Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. The appellants five in number have challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kamarajar District, Srivilliputhur made in S.C.No.1 o 1995 whereby they stood charged, tried and convicted as follows: First Charge: A1 to A5 convicted for the offence under section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/-in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Second Charge: A1 to A3 were convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. Third Charge: A4 and A5 were convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. Fourth charge: A3 to A5 were convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/-in default to undergo 6 months RI. Fifth Charge: A1 and A2 were convicted for the offence under Section 326 and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment along with Rs.500/-fine and in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. Sixth Charge: A5 was convicted for the offence under section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. Seventh Charge: A1 to A4 were convicted for the offence under Section 324 read with 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus P.W.1 to 4 and the deceased were the residents of Seelampatti village. P.W.1 is the elder brother of the deceased, while PW2 is the wife of the deceased. Accused 1 and 5 are brothers. A3 and A4 are father and son. A2 is cousin of A1 and A5 and brothers son of A4. There are two groups in the village, one headed by one Samuel, the father of first and fifth accused and the other group was headed by one Paranjothi. Originally, the said Paranjothi was collecting the subscription from all his community people in the village for their welfare. The same was entrusted with the said Samuel for another period. There are two groups in the village, one headed by one Samuel, the father of first and fifth accused and the other group was headed by one Paranjothi. Originally, the said Paranjothi was collecting the subscription from all his community people in the village for their welfare. The same was entrusted with the said Samuel for another period. The said Samuel made some misappropriation and therefore a section of the group refused to give subscription and thus the villagers were divided into two groups. One Anburaj, (brother of A2 -Daniel) married a girl by name Yesammal who is closely related to PW2. They were living at Madras and due to some misunderstanding between the couple, suspecting the the fidelity of the said Yesammal, the said Anburaj returned to his village Seelampatti. The deceased went to Madras and brought Yesammal to the village for the purpose of settlement of dispute between the husband and wife and they began to live peacefully. This was not liked by the accused party. On the next day, when P.Ws.2 and 4 were chatting, the second accused, who is the brother of Anburaj, abused P.W.2 with filthy language for uniting the Yesammal with his brother since the said Yesammal is of bad character. P.W.2 in turn informed the incident to her husband who pacified her to be calm.. On the next day, P.W.1 the elder brother of the deceased Dharmaraj, who was employed Tuticorin came to village for the purpose of obtaining a school certificate of his son. At that time, P.W.2 told him about the conduct of the second accused in abusing her with filthy language. On 29.12.1996, at about 9 a.m. P.W.1 accompanied by P.W.2 and the deceased Anburaj were proceeding in the street to question the second accused about his conduct. When they were in front of the house of one Pandi, fourth accused came in a opposite direction. P.W.1 told fourth accused about the conduct of the second accused in scolding his sister in law with abusive words. There was wordy exchange between them and fourth accused who went to his house came along with another accused armed with aruval, velstick and knife stick. Accused 3 to 5 attacked PW1. When PW2 intervened A5 attacked her with knife stick. The deceased fell down with injuries and all the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. There was wordy exchange between them and fourth accused who went to his house came along with another accused armed with aruval, velstick and knife stick. Accused 3 to 5 attacked PW1. When PW2 intervened A5 attacked her with knife stick. The deceased fell down with injuries and all the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. The deceased was taken to his house by P.W.1 and in front of his house, he succumbed to the injuries. 3. P.W.11, the Village Administrative officer who heard about the occurrence came to the house of P.W.1 and recorded the statement of P.W.1 which is marked as Ex.P.1.He took P.W.1 and 2 to the Thiruchuli Police Station where P.W.12, head Constable who was on duty at that time registered a case in Cr.No.219/86 and sent both the injured to the Arupukkottai Government Hospital. Thereafter P.W.1 was referred to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai for further treatment. Thereafter, P.W.14, the Inspector of Police took up investigation and went to the spot made an inspection and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.10) Rough Sketch (Ex.P.22). He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. 4. The dead body was sent to the hospital for the purpose of autopsy. P.W.9, a doctor attached to Aruppukottai Government Hospital conducted autopsy on 30.12.1986 at 7.00 a.m. and found the following injuries: 1. An oblique incised looking wound 12-1/2 cm x 5cm x 5cm over the upper scalp extending from the left side about 5cm behind the horixanal (Transverse) line joining the two ear lobes about 12-1/2cm from the left ear lobe to 5cm behind the right fore head. Bone fractured. Brain exposed and lacerated. Blood clots seen through the wound over the brain. 2. An incised wound 5cm x 2-1/2cmx 2cm lying Antero-posteriorly just behind the left end of the injury No.(1) Blood clots seen. No bony injury. 3. A punctured wound 1/2cm x 1/2 cmx1cm over the right arm in front side about 1/2cm below the right shoulder joint. 4. A punctured wound 1/2cmx1/2cmx1cm (NC) on the right hip 3cm below. The right iliac crest in the lateral aspect. 5. An abrasion 5cmx1/2cm in the inner aspect of the right elbow. The doctor has issued Ex.P.6 postmortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of the injuries to the brain and intraranial haemorrhage about 20 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. 5. The right iliac crest in the lateral aspect. 5. An abrasion 5cmx1/2cm in the inner aspect of the right elbow. The doctor has issued Ex.P.6 postmortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of the injuries to the brain and intraranial haemorrhage about 20 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. 5. Pending investigation, all the accused were surrendered before the Court on 2.1.1987. On requisition, they were sent for police custody on 15.1.1987. The first accused volunteered to give a confessional statement in the presence of two witnesses and the same was recorded by the investigator, the admissible part of which was marked as Ex.P.13. Pursuant to the confessional statement, all the M.Os were recovered in the presence of witnesses and they were sent to Court. The accused were also sent to Judicial remand. All the Mos. recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic department. On analysis, Ex.P.20 the Chemical Analysts report and Ex.P.21 is the Serologists report were received by the Court. On completion of investigation, the final report was filed by the investigating officer before the committal Court. 6. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and relied on 23 exhibits and 21 material objects were marked. Defence side was also given sufficient opportunity. Originally the matter was pending on the file of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram in S.C.No.211 of 1987 and when the case was taken up for trial, all the accused were acquitted in S.C.No.211 of 1987 by the Judgment dated 16.3.1988. Aggrieved over the same, PW2, the wife of the deceased preferred a revision before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.394 of 1988. Learned Single Judge had an occasion to hear the same and passed an order of remittal to the Court of Sessions for fresh consideration by the Court below from the evidence available on record. The matter was remitted back to the Court of Sessions accordingly. In view of the division of the District, the case papers were sent to the Principal Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur and the above case was taken on file in S.C.No.1 of 1995 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur. The matter was remitted back to the Court of Sessions accordingly. In view of the division of the District, the case papers were sent to the Principal Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur and the above case was taken on file in S.C.No.1 of 1995 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur. Without examining any witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge has written a fresh judgment, convicting the appellants for the charges framed against them. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the appellants before this Court. 7. Advancing his argument, learned Senior Counsel raised a point of law that on the earlier occasion when the revision was preferred by PW2, an order was passed by this Court by setting aside the order of acquittal and has also remitted back the matter for fresh consideration by the Court below from the evidence available on record. Against the order passed by this Court, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Honble Apex Court in C.A.No.22 of 1997. The Apex Court though confirmed the order of remand made by this Court has issued a direction to the trial court not to be influenced by any of the observations made by this Court relating to the merits of the case. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that in the instant case, pursuant to the directions of this Court, learned Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur has only rewritten a fresh judgment convicting the appellants for the charges framed against them, without examining any witnesses. It is a case where re-trail should have been done. It is true that re-trial has not been mentioned in the order of this Court. But, what was intended to be done was only re-trial. Learned Senior counsel would further add that rewritten of judgment is not only against the provision of law under the Criminal Procedure Code, but also against the settled principles of law enunciated by this Court as well as by the Apex Court. But, what was intended to be done was only re-trial. Learned Senior counsel would further add that rewritten of judgment is not only against the provision of law under the Criminal Procedure Code, but also against the settled principles of law enunciated by this Court as well as by the Apex Court. Learned Senior Counsel took the Court to the procedure envisaged under 401(3) of Cr.P.C. As per the provision of law, acquittal cannot be made as a judgment of conviction and when a case was ended in acquittal and revision has been brought forth, the only course open to the revisional Court is either to allow the revision or if the order of the Court below has to be set aside, he should have remitted the matter for fresh trial. If it is not done, it would be nothing but a direction to the lower court to record a finding of acquittal. 8. Learned Senior counsel took the Court to the decision of the Honble Apex Court in Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788 . The learned Senior Counsel also relied on a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Jagannath Choudary Vs. Ramayan Singh reported in 2002 SCC Criminal 1181 wherein it is stated that "Writing of a fresh judgment as directed by the Court is rather a significant departure in the normal disposal of revision applications. Opportunities given for further argument but would not by itself tilt the scale". Further the learned Senior Counsel would submit that it is a case where though there was a direction given by the Court to consider the matter on the evidence available, it was nothing but what was intended by this should not be against the procedural code, but only a direction for fresh trial. The trial Judge instead of doing so, has done the work of rewriting the judgment. It is against the proposition of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the above said decision. Under the circumstances, it is a fit case where retrial has got to be ordered and the judgment of the lower court has to be set aside. 9. Added further learned Senior Counsel, apart from the above plea of law, the judgment of the lower court also suffers from factual position also. Under the circumstances, it is a fit case where retrial has got to be ordered and the judgment of the lower court has to be set aside. 9. Added further learned Senior Counsel, apart from the above plea of law, the judgment of the lower court also suffers from factual position also. Learned Senior counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution fails to bring forth any motive and in the instant case where the witnesses who are examined are P.Ws1 and 2, who were shown as injured witnesses and they are close relatives of the deceased and hence their evidence has got to be scrutinised carefully and there is inconsistency and also discrepancy in their evidence. As per Ex.P.1, the occurrence has taken place at 9 a.m. The Village Administrative Officer has given a opinion that he came over there and got a report from P.W.1,. In so far as P.W.1 is concerned, the document which came into existence was supported by the statement of PW.6, the doctor who attached to the Arupukkottai Government Hospital and the said doctor was examined as a witness, but when the document came into existence at the instance of PW1, he has mentioned that he was attacked by five unknown persons. It is suppressed by the prosecution. The said witness P.W.6 treated P.W.1 in the hospital and the document would go to the root of the matter to suspect the entire prosecution case. In the instant case, according to the witnesses, on the date of occurrence P.W.2 informed to A4 and also the husband of the deceased. All of them went to the house of the accused, they met A4 and questioned the conduct of A2 and they came with weapons. In the instant case P.W.1, P.W.2 and the deceased are the aggressors and thus a quarrel had arisen between the parties. If to be so, no common intention is found in the circumstances of the case and even as far as the medical opinion is concerned, it was not supported by the ocular testimony. Out of five injuries noted on the dead body, the first injury was fatal and so far as the other injuries are concerned, they have not been properly mentioned. Out of five injuries noted on the dead body, the first injury was fatal and so far as the other injuries are concerned, they have not been properly mentioned. In the instant case, A1 is concerned, according to the prosecution, the fatal injury was caused by him and in so far as other accused are concerned they have caused only simple injury. In so far as P.W.1 is concerned, the injuries were caused by A3 to A5 and in so far as A5 is concerned, he attacked P.W.2 and caused injury and thus the injuries were not shown as grievous injury. Under the circumstances, these aspects of the matter have got to be considered. Added further, sudden quarrel was the reason for the instant case. 10. The Court heard the learned Public prosecutor on the above contentions. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the above submissions. 11. Inso far as first contention that the trial Judge should have tried the matter afresh and taken a decision is concerned, the Court has to necessarily give an answer in the negative. Admittedly, the case was originally committed to the Court of Sessions , Ramanathapuram and tried in S.C.No.211 of 1987 where on trial the learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding of acquittal. The State has not preferred the appeal. But P.W.2 one Valliammal, the wife of the deceased preferred a revision case before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.394 of 1988. The learned Single Judge had an occasion to consider the contentions raised on either side and has passed an order. It is fit and proper to reproduce the order of the learned Single Judge which reads as follows: "Therefore on a scrutiny of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I find that the reasoning given by him are not only lacking judicial approach, but also they are faulty resulting in the miscarriage of justice and the interference of this Honble Court is justified to set aside the order of the Court below. As the reasoning given by the court are found faulty, the matter is to be remitted for fresh consideration of the evidence. In the result, the order of acquittal is set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh consideration by the court below from the evidence available on record. The Criminal revision case is allowed." 12. As the reasoning given by the court are found faulty, the matter is to be remitted for fresh consideration of the evidence. In the result, the order of acquittal is set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh consideration by the court below from the evidence available on record. The Criminal revision case is allowed." 12. From the very reading of the order, it would be quite clear that when the matter was remitted back to the court below, there was a clear direction for fresh consideration of the matter from the evidence available on record. As could be seen, it is clear that there was only a direction to the lower court to consider the evidence and arrive at a conclusion, and at no stretch of imagination, it could be made that there was a direction to the trial Judge to conduct retrial and then to consider the matter. Now at this juncture, it is to be pointed out that the order of this Court was also challenged before the Apex Court by the very same appellants in Crl.A.No.22 of 1997. It is also fit and proper to reproduce the Judgment of the Apex Court which reads as follows: "Since we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of remand made by the High Court, we dismiss these appeals. We however, direct the trial Court not to be influenced by any of the observations made by the High Court relating to the merits of the case while complying with the directions." 13. It is pertinent to point out that the order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by way of appeal before the Apex Court and the Apex Court has directed the trial Court to comply with the directions of this Court. This would make it clear that the trial Court has to follow the directions i.e. to consider the matter afresh on the evidence available and to pronounce the judgment. 14. Now at this juncture, it is to be pointed out that it is true that in applying the powers under revisional provision, there should be a direction to the trial Court to record a evidence afresh and conduct retrial. 14. Now at this juncture, it is to be pointed out that it is true that in applying the powers under revisional provision, there should be a direction to the trial Court to record a evidence afresh and conduct retrial. In a case reported in 2002 SUPREME COURT (Cri) 1181 (JEGANNATH CHOUDHARY V. RAMAYAN SINGH) it has been held thus: "It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice" 15. A very reading of the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above would clearly reveal the exceptional circumstances enumerated therein and order for retrial of criminal case will be made in those exceptional cases. Apart from that, in the instant case, the learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides has passed an order for consideration of the evidence which according to him was not considered by the Principal Sessions Judge, while trying the case in the earlier order of acquittal. It is to be pointed out that order of this Court was also challenged before the Apex Court and there was also a direction by the Apex Court as referred to above. Under such circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that the trial judge has to proceed with the matter as per the directions of this Court and it was perfectly correct and hence the first contention of the learned Senior Counsel has got to be rejected. 16. It is not the fact in controversy that one Dharmaraj, husband of PW2 was done to death in an incident that took place on 29.12.1986 at about 9 a.m.. Following the same, inquest was made by the investigator and the dead body was subjected to post-mortem and the postmortem doctor P.W.9 has given a postmortem certificate Ex.P.6 where he opined that the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained. Following the same, inquest was made by the investigator and the dead body was subjected to post-mortem and the postmortem doctor P.W.9 has given a postmortem certificate Ex.P.6 where he opined that the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained. The fact that the deceased died due to homicidal violence was never questioned by the appellants either at the stage of the proceedings and hence without any hesitation, it can be recorded so. 17. Inthe instant case, in order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants/accused, the prosecution mainly relied on P.Ws1 and 2. It is needless to say that when P.Ws 1 and 2 who are not only eye witnesses, but also injured witnesses, the Court cannot discard their evidence unless and until strong circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court. Both the witnesses have categorically spoken to the fact that one Yesammal was married to one Anburaj and they were living together in Madras. Due to some misunderstanding between the couple suspecting the fidelity of the said Yesammal, Anburaj returned to the Village Seelampatti. The deceaded Dharmaraj went to Madras and brought Yesammal to the village for the purpose of settlement of dispute between the husband and wife. On the next day when P.W.2 and P.W.4 were chatting, the second accused who is brother of the said Anburaj scolded P.W.2 with filthy language for uniting Yesammal with his brother since the said Yesammal is of bad character. P.W.2 told the incident to her husband who pacified her to be calm. On the next day, P.W.1, the elder brother of the deceased Dharmaraj, who was employed in Tuticorin came to the village for the purpose of obtaining a school certificate of his son. At that time, PW2 told him about the conduct of the second accused in abusing her with filthy language. When they were in front of the house of one Pandi, P.W.1 told the fourth accused about the conduct of the second accused in scolding his sister in law with abusive words. There was wordy exchange between them and fourth accused who went to his house came along with other accused armed with deadly weapons and attacked. After applying careful scrutiny test, the Court is unable to see doubt in their evidence. There was wordy exchange between them and fourth accused who went to his house came along with other accused armed with deadly weapons and attacked. After applying careful scrutiny test, the Court is unable to see doubt in their evidence. On the contrary, the evidence inspires the confidence of the Court and the lower Court was correct in accepting their evidence. In so far as P.Ws 1 and 2 they are not only eye witnesses, but also injured witnesses. Under such circumstances, in so far as the injuries are concerned, the wound certificate of P.W.1 is marked as Ex.P.2 and the wound certificate of P.W.2 is marked as Ex.P.3. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants side is that the doctor who attached to the Government Hospital, Arupukkottai and who gave treatment to P.Ws1 and 2 was examined and P.W.1 stated before the said doctor that five unknown persons attacked them. But, in Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has spoken about the number of assailants, the earlier document which came into existence. Now the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.1 was examined by P.W.6, a doctor attached to the Aruppukottai Government Hospital to whom he stated that he was attacked by five unknown persons and it is recorded by the doctor and the same was spoken to by him in the Court and he turned hostile. According to learned counsel, this evidence indicated as a document which came into existence by the statement by P.W.1 which would go against the prosecution case. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that immediately after the occurrence, information was given to the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.9 who came to the spot and he took P.Ws1 and 2 directly to the Thirucholi Police station where Ex.P.1 report came into existence and the entire incident has been narrated. P.Ws 1 and 2 the injured witness. Under the circumstances, it is quite clear that as put forward by the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 which is supported fully by medical evidence through P.W.9 and his certificate. It was these accused who attacked not only the deceased, but also P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased died on the spot instantaneously. While the others are concerned, P.W.1 sustained grievous injury and P.W.2 sustained simple injury and they were also treated in the hospital. . It was these accused who attacked not only the deceased, but also P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased died on the spot instantaneously. While the others are concerned, P.W.1 sustained grievous injury and P.W.2 sustained simple injury and they were also treated in the hospital. . It is to be pointed out that after careful scrutiny of materials available,it is highly doubtful whether they have got common object to murder the deceased on the spot. Even according to P.Ws 1 and 2, on the date of occurrence , P.Ws 1 and 2 along with the deceased went to the house of the accused to question about the conduct of the the second accused. On the way, they met the fourth accused and there was wordy quarrel and following the same, A4 went and came along with other accused persons with deadly weapons. Thus, it would be quite clear that P.Ws 1 and 2 went over to ask about the conduct of the second accused and the occurrence happened nearby the house of the accused. There was preceding a quarrel between A4 and PWs1 and 2 and the deceased, pursuant to which, the occurrence has taken place. Due to provocation, the accused attacked the deceased. Under such circumstances, this Court is unable to see any common object with which the accused have acted at the spot. If common object is not noticed in the instant case, the charges levelled against the accused in respect of the common object, being a member of the unlawful assembly or having deadly weapons fall to ground. In order to see the result of common object, provision either Section 148 IPC or under Section 149 IPC cannot be attracted. The case of the prosecution regarding common object cannot be accepted by the Court and in such circumstances, they are to be treated for their individual act. In so far as the medical opinion which was canvassed by the prosecution before the court, five injuries were found on the dead body and according to the doctor, the first injury that was found on the dead body was fatal which resulted in his death and in so far as other injuries are concerned, non fatal injuries and not found to be series . The act of the first accused on the deceased on the head and it is found to be for one under Section 302 IPC. The act of the first accused on the deceased on the head and it is found to be for one under Section 302 IPC. It has to be termed as murder, though not intentional the act of the accused would attract the penal provision of murder. In so far as A1 is concerned, the life imprisonment awarded by the lower court has got tobe sustained. In so far as A2 and A3 are concerned,injuries caused by them have got to be found to be one for Section 324 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC and they are sentenced to imprisonment for two years on that count. In so far as Section 148 IPC against A1 to A3, no application can be made under the penal provision and they are acquitted of the charges. In so far as A4 and A5 are concerned, there is nothing to attract Section 302 read with 149 IPC. In that regard, it is also set aside. As regards A3 to A5 ,injuries already caused to P.W.1 were grievous and conviction under section 326 IPC would be attracted and five years rigorous imprisonment is awarded by the lower Court, which is reduced to two years rigorous imprisonment, and the sentence to run concurrently 18. In so far as A1 and A2, there is no application in respect of Section 149 IPC and hence, the charge under Section 307 IPC read with 149 IPC which was found to be one for Section 326 IPC by the lower court is set aside. In so far as A5 is concerned the evidence of PW2 and apart from the evidence of medical officer, the evidence of PW6 is available along with the wound certificate Ex.P.3 and hence the Lower court has found the fifth accused under Section 324 IPC and awarded one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/-with default sentence which is affirmed. As regards the conviction of A1 to A4 under section 324 IPC read with 149 IPC, no application is made, and hence they are acquitted of the said charge. 19. Under such circumstances, with the modification in the conviction and sentence, the appeal is dismissed. 20. Learned counsel would submit that special leave to be granted invoking Section 134(A)IPC since Substantial questions of law are involved. Accordingly, special leave is granted.