Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 384 (CAL)

Bhairow Prasad v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010-04-09

AMIT TALUKDAR, RAGHUNATH RAY

body2010
JUDGMENT: Amit Talukdar, J. 1. WHAT could have been an unimpeachable order in the light of an otherwise impregnable prosecution case, has become susceptible to the scanner of section 386 (b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the following reasons : a) Failure on the part of the learned Trial Court to put before the convict/appellant, the circumstances emerging out of the Chemical Examination Report (Ext.8) prepared by the Government analyst and; b) Omission to conform to the provisions of section 233 sub-section (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. IN an otherwise picture perfect State of the Art Prosecution case neatly presented before the learned Trial Court, the system failure, which occasioned, needs to be corrected or else, there would be aberration of justice. For the purpose of locating the fault, which in ordinary circumstances, could not have been of any consequence but in the fact situation of the instant case, which, we will be tracking -this assumes some significance and in our judicial opinion, in the event the same is not redressed, a failure of justice would be sustained. 3. NOW, we will be boarding the Down Mahananda Express stationed at Platform No. 1 of Alipurduar Junction Road Railway Station in the early hours (7/7-30 a.m.) of 11.02.2006 along with P.W.4, Rinchen Lama Bhutia, the Officer-in-Charge of Government Railway Police Station (in short G.R.P.S.). He had received a source information that a stock of ganja was carried in a Air Conditioned -Ilnd Class Compartment of Mahananda Express. Immediately, he reduced such information in writing on the strength of General Diary Entry No. 242 (Exts. 3 and 3/1) and accordingly informed his superior officer, the inspector about it. 4. HE located the appellant in the lower berth of the said compartment, who corresponds to the description of the source. After disclosing his identity, he desired to search the suitcase but the appellant being reluctant, he was taken off from the train and brought to the Government Railway Police Station Office with his luggage consisting of a bag and an attache case. Later on, he requisitioned the services of a Magistrate. Pursuant thereof, Shri J.C. Dutta Roy (since deceased), was deputed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Alipurduar for this purpose. In the presence of the Magistrate the bag and attache case was opened. The articles were sent on weighment to the Parcel Office. Later on, he requisitioned the services of a Magistrate. Pursuant thereof, Shri J.C. Dutta Roy (since deceased), was deputed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Alipurduar for this purpose. In the presence of the Magistrate the bag and attache case was opened. The articles were sent on weighment to the Parcel Office. P.W.7, Gopal Prosad, a parcel labour had weighed it as 31.5 Kgs. The same was seized and samples were drawn therefrom on the strength of a seizure list (Ext. 1/2) including Rs. 7,000/- in cash. The seized sample and the stock of ganja was marked as Mat. Exts. II and III. P.W.4, Rinchen Lama Bhutia, the Officer-in-Charge, G.R.P.S. therefore, lodged a written complaint (Ext.4) which was treated as FIR (Ext.5). Buttressing the factum of search and seizure, there are two parts evidence before us, both on board as well as at the G.R.P.S. P.W.2, Partha Pratim Das, A.S.I., Alipurduar Junction G.R.P.S. P.W.3, Amitava Sarkar, A.S.I. New Alipurduar Junction G.R.P.S. as well as P.W.5, Samir Kumar Banerjee, A.S.I., Railway Protection Force of Alipurduar Railway Station and P.W.6, Badal Barman, Constable of Alipurduar G.R.P.S.-all of whom accompanied P.W.4, Rinchen Lama Bhutia, Officer-in-Charge of Alipurduar Junction G.R.P.S. and deposed with regard to the search and seizure and detection of the appellant in the Air Conditioned Ilnd Class Compartment of Mahananda Express at Platform No.1. 5. ON the other hand, we have before us the evidence of P.W.1, Raju Roy, who was an worker in a tea stall in Alipurduar Junction Road Railway Station. He deposed that the appellant was brought down from Mahananda Express by the G.R.P.S. personnel. He saw that the Magistrate came and the bag and the attache case was opened where two packets of ganja was detected and the same was weighed in the presence of the Magistrate and subsequently, seized. He also signed on the seizure list (Ext.1) relating to the sample and Ext.2 relating to the packet of ganja. 6. P.W.8, Rabi Ghosh, a tea stall owner of the Alipurduar Junction Road Railway Station, corroborated P.W.1, Raju Roy in all material aspects including the presence of the Magistrate. After we have seen the profile of the prosecution case, we will now proceed to assess the feasibility of sustaining the conviction on the strength of the judgment recorded by the learned Trial Court in the light of the submissions made at the Bar. 7. After we have seen the profile of the prosecution case, we will now proceed to assess the feasibility of sustaining the conviction on the strength of the judgment recorded by the learned Trial Court in the light of the submissions made at the Bar. 7. EXPERIENCE has shown that the State Defence engaged from the Government Panel neither shows any interests, nor has the inclination to conduct appeals on behalf of the convicts, who preferred appeal from jail. Even though this may be deemed to be a sweeping observation, but circumstances have catapulted us in arriving at the said conclusion. Instances are galore, where a State Defence engaged by the Court does not even appear on a single occasion. After being engaged and the Court out of the exasperation, opts either for another Panel Lawyer or to engage an amicus curiae. In the instant case, a Division Bench of this Court appointed a particular Member of the State Panel as a State Defence on 22.08.2008. Thereafter, she had moved for suspension of sentence on 11.09.2008. When the appeal matured for hearing before this Court on 10.12.2009, we found from the office report dated 04.12.2009 that she did not even bother to collect the Paper Book till date. This was reflected in our order dated 10.12.2009. 8. IN such trajectory, we requested Shri Soumopriyo Chowdhury to assist us as amicus curiae. He readily agreed and we must say, he has been of immense assistance. We would record our deep appreciation of his service. It is a regret that even though we requested the learned Public Prosecutor to represent the State but when we took up the matter on 21.12.2009, none appeared. Thereafter, the matter could not be taken up for hearing as one of us was away in the Circuit Bench after reopening of the Court from the Christmas vacation. 9. THEREAFTER again, when the matter was taken up on 28.01.2010, we informed the learned Public Prosecutor, as there was no appearance. Ultimately, the matter was again heard by us on 29.01.2010, 10.03.2010 and on 16.03.2010 and the same was reserved for judgment after hearing the learned Amicus and the State. In the meantime as again one of us had to proceed to the Circuit Bench, the judgment is being delivered today. 10. Ultimately, the matter was again heard by us on 29.01.2010, 10.03.2010 and on 16.03.2010 and the same was reserved for judgment after hearing the learned Amicus and the State. In the meantime as again one of us had to proceed to the Circuit Bench, the judgment is being delivered today. 10. AS we have found, the learned Amicus to be of immense assistance to the Court, in fact, he has taken a lot of pain in placing the entire evidence and citations in support of his argument. We will deal with them in seriatim. Learned Amicus was of the view that barring P.W.1, Raju Roy and P.W.8, Rabi Ghosh-P.W.2, Partha Pratim Das, P.W.3, Amitava Sarkar, P.W.4, Rinchen Lama Bhutia, P.W.5, Samir Kr. Banerjee and P.W.6, Badal Barman were all, police witnesses. He referred to the evidence of P.W.1, Raju Roy, worker of the tea stall at Alipurduar Junction Road Railway Station and P.W.8, Rabi Ghosh, tea stall owner of the said station to show that there was assembly of many people in the platform but yet none of the independent witnesses were examined. 11. LEARNED Amicus further submitted both P.W.I, Raju Roy and P.W.8, Rabi Ghosh are the tea stall vendors on the railway platform and have axe to grind with the G.R.P.S. As such, learned Amicus was of the view, they could not come out with an unadulterated version of the prosecution case and their evidence was liable to be discarded. 12. REFERRING to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ritesh Chakravarti Vs.. State of Madhya Pradesh, JT 2006(12) SC 416, learned Amicus submitted that since the whole case entirely rests on the evidence of police witnesses; a second thought is required to be given before upholding the conviction. Thereafter, learned Amicus took us to the examination of the appellant under section 313 Cr. PC before the learned Trial Court. Inviting our attention to the Question No.3 of the said examination, Shri Chowdhury, learned Amicus submitted that the confession, if at all, made before P.W.4, Rinchen Lama Bhutia, the Officer-in-Charge, Government Railway Police Station-cannot be admissible. He submitted that section 25 of the Evidence Act would apply with its full wrath. Neither any steps in pursuance of the same, taken by P.W.4, Rinchen Lama Bhutia, the Officer-in-Charge, Government Railway Police Station could be stated to be correct nor the same could be of any use against the appellant. He submitted that section 25 of the Evidence Act would apply with its full wrath. Neither any steps in pursuance of the same, taken by P.W.4, Rinchen Lama Bhutia, the Officer-in-Charge, Government Railway Police Station could be stated to be correct nor the same could be of any use against the appellant. He referred to the decisions of Supreme Court in 1) Aghnoo Nagesia Vs.. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1966 SC 119 and 2) Raj Kumar Karwal Vs.. Union of India and Ors., 1990(2) SCC 409 . 13. MOVING on, learned Amicus again took us back to the examination of the convict/appellant under section 313 Cr. PC recorded by the learned Trial Court. Relying on the celebrated decision of the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs.. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 , he submitted that in the absence of Chemical Examination Report (Ext.8) having been put to the appellant in course of such examination, the said circumstances could not be used against him during the trial. Having done so, learned Trial Court erred in law. To fortify his position learned Amicus referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in 3) Ghulam Din Buch and Ors. Vs.. State of JandK, 1996(9) SCC 239 , 4) State of Punjab Vs.. Hari Singh, reported in 2009(4) SCC 200 as well as Inspector of Customs, Akhnoor, Jammu and Kashmir Vs.. Yashpal and Anr., 2009(4) SCC 769 . 14. WRAPPING up, learned Amicus submitted that the absence of examination of the independent witnesses; discrepancies in the version of the witnesses as to whether the convict/appellant was on board the Air Conditioned IIIrd Class Compartment including his explanation in answer to Question No. 12 as well as the search and seizure not having been proved to the hilt, two views being possible-the convict/appellant was entitled to acquittal. Learned Amicus placed before us the decisions of the Apex Court in 6) Harijana Thirupala and Ors. Vs.. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A. P., Hyderabad, 2002(6) SCC 470 as well as 7) Dilip and Anr. Vs.. State of M.P., 2007(1) SCC 450 . Per Contra: Shri Mahato for the State put up a very solid argument to demolish the stand taken by the learned Amicus. Shri Mahato submitted that on a source information the appellant was arrested in the early hours from the train compartment. Vs.. State of M.P., 2007(1) SCC 450 . Per Contra: Shri Mahato for the State put up a very solid argument to demolish the stand taken by the learned Amicus. Shri Mahato submitted that on a source information the appellant was arrested in the early hours from the train compartment. Firstly, there was little scope of many independent witnesses to be present and secondly, it cannot be ignored that there is a general apathy of the people to come forward and depose. 15. SHRI Mahato was of the view that absence of examination of any independent witness, would not deal any severe blow to the prosecution, which have been otherwise, proved by cogent and reliable witnesses. 16. SHRI Mahato submitted that it has been proved through the evidence of P.W.4, Rinchen Lama Bhutia, the Officer-in-Charge, Government Railway Police Station Alipurduar, P.W.2, Partha Pratim Das, A.S.I. Alipurduar Junction G.R.P.S., P.W.3, Amitava Sarkar, A.S.I., of the same G.R.P.S., P.W.5, Shamir Kr. Banerjee, A.S.I., Railway Protection Force of Alipurduar Railway Station and P.W.6, Badal Barman, Constable attached to G. R.P.S. that recovery was made from the bag of the appellant in respect of articles, which were weighed by P.W.7, Gopal Prosad, a parcel labour in the parcel shed and found to be ganja by the Chemical Analyst. Basic structure of the prosecution case, according to Shri Mahato, has been suitably proved. He was of the view that there is no scope for any interference in the appeal. 17. SHRI Mahato submitted even though the question may not have been put to the appellant with regard to the Government Analyst Report (Ext.8) in course of his examination under section 313 Cr. PC; it would hardly be of any consequence as he could not show that on account of the same any prejudice have been occasioned. 18. WE wish, we could have stopped at the last leg of Shri Mahato's submission and said amen to the otherwise compact prosecution case neatly presented by P.W.4, Rinchen Lama Bhutia, and his team (P.W.2, Partha Pratim Das, ASI and P.W.3, Amitava Sarkar, ASI of the Alipurduar Junction G.R.P.S., P.W.5, Shamir Kr. Banerjee, ASI, Railway Protection Force of Alipurduar Railway Station and P.W.6, Constable, G.R.P.S.) and his finding translated into the report in final form through the investigational skill of P.W.9, Arun Kr. Yadav, Sub-Inspector of Police, G.R.P.S., Alipurduar. But alas ! Banerjee, ASI, Railway Protection Force of Alipurduar Railway Station and P.W.6, Constable, G.R.P.S.) and his finding translated into the report in final form through the investigational skill of P.W.9, Arun Kr. Yadav, Sub-Inspector of Police, G.R.P.S., Alipurduar. But alas ! Our judicial conscience will not permit us to do so. In ordinary course of events the two primordial situations that has surfaced at the outset of our decision, could have been repaired/restored or restructured through judicial tailoring of the crumble fabric of the system. Since the same has been torn in places resulting, as noticed by us earlier, in system failure-simply, restoration and restitching would not be sufficient. We would be constrained to take recourse of the following course of remedial steps for preserving the pristine glory of a sense of justice, which, after all, is the ultimate endeavour. 19. THE finding arrived at by the learned Special Court (under N.D.P.S. Act, Jalpaiguri) (hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial Court in N.D.P.S. Case No. 03 of 2006 on 08.07.2008 whereby the convict/appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rupees One lakh; in default to suffer further imprisonment for one year after he was found guilty of the charge of section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act, requires to be revisited simply on account of some porous situation, which if left unstitched, would result in infection of virus affecting the health of natural justice and would be against the canons of constitutional provision that no man can be condemned unheard. 20. WE are conscious of the fact that the convict/appellant is arrayed in a very serious offence, which not only affects the society at large but has a spoiling effect on a generation due to the ill effect of drugs. Cases of this nature are required to be dealt with utmost sensitisation and requisite circumspection. Follies and pitfalls should not be magnified to an extent where crime doers escape through such flimsy doors sacrificing societal justice. We are aware of the same. Cases of this nature are required to be dealt with utmost sensitisation and requisite circumspection. Follies and pitfalls should not be magnified to an extent where crime doers escape through such flimsy doors sacrificing societal justice. We are aware of the same. Yet, in our quest for justice, we find, that unless the situations that has surfaced in the inception is addressed, we would not be able to say Omega and put the seal of just desert on the finding of the learned Trial Court as in the process, again at the cost of repetition, we must say-however, serious the offence may be, justice would be crying in the wilderness. 21. IN our such endeavour, we find from the Order No. 12 dated 26.02.08 that the date was fixed on 03.04.08 for examination of IO and recording of 313 examination. This situation was repeated again on 03.04.2008. Order No. 14 dated 06.05.2008 reflects "..........S.I. Arun Kr. Yadav (I.O.) is present. He is examined, cross-examined and discharged. Documents are marked as Exts.6, 6/1,7,8 and materials are marked as Mat. Exts. VIII, IX, IX/1 and IX/2. No other P.W. Ld. PP-in-Charge submitted that there is no other witness to examine. The evidence is closed. To 22.5.08 for examination of the accused under section 313 Cr. PC. Accused be produced on that day." Order No. 15 dated 22.05.2008 reads; ".......Accd. Bhairow Singha is produced from J/C. Examined the accd. under section 313 Cr. PC and recorded in separate sheet. Let it be kept with the record. To 26.5.08 for hearing argument. And be produced on the date fixed." Ultimately, the judgment was delivered on 08.07.2008 vide Order No.20. 22. IF we see the sequence of events as transpiring from the record, P.W.9, Arun Kumar Yadav, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to G.R.P.S. Alipurduar Junction, the Investigating Officer, was the last witness in the list of the prosecution. His evidence was awaiting examination for several days. Learned Trial Court, it appears, have been fixing dates for examination of "R/P.W.+ 313" on and from 08.10.2007 after the penultimate witness P.W.8, Rabi Ghsoh was examined. Ultimately, when the examination of the appellant under section 313 Cr. His evidence was awaiting examination for several days. Learned Trial Court, it appears, have been fixing dates for examination of "R/P.W.+ 313" on and from 08.10.2007 after the penultimate witness P.W.8, Rabi Ghsoh was examined. Ultimately, when the examination of the appellant under section 313 Cr. PC was held on 22.05.2008, there has been no whisper in the various order sheets of the learned Trial Court that he was given any opportunity or made abreast of the situation, which would enable him to adduce defence evidence within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 233 Cr. PC. 23. THE learned Trial Court simply churned out order after orders in a mechanical fashion and it seems to us sufficient interest was not taken in the proceedings, which resulted in a fault in the line. 24. IF we make a purposive construction of the word "........he shall be called upon to enter in his defence and adduce any defence he may have in support thereof it would at once appear that the Court has some duty cast upon it to make the accused aware of its such right. Thereafter, it is for him to exercise the same or refuse. Applying the rule of literal construction, words of a statute should be first understood in their natural and ordinary or popular sense and unless it leads to some absurdity or would lead to a conclusion contrary to the object of the statute, no other interpretation should be adopted (See : Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 9th Edn. Page-78 by Chief Justice Guruprasad Singha) Since the days of Jugalkishoro Saraf Vs.. Raw Cotton Company Limited, AIR 1955 SC 376 , this view has been followed. In the absence of any other interpretation of the aforesaid phrase, quoted hereinabove in sub-section (1) of section 233, it was incumbent upon the learned Trial Court to have apprised the convict/appellant of his right bestowed upon him under the statute. Failure on this count, definitely, leads to a question of prejudice, reasons for which, we would be seeing ahead. 25. LEARNED Trial Court, as reflected from the order sheet, which we have peeped in, shows it simply adopted a very passive and a cold approach, which is not in the scheme of criminal trial and have been frowned by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion. In Ramchander Vs. 25. LEARNED Trial Court, as reflected from the order sheet, which we have peeped in, shows it simply adopted a very passive and a cold approach, which is not in the scheme of criminal trial and have been frowned by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion. In Ramchander Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 1036 it held : "If a Criminal Court is to be an effective instrument in dispensing justice, the Presiding Judge must cease to be a spectator and a mere recording machine. He must become a participant in the trial by convincing intelligent active interest by putting questions to witnesses in order to ascertain the truth.............." 26. LATER, in State of Rajasthan Vs.. Ani alias Hanif and Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SC 1023 , the Supreme Court proceeded to say ".......... a Judge remaining mute during trial is not an ideal situation. A taciturn Judge may be the model caricatured in public mind. But there is nothing wrong in his becoming active or dynamic during trial so that criminal justice being the end could be achieved......." A Division Bench of this Court in State of West Bengal Vs.. Ajoy Dutta, 2010(1) CLT 470 (HC), held similarly through the concurring voice of R. N. Ray, J. wherein the aforesaid position has been lucidly discussed. 27. A statutory infraction of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure has crept in. It is not simply a curable defect. It is neither a defect, which cannot be said to have caused any prejudice. It must be understood that the convict/appellant is a person from a different State. He may have language difficulty. He has went undefended till such time a State Defence was appointed by the learned Trial Court [See: Order No.1 dated 10.05.2007]. 28. SIMILARLY, in this appeal also he went undefended. Steps taken by a Division Bench of this Court to have him represented through a State Defence proved futile, which fructified in requisitioning the services of a learned State Defence, who performed a marvelous job, which we have found hereinabove. Such is the situation, where a person is in custody since 13.02.2006 till such time on 10.05.07 when after such a long gap of time realisation dawned that he is required to be defended and a State Defence was engaged from the "D.S.L.A. Jalpaiguri to defend the case on behalf of the accd. Such is the situation, where a person is in custody since 13.02.2006 till such time on 10.05.07 when after such a long gap of time realisation dawned that he is required to be defended and a State Defence was engaged from the "D.S.L.A. Jalpaiguri to defend the case on behalf of the accd. in custody." (See: Order No. 1 dated 10.5.2007) and on the very same day charge was framed. 29. READ in conjunction with the same, we require to read the answer to Question No. 12 put to the convict/appellant during his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the tenor of the said answer is very closely looked into, it would be evident that he wanted to make out a case of his own, which, however, would not be established for want of non-application of the mechanism ensured by Parliament through its Legislative mandate in sub-section (1) of section 233 Cr. PC. 30. HOW can we, be oblivious of section 35 of the N.D.P.S. Act, which raises a presumption of culpable mental state ? It would be a rebutable presumption and the onus is liable to be discharged by way of adducing defence evidence. In all fairness to the learned Trial Court-the answer to Question No. 12 was pondered upon by him. He took recourse to the cross- examination of P.W.6, Constable, Badal Barman and observed "......It was brought out by way of cross-examination of P. W. 6 that accused was found sitting in the lower berth of A.C. 1st compartment and his luggage was kept underneath the berth. So, the plea taken by the accused that he was in the general compartment is not at all convincing and acceptable." We cannot break bread with this part of the finding of the learned Trial Court for the simple reason that cross-examination of P.W.6, Badal Barman, Constable attached to G.R.P.S. shows "......I do not know the number of compartment of said Mahananda Express. There are two A/C compartments in the said train. I cannot say the boggy number of those compartments. The accd. was found in A/C 1st compartment". If we simply abide by such cross-examination of P.W.6, Badal Barman, we will miss an important segment of the prosecution case. There are two A/C compartments in the said train. I cannot say the boggy number of those compartments. The accd. was found in A/C 1st compartment". If we simply abide by such cross-examination of P.W.6, Badal Barman, we will miss an important segment of the prosecution case. P.W.4, Rinchen Lama Bhutia, Officer-in-Charge, Alipurduar Junction G.R.P.S., P.W.2, Partha Pratim Das, ASI and P.W.3, Amitava Sarkar, ASI of the Alipurduar Junction G.R.P.S.including P.W.5, Shamir Kr. Banerjee, ASI, Railway Protection Force of Alipurduar Railway Station does not fall in line with P.W.6, Constable, Badal Barman. 31. SIMILARLY, the learned Trial Court concluded "............the Govt. Analyst opined that all the three samples were separately tested and found to contain ganja........" but as very correctly pointed out by the learned Amicus, that this was not put to him in course of his examination under section 313 Cr. PC. In a run of the mill situation, at once we could have stopped with Shri Mahato and say what prejudice it has caused? But the report of the Government Analyst (Ext.8) was relied upon by the learned Trial Court, obviously, to arrive at his finding but the same was not put to him in course of his examination under section 313 Cr. PC- which, certainly, operates to his prejudice as he was precluded from his say in respect of an important area of the prosecution case. The decisions of the Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs.. State of Maharashtra (supra), Ghulam Din Buch and Ors. Vs.. State of JandK (supra), State of Punjab Vs.. Hari Singh (supra) and Inspector of Customs, Akhnoor, Jammu and Kashmir Vs.. Yashpal and Anr., (supra) referred to by the learned Amicus, have full application in the fact situation of the instant case. 32. SHRI Mahato referred to the decision of Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs.. Pawan Kumar, reported in 2005(2) C Cr. LR (SC) 41, in support of his contention that since the bag and attache case were searched; question of applying the provisions of section 50 of the Evidence Act did not arise. We would, however, not advert to the same as this situation did not arise before us and learned Amicus also did not harp on the same. 33. THAT apart, there is a much arresting situation, which we have read in Order No. 14 dated 06.05.2008. We would, however, not advert to the same as this situation did not arise before us and learned Amicus also did not harp on the same. 33. THAT apart, there is a much arresting situation, which we have read in Order No. 14 dated 06.05.2008. Like a Franking machine, the learned Trial Court proceeded to record ".........Documents are marked as Exts.6, 6/1, 7, 8 and .................." Ext.8, as we have found, contain the Chemical Examination Report, even though the same can easily go into evidence within the purview of section 293 Cr.PC- the manner in which the job was performed, leaves much to be desired. 34. NEEDLESS to say the convict/appellant would be at liberty to resurrect the moribund situation in Order No. 14 dated 06.05.2008, where simply important exhibits and amongst them the most important exhibit, Government Analyst Report (Ext.8) was merely pasted like a postage stamp. Accordingly, having taken a wholesome stock of the entire situation, we feel that the decision arrived at by the learned Trial Court requires to be revisited for the reasons, which we have noted in the Alpha stage of our decision. 35. IN our opinion, the matter is required to be sent on remand for the limited purpose of recasting the examination under section 313 Cr. PC of the convict/appellant and to enable him to provide an opportunity for adducing defence evidence, if so desired and/or for any further cross-examination, as the situation require. 36. ACCORDINGLY, after having observed the aforesaid deficiencies, the entire matter is now sent on remand after setting aside the judgment and order under appeal before the concerned Trial Court to proceed afresh from the stage, which we have pointed out and thereafter upon rehearing the argument afresh, will write a judgment without either being haunted by the shadow of the earlier finding of his predecessor-in-office nor by the order of remand passed by this Court. In an independent fashion keeping in mind the mandate of law the learned Trial Court is requested to redo the exercise once again. We actually fall short of words to admire the performance of Shri Soumopriyo Chowdhury, Amicus Curiae who was of tremendous value in our decision making process. Appeal accordingly disposed of.