has been sufficiently explained from the circumstances which is apparent from the order sheet of the judicial record of the Court of learned Magistrate wherein the FRT was kept withhold since 2.6.2005 for a long time and, thereafter, prayer for re-investigation of the case was allowed on 27.4.2006. In our view, this explanation is no explanation on the part of state prosecution when question of life imprisonment of accused persons hinges on it. The benefit of such delay must be given to the defence. Similar explanation has been given by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relating to delay in T.I. Parade. We do not want to reiterate our aforesaid view as it is redundant. But no explanation has been given by him as to why the witnesses who attended the T.I. Parade were allowed to see the accused persons at P.S. and why T.I. Parade was arranged when according to deposition of the witnesses; the miscreants were not unknown to them as established substantially by preponderance of probability. In course of arguments learned Additional Public Prosecutor has pointed out some flows of cross-examination of the witnesses. In this connection we like to mention that it is the settled principle of law that prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the strength of its own and not on any lacuna on the part of defence. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances and evidence of record we are not convinced to accept the arguments advanced by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state respondent and we are not satisfied to uphold the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Judge. Although we are not of opinion that the appellants are to be honourably acquitted in this case but we find that they deserve acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt.
Thus, extending the benefit of doubt in favour of the appellants this appeal succeeds. Impugned judgment dated 29.4.2014 and orders dated 30.4.2014 of conviction and sentence dated 29.4.2014 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, 1st Court, Nadia at Krishnanagar are hereby set aside. The appellants are found not guilty of the charge under Section 307/34, I.P.C., in connection with S.T. No. V (May 2007) in connection with Sessions Case No. 2(10) of 2006 of the Trial Court on the ground of benefit of doubt. The appellants be released promptly in connection with that case if their lawful detention is not wanting in any other case. A copy of this judgment alongwith L.C.R. be sent to the learned Trial Court at the earliest.
Certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
I agree.
(SANKAR ACHARYYA, J.,) (ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.,)