The two appeals, described above, arise out of a common incident, which took place on 18-6-1974, at noon in the agricultural area of Village Bichaila, Police Station Jaitpur, District Faizabad. 2. In Criminal Appeal No. 392 of 1978, the F. I. R. was lodged by Barsati Ram on 18-6-1974 at 2. 20 p. m. stating that adjoining towards the west of his Plot No. 585/3 of that village is the field to accused Ambika Singh and at noon time on that day his cousin brother Banshi Ram, his brother Phool Chand and his father, Ram Khelawan were casting manure in Plot No. 585/3, whereupon accused Ambika Singh, carrying a country-made pistol, his son Uma, carrying a gun, Ram Pratap, the Sarhoo of Ambika Singh and the latters tubewell mechanic, Jagdamba and Tatsat, all armed with Lathis, arrived and said that 3-4 Laththas of the land in the western side belonged to them and that Banshi Ram etc. must not cast manure in that area. When Barasati Ram etc. asked Ambika Singh and others to get the measurements done, assuring that Banshi Ram etc. would leave so much of the area as might fall in the plot of Ambika Singh and others, Ambika Singh, hurling abuses, fired three shots from his country-made pistol. Banshi Ram fell down injured. In the meantime, Barsati Ram, Ram Sumer, Sheo Bheekh, Hari Lal and others arrived. The accused attacked Ram Khelawan, Phool Chand with Lathis and ran away. On the basis of this report a check report was prepared against Ambika Singh and others, including Tatsat, for oifences under Sections 307, 147, 148 and 323, I. P. C. 3. In Criminal Appeal No. 522 of 1978 Ambika Singh lodged a report at same police station on the same day at 5 p. m. , stating that at about noon time Ram Khelawan and other members of his family were casting manure by encroaching into his Plot Nos. 585 and 589, whereupon he and Ram Pratap asked them not to throw manure there. 585 and 589, whereupon he and Ram Pratap asked them not to throw manure there. It was added that a litigation between the two sides had already taken place in respect of that very field, but on his protest Ram Khelawan and other started abusing him and when he remonstrat ed for hurling abuses, Ram Khelawan and his son Phool Chand with Lathis, Nanhu with spear, Banshi Ram with a brick, started attacking them, while Barsati Ram fired with his country- made pistol. In the meantime, Udai Bhan Singh reached there and Ram Khelawan etc. ran away. On the basis of that report another Check Report was prepared against Ram Khelawan, Phool Chand, Nanhu, Bansi Ram and Barsati Ram for offences punishable under Sections 323/324, 147, 148 and 337, I. P. C. 4. In course of time the F. I. R. ofbasrati Ram led to Sessions Trial No. 166 of 1975, in which Tatsat was not sent up for trial; the charge-sheet was only against Ambika Singh and four others. The F. I. R. of Ambika Singh led to Sessions Trial No. 232 of 1977. 5. In Sessions Trial No. 166 of 1975 Ambika Singh, Uma and Ram Pratap and Jagdamba were convicted for offences under Section 307 read with Section 149, I. P. C. and under Section 147, I. P. C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and 1 year respectively. In addition, Ambika, Singh and Uma were convicted for offence under Section 148, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. All the sentences of the respective accused were ordered to run concurrently. 6. Ambika Singh and others have come up in appeal against their conviction and sentences as mentioned above. 7. In Sessions Trial No. 232 of 1977, all the five accused, namely, Ram Khelawan, Nanhu, Barasati Ram, Banshi Ram and Phool Chand were found not guilty and were acquitted. Accused-complainant Ambika Singh has filed Criminal Appeal No. 522 of 1978 against acquittal of Ram Khelawan and others. 8. It will be seen immediately that the reason for the commission of offences by either side was casting of manure by Banshi Ram, Phool Chand and Ram Khelawan allegedly in their own fields, while Ambika Singh and Ram Pratap believed that the muanure was being cast unauthorisedly in their fields. 8. It will be seen immediately that the reason for the commission of offences by either side was casting of manure by Banshi Ram, Phool Chand and Ram Khelawan allegedly in their own fields, while Ambika Singh and Ram Pratap believed that the muanure was being cast unauthorisedly in their fields. An altercation followed in which either side alleges the other to be the aggressor. It is for this reason that the two appeals are being decided by this common judgment, although the evidence in the two cases has been recorded separately and is being considered separately. 9. In Criminal Appeal No. 392 of 1978, the appellants learned counesl, Sri R. K. Shangloo contended that it was the admitted case of the parties that while Plot No. 585/3 belonged to Ram Khelawan, the adjoining plot towards the west, i. e. , 582/2 belonged to Ambika Singh and since there was no demar cation between the two sub-plots, the appellants bona fide believed that Ram Khelwan etc. were trespassing into their land and, therefore, they had a right of private defence. He further urged that although Ram Khelawan and others claimed to have been unarmed, while appellants were alleged to have carried fire-arms and Lathis, Ambika Singh and Ram Pratap had also received six injuries each in the same incident, of which the prosecution gave no explana tion and, therefore, the prosecution version is not correct. He lastly urged that although the F. I. R. named Ram Sumer, Sheo Bhikh and Hari Lal as witnesses, who were independent, none of them was examined by the prosecution. 10. The learned State Counsel was supported by the complainants learned counsel, Sri S. S. Sharma, who argued that there was no previous litigation between the parties in respect of the land, that the act of casting manure was not an act of possession and, therefore, there was no threat to the property of Ambika Singh and others and, therefore, they bad no right of private defence. He further urged that an explanation had been given in evidence that injured Phool Chand and Ram Kewal, son of Banshi Ram attacked the accused in self-defence and, therefore, the prosecution has given an explanation of the injuries of the accused. He further urged that an explanation had been given in evidence that injured Phool Chand and Ram Kewal, son of Banshi Ram attacked the accused in self-defence and, therefore, the prosecution has given an explanation of the injuries of the accused. He lastly urged that injured witnesses had been examined, whose presence had been accepted by the lower court and, therefore, it was not necessary to examine the so-called independent witnesses. 11. It will be useful to notice the injuries which were received by the persons on the either side. 12. Dr. I. H. Ansari (P. W. 1) medically examined Banshi Ram on 18-6-1974 at 11. 15 p. m. and has noted down his injuries under five items. There were 50 multiple punctured wounds 1/10" x 1/10", edges rough on sternal wand and left side of the chest like lead-shot wounds, 9 similar injuries on the left arm, similar injuries on the neck, 13 similar injuries on the face and 6 similar injuries on the back. 13. On the person of Ram Khelawan he found one contusion 1" x 1/2 on the outer side of the right elbow and an abrasion 3/10" x 1/10" on the back of the right index finger. 14. On the person of Phool Chand, he found an abraded contusion 1/2 cm. X 2/10 cm. on the right side of the back. 15. The doctor estimated the injuries of all these three persons to be half a day old and in the case of Banshi Ram having been caused by country-made pistol and in respect of other two persons having been caused by Lathis. 16. The accused-appellants examined Dr. M. A. R. Siddiqi (D. W. 1) to prove the injuries on the person of Ambika Singh and Ram Pratap Singh examined on 19-6-1974 respectively at 12. 30 p. m. and 1 p. m. On the person of Ambika Singh he found 1 lacerated wound 4 cm. X -5 cm. scalp deep on the right side of the forehead and an abraded contusion 8 cm. X 2 cm. on the right fore-arm with swelling and fracture of ulna, contusion 1 cm. X -5 cm. on the right fore-arm, contusion 2 cm. X 1 cm. near the left toe, abrasion, 5 cm. X 2 cm. on the back of the left thumb. 17. On the person of Ram Pratap, he found one incised wound 2 cm. X 2 cm. on the right fore-arm with swelling and fracture of ulna, contusion 1 cm. X -5 cm. on the right fore-arm, contusion 2 cm. X 1 cm. near the left toe, abrasion, 5 cm. X 2 cm. on the back of the left thumb. 17. On the person of Ram Pratap, he found one incised wound 2 cm. X 5 cm. skin deep on the front of the right wrist, 2 lacerated wounds 1 cm. X 2 cm. and 6 cm. X 4 cm. both skin deep on the back of the right thumb which got fractured, linear abrasion on the left fore-arm and abrasion 2 cm. X 2 cm. on the back of the left hand and a punctured wound 1. 5 cm. X 1 cm. X2. 5 cm. on the front of the right thigh. 18. The cumulative appreciation of these injuries point to certain clear situations. Firstly, Banshi Ram had been attacked with a fire-arm and since four sets of injuries were on the front side of the body and the fifth set was on the back, those injuries must have been caused by more than one fire shot. The injuries of Ram Khelawan and Phool Chand were caused by a blunt object like Lathi. The statement of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, that these victims were attacked with fire-arms and Lathis, is correct. 19. Secondly, while Ambika Singh had received injuries by a blunt weapon like a Lathi, Ram Pratap had received injuries not only by blunt weapons, but also by sharp-edged and pointed weapons. This would certainly include a spear which caused a punctured wound 1. 5 cm. X 1 cm. X 2. 5 cm. on the front of the right thigh; the incised wound 2 cm. X. 5 cm. skin deep on the front of the right wrist with tailing upwards, could be the result of a spear as well as by a sharp-edged weapon like Pharsa. The use of Lathis has been attributed, on behalf of the defence, to Ram Khelawan and Phool Chand; of a spear by Nanhu. 20. Thirdly, the injuries on the person of Ambika Singh included a lacerated wound 4cm. X 5 cm. on the right side of the fore-head, which was skin deep and he had also suffered a fracture of the ulna of the right fore-arm. These injuries could neither be manufactured, nor self-suffered. 21. 20. Thirdly, the injuries on the person of Ambika Singh included a lacerated wound 4cm. X 5 cm. on the right side of the fore-head, which was skin deep and he had also suffered a fracture of the ulna of the right fore-arm. These injuries could neither be manufactured, nor self-suffered. 21. Fourthly, the duration of the injuries of Ambika Singh and Ram Pratap was estimated to be one day, which coincides with the duration of the injuries found on the person of Banshi Ram, Ram Khelawan and Phool Chand. In other words, all these injuries were caused at one and the same time. 22. The basic question is as to which of the two parties attacked first and whether that attack was to defend some property or person. 23. The witnesses for the prosecution are Banshi Ram (P. W. 2) and Phool Chand (P. W. 4), both injured and Barsati Ram (P. W. 3) who lodged the F. I. R. 24. Banshi Ram (P. W. 2) stated that at about noon time that day he and Ram Khelawan and Phool Chand were casting manure in their field No. 585, which was in two parts with a Mend in-between. He said that they were casting manure in the 15 Biswa portion which was towards the east and that they were not casting manure in the portion towards the west of the Mend which belonged to accused Ambika Singh, Phool Chand (P. W. 4) also stated that he, Ram Khelawan and Banshi Ram were casting manure in their own field. He accepted that with reference to plot No. 585/3 there used to be a dispute with the accused since 1 or 2 years in respect of the Mend. The investigating officer, who made the local inspection on that very date and prepared a site-plan, did not show the place where the manure stacks may have been found in the field. He did not show whether or not there existed any Mend; he did not indicate any field of the accused. Plainly, he has not performed his duty and he was not examined by the prosecution. The site-plan has been proved by a constable Satya Narain (P. W. 6) by deposing about the hand-writing of the investigating officer. He did not show whether or not there existed any Mend; he did not indicate any field of the accused. Plainly, he has not performed his duty and he was not examined by the prosecution. The site-plan has been proved by a constable Satya Narain (P. W. 6) by deposing about the hand-writing of the investigating officer. Thus the evidence of the investigating officer about the spot condition is neither available nor, if available, could have been of much help on account of his omissions as indicated above. 25. The appellants examined one of themselves, namely, Ambika Singh as D. W. 2. He admitted that Plot No. 585/3 was in possession of Ram Khelawan and others for more than 30 years, whereas Plot No. 585/2, situated towards the west of Plot No. 585/3, had been in his possession since his fathers time. He also admitted that there is a Mend between Plot Nos. 585/2 and 585/3. He further admitted that Plot No. 589, which also belongs to him, is further west of Plot No. 585/2. 26. It is, therefore, clear that the identity of Plot No. 585/3, which admittedly belongs to Ram Khelawan etc. is quite distinct from the identity of Plot No. 585/2, which admittedly belongs to accused Ambika Singh and that the two plots are separate from each other by means of a Mend on the spot. It is also remarkable that the other plot of appellant Ambika Singh and others viz. No. 589 situate further west of Plot No. 585 and was nowhere near Plot No. 584/3. There was no occasion, therefore, of any mistake on the part of Ram Khelawan etc. about the identity of the land where they wanted to cast manure. 27. The further statement of Ambika Singh (D. W. 2) is that at the relevant time on that day he was sitting at the door of his house talking with appellant Ram Pratap and just then Ram Dhari Singh arrived and informed him that Ram Khelawan, Banshi, Nanhu and Phool Chand were casting manure in his field. He said that thereupon he and Ram Pratap, who had a Lathi, went to the field and found that Ram Khelawan etc. had already cast manure in his Plot No. 589, were casting manure on 585/2 and had not cast manure in their Plot No. 585/2, whereupon he prohibited them from doing so. 28. He said that thereupon he and Ram Pratap, who had a Lathi, went to the field and found that Ram Khelawan etc. had already cast manure in his Plot No. 589, were casting manure on 585/2 and had not cast manure in their Plot No. 585/2, whereupon he prohibited them from doing so. 28. It is clear from this evidence that Ram Khelawan and others were already in the process of casting manure when Ambika Singh and Ram Pratap reached on the spot. There is absolutely no reason for Ram Khelawan etc. to cast manure in Plot No. 589, because although there had been some dispute between the parties in respect of Mend in between Plot Nos. 585/3 and 585/2, the evidence does not indicate that there had been any dispute in respect of Plot No. 589. Further, as indicated above, Plot No. 589 was far too away on the west from Plot No. 585/3 to give any chance of mistake about the identity of the land where they wanted to cast manure. It was purposeless for Mam Khelawan etc. to cast manure in Plot No. 589 and, more so, if they had hot eveft east any manure in Plot No. 585/3, as Ambikal Singh (D. W. 2) wants us to believe. 29. An effort was riiade by the defence, in suggestion to the prosecution witnesses, as also by appellant Amtnfca Singh (D. W. 2) in his statement, to show that about 10 or 12 days earlier Rant Khelawan etc. had approached Ambika Singh to purchase Plot No. 585/2, to which Ambika Singh was not agreeable. The witnesses have denied the suggestion, which does not fit with the alleged casting of manure by Ram Khelawan etc. in Plot No. 589. In the absence of even an allegation muchless proof, that Ram Khelawan etc. also wanted Plot No. 589, there is no question of their casting manure in that Plot. On the totality of circumstances and evidence on this aspect of the case, it is clear that Ram Khelawan etc. , must have been casting manure in their own Plot No. 585/3 and the finding of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to that effect is quite correct. 30. It is clear enough that while Ram Khelawan etc. were in process of casting manure in their own fields, the appellants arrived armed with their respective weapons. 31. , must have been casting manure in their own Plot No. 585/3 and the finding of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to that effect is quite correct. 30. It is clear enough that while Ram Khelawan etc. were in process of casting manure in their own fields, the appellants arrived armed with their respective weapons. 31. Banshi Ram (P. W. 2) stated that the appellants said that the field of Ram Khelawan was their field and asked Ram Khelawan etc. not to cast manure therein. The witness said that he, thereupon, asked Ambika Singh etc. to have the measurements done, whereupon the appellants again started abusing and when he asked them to desist from abusing. Uma prompted them to fire, whereupon Ambika Singh fired at him, causing injuries on his person. He said that Uma did not fire, but the other two accused, Jagdamba and Ram Pratap, struck Ram Khelawan and Phool Chand with Lathis. He said that the fifth unknown person did not attack anyone of them, although he was with the accused. 32. P. W. 4 Phool Chand corroborated Banshi Ram (P. W. 2) in these respects. Both are injured witnesses and deserve weight. 33. These two witnesses have also been corroborated by Barsati Ram (P. W. 3), the son of injured Ram Khelawan. 34. The question, nevertheless, is whether the testimony of these witnesses in consistent with the circumstances and the probabilites of the case. 35. There is a significant feature in the prosec ution case regarding the stranger. The F. I. R. named Tatsat, son of Lochan Pathak, as the fifth person, but it was admitted by all the prosecution witnesses that Tatsat was not there. An effort has been made by them, e. g. , Barsati Ram (P. W. 3), that a person with features similar to that of Tatsat had joined the attack. In this connection an important conflicting evidence is that while Banshi Ram (P. W. 2) said that the unknown fifth person did not attack, the role of attacking by Lathis is assigned to all three persons, carrying Lathis, in the F. I. R. The number of blunt weapon injuries on Ram Khelawau and Phool Chand is only three. The involvement of five persons, therefore, in the commission of the offence, is not free from doubt. The involvement of five persons, therefore, in the commission of the offence, is not free from doubt. The fact that an innocent person had been named in the F. I. R. as a person actually participating in the attack, casts shadow on the credibility of the witnesses. The witnesses admitted that they knew Tatsat from before. It was a day- time occurence. There was no question, therefore, of any error of identity, 36. In any case non-participation of the fifth person, in the commission of the offence, would take the case out of the purview of Sections 147, 148 and 149, I. P. C. 37. We may now consider the case from the point of view of the injuries which were sustained by the accused during this incident. As already mentioned, both Ambika Singh and Ram Pratap Singh had received injuries. The defence suggestion, made and denied in the statement of Banshi Ram (P. W. 2), is that Phool Chand carried a Pharsa, Nandhu carried a spear, Ram Khelawan and Banshi Ram carried Lathis and that these four persons attacked Ambika Singh and Ram Pratap Singh with their weapons. Another sugges tion, also denied, was that thereafter Barsati Ram (P. W. 3) arrived and fired at the accused, but it caused injuries to Banshi Ram. Similar suggestion was made to Barsati Ram (P. W. 3) and he denied the same. However, he said that it is possible that the accused may have received Lathi Injuries, at the instance of the party of the injured, self-defence, although he could not see. Phool Chand (P. W. 4) stated that when the appellants cause injuries to them, he attacked with Lathi of his old grand- father, who happened to be there, causing injuries to accused Ambika Singh and Ram Pratap Singh, whereas Ram Kewal, son of Banshi Ram, ran up from the house, along with Lathi, which had a pointed iron-head and plied it in defence, which caused injuries to Ram Pratap Singh. 38. Certain features are noticeable. Barsati Ram (P. W. 3) said that just when he fell down injured with gun-shots, his son Ram Kewal, arrived and delivered one Lathi blow to Ram Pratap Singh. That is not correct because Ram Pratap Singh received several Lathi blows. Again, he initially stated that Phool Chand caused injury to Jagdamba and then changed and said that it was caused to Ambika Singh. That is not correct because Ram Pratap Singh received several Lathi blows. Again, he initially stated that Phool Chand caused injury to Jagdamba and then changed and said that it was caused to Ambika Singh. Thus he contradicted himself about the attack by Phool Chand. 39. Both Barsati Ram (P. W. 3) (vaguely) and Phool Chand (P. W. 4) spoke of the Lathi attacks on Ambika Singh and Ram Pratap by Phool Chand and Ram Kewal and Barsati Ram (P. W. 3) stated that none of the accused received any Pharsa or spear injury. This is incorrect because Ram Pratap Singh had received an incised wound and one punctured wound. Phool Chand (P. W. 4) tried to explain that Ram Kewal struck with a Lathi which had a pointed iron-head. This is an improvement because he did not tell the investigating officer about it; there was of course no mention thereof in the F. I. R. 40. It will be noticed immediately that the versions of these three witnesses, about the manner, in which Ambika Singh and Ram Pratap Singh received injuries, are not quite consistent. There was no mention of causing injuries in self-defence in F. I. R. Barsati Ram (P. W. 3) made a vague state ment of Phool Chand and Kewal Ram striking with Lathis in self-defence, which he could not even see. Phool Chand (P. W. 4) spoke, about Lathi attack by himself and by Banshi Rams son Ram Kewal. The incised wound and the punctured wound, found on the person of accused Ram Pratap Singh, remained wholly unexplained. At the same time, the defence suggestion that Barsati Rams pistol fire, aimed at Ambika Singh, landed on Banshi Ram, is equally unacceptable. 41. In this situation, the failure of the prosecution to examine any of the independent witness, viz. Ram Sumer, Shiv Bhikh and Hari Lal, assumes importance. The most important witness on this aspect of the case was Ram Kewal, who too has been kept away. Undoubtedly, injured witnesses deserve weight, but if they conceal material facts and are shown to implicate an innocent person, the Court would look for adequate independent corroboration, which is wanting in this case. 42. The most important witness on this aspect of the case was Ram Kewal, who too has been kept away. Undoubtedly, injured witnesses deserve weight, but if they conceal material facts and are shown to implicate an innocent person, the Court would look for adequate independent corroboration, which is wanting in this case. 42. On a careful consideration of the evidence and the circumstances, it must be held that the prosecution witnesses have not been able to explain the injuries which were sustained by the appellants, although it is wholly established that the injuries were sustained in this very incident some of which could neither be manufactured nor self-suffered. It is also not likely that in Ambika Singh had fired three shots from his country-made pistol in the first instance, i. e. , before the injured party could use their weapons at the accused, they could have succeeded in attacking the accused persons in self- defence. 43. On a careful consideration of the facts, circumstances and probabi lities, it is not possible to hold affirmatively as to which party was the aggressor, the prosecution has withheld the true version of the manner of commencement of the Marpit. 44. The case of an unlawful assembly, having a common object, is not at all established, because of the failure of the prosecution to make out the presence and participation of the fifth person in this offence. There is nothing to show that all the four appellants had a common intention of attacking to kill Banshi Ram. The injuries, sustained by Ram Khelawan and Phool Chand, were on nonvital parts of the body; they are all sample. The case, therefore, goes out of the purview of Section 307, I. P. C. in respect of the two of the accused, namely, Jagdamba and Ram Pratap Singh. On the totality of the evidence, facts and circumstances, the prosecution case, as stated, cannot be said to have been established beyond all reasonable doubt and the appeal must succeed. 45. In Criminal Appeal No. 522 of 1978, against the acquittal of Ram Khelawan and others, the prosecution case, according to the F. I. R. of Ambika Singh, was that the accused were casting manure in his field Nos. 45. In Criminal Appeal No. 522 of 1978, against the acquittal of Ram Khelawan and others, the prosecution case, according to the F. I. R. of Ambika Singh, was that the accused were casting manure in his field Nos. 585 and 589 and when Ambika Singh, along with Ram Pratap Singh, went to ask the accused to desist from doing so, the accused started hurling abuses, there upon Ram Khelawan, along with Phool Chand, with Lathis, accused Nandu with spear, Banshi Ram with a brick, started attacking them, while Barsati Ram fired with a country-made pistol from a distance. The prosecution examined Ambika Singh (P. W. 1), Ram Pratap Singh (P. W. 2), both injured, Tapsi (P. W. 4) and Dasrath (P. W. 4) as witnesses of fact. The medical examination of the two injured persons was proved by Dr. M. A. R. Siddiqui, whose injuries have already been mentioned in connection with the cross-case. The learnedfadditional Sessions Judge held that the motive for the commission of the crime was not proved and the injured could have no grievance in the matter of the accused persons throwing manure, because the manure was being thrown in Plot No. 582/2, which belonged to Ram Khelawan etc. and not to the injured. He noticed that Tapsi (P. W. 4) and Dasrath (P. W. 5), who were produced to corroborated the two injured witnesses, were not even named in the F. I. R. and their presence is not made out. The F. I. R. of Ambika Singh ended in a final report. The complaint, which led to the prosecution, was filed after the submission of the final report. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, was correct in holding that Tapsi (P. W. 5) had been included in the complaint only as an after-thought and are not reliable eye-witnesses. 46. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any palpable error in the appreciation of evidence by the lower court. The lower courts finding that the accused could not be aggressors they were simply casting manure in their own field, when the Marpit took place, cannot be aid to be palpably erroneous. 47. There is no error in the judgment of the lower court and, therefore, the appeal against acquittal must fail. 48. Criminal Appeal No. 392 of 1978 is allowed, the. 47. There is no error in the judgment of the lower court and, therefore, the appeal against acquittal must fail. 48. Criminal Appeal No. 392 of 1978 is allowed, the. conviction of appellants Ambil a Singh, Uma, Jagdamba and Ram Pratap Singh, for the various offences under Sections 307/149, 147, 148, I. P. C. are set aside. They are acquitted. They are on bail; their bail bonds are discharged. They need not surrender. 49. Criminal Appeal No. 522 of 1978 is dismissed. Order accordingly. .