JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. Both the criminal jail appeals are filed by the life convict Gurmeet Singh @ Soni, Balkar Singh and Lakhvinder Singh against the judgment dated 24.4.2007 passed in Cr. Case No.4/2006 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar by which all the three accused appellants were convicted and following sentence was passed for the offences committed by them:- Under Section 302 IPC Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months RI Under Section 328 IPC Five years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months RI Under Section 365 IPC Three years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months RI Under Section 394 IPC Seven years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months RI Under Section 120B IPC One year RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month RI 2. It is also very important to observe that investigation against accused Kuldeep and Parmjeet was kept pending under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. 3. As per the facts of the case the FIR (Ex.P/12) was registered at Police Station Chunagarh, District Sri Gaganagar upon the written report submitted by PW-17 Umesh on 13.1.2006. The complainant alleged in the FIR that he and one Radheyshyam (driver) both gone Jodhpur from Sirsa in Container No.909 NHR 38-C-8721 from where, on 6.1.2006 they loaded onion and left Jodhpur for Fazilka, Jalaladabad in Punjab. The deceased Radheyshyam was driving the vehicle and as per submission of complainant Umesh he was Assistant (Khalasi) upon the said vehicle. According to the complainant, on 7.1.2006 at about 5.30 pm when they reached near Sri Ganganagar they stopped the vehicle and drink tea, thereafter, at about 9O clock they took there dinner and waited for clearance of road. In the hotel there were 3-4 persons and after taking meal at about 9.15 pm again he drink tea and thereafter proceeded for Sri Ganganagar. In the hotel there were 3-4 persons and after taking meal at about 9.15 pm again he drink tea and thereafter proceeded for Sri Ganganagar. As per the complainant in the vehicle only two persons were there and till they reached near canal in between way he was conscious but thereafter become unconscious and in the morning on 11.1.2006 when he became conscious he was admitted in the Government Hospital and police personnels were there. The police personnels informed the complainant that you were lying on a road near canal in unconscious condition from where they took him and admitted in the hospital. The complainant apprehended that in the hotel where they take dinner and tea, some intoxic medicine was given to them and due to the said intoxic medicine he became unconscious and probably the driver Radheyshyam was kidnapped by unknown person because he is missing. 4. Upon aforesaid written report submitted by the complainant Umesh PW/7, the FIR (Ex.P/13) was registered on 13.01.2006 at Police Station Dungargarh District Sriganganagar and usual investigation commenced by PW-19 Dinesh Kumar Rajora. In the investigation, as per information given by the complainant Umesh the police went to the Hotel (Dhaba) situated at 3 HH and upon site, the site plan (Ex.P/5 and P/6) was prepared and some cover of capsules were taken in possession vide Ex.P/7. The dead body of driver Radheyshyam was also taken in possession and send for post mortem in the Hospital. One iron rod lying near the body of Radheyshyam was also taken in possession vide memo Ex.P/9 and site plan of the place from where the dead body of Radheyshyam (driver) was prepared and call-register of the PCO near the Hotel was recovered vide Ex.P/8. The statement of Mahaveer were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and upon usual investigation, accused appellants were arrested vide Ex.P/26 to Ex. P/28. In the investigation the police recovered one purse of the complainant Umesh vide Ex.P/59 upon information given by the accused appellant Lakhvinder Singh vide Ex.P/60. One pistol and four bullets were also recovered upon the information given by the accused appellant Lakhvinder Singh vide Ex.P/16 and Ex.P/18. Upon information given by the accused appellant Gurmeet Singh number plate of vehicle was recovered vide Ex.P/28 and one pistol and bullets were recovered upon information given by Gurmeet Singh vide Ex.P/31. One pistol and four bullets were also recovered upon the information given by the accused appellant Lakhvinder Singh vide Ex.P/16 and Ex.P/18. Upon information given by the accused appellant Gurmeet Singh number plate of vehicle was recovered vide Ex.P/28 and one pistol and bullets were recovered upon information given by Gurmeet Singh vide Ex.P/31. All the seized material were sent to the FSL for test. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation filed challan in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar under Section 365, 328, 307, 302, 394 and 120B IPC against accused appellants from where the case was committed to the court of District & Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar but later on transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Gananagar for trial. 5. As per facts, the challan was filed against the accused appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence and in the trial statements of 20 prosecution witnesses were recorded to prove the prosecution case. Upon completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and no evidence was produced by the accused appellants in spite of granting an opportunity to lead evidence in defence. 6. The learned trial court finally heard the case and convicted the accused appellants for aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 24.4.2007 and punished the accused appellant for offence under Section 302, 328, 365, 394, 120B IPC. 7. The appellants are challenging the validity of the said judgment in both the jail appeals. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. JDS Bhati vehemently argued that there is no direct evidence to connect the accused appellants with the crime because as per finding of the trial court the conviction is based upon the circumstantial evidence, which is not trustworthy. It is also argued that the conviction is based upon the so called recovery of purse, pistol and bullets as per the information of the appellant Lakhvinder Singh, but in fact, all the 3 accused appellants have been implicated falsely without any trustworthy direct evidence, therefore, the judgment impugned is not sustainable in law. It is also argued that the conviction is based upon the so called recovery of purse, pistol and bullets as per the information of the appellant Lakhvinder Singh, but in fact, all the 3 accused appellants have been implicated falsely without any trustworthy direct evidence, therefore, the judgment impugned is not sustainable in law. As per the prosecution, two pistols are recovered upon information given by the accused appellant Lakhvinder Singh and Gurmeet Singh but said recovery of articles is not sufficient to convict the accused appellants because as per the post mortem report it will reveal that cause of death was head injury on partial region. No firearm injury was found. It is submitted that pistol cannot connect the accused appellant with the offence because no fire arm injury was found upon the body of Radheyshyam which is evident from post mortem report. Therefore, in absence of any linking and corroborative evidence it cannot be said that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading circumstantial evidence. With regard to recovery of purse vide Ex.P/16 upon the information of accused appellant Lakhvinder Singh it is submitted that said purse was recovered before two witnesses Jai Prakash and Rai Sahab vide Ex.P/16, therefore, the recovery of purse belonging to complainant Umesh has nothing to do with the murder of deceased Radheyshyam because recovery of said purse at the instance of Lakhvinder Singh cannot connect the accused appellants with the alleged crime of murder. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that till today although the investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. was kept pending against Kuldeep and Paramjeet who left the hotel before driver Radheyshyam and Umesh left the hotel, therefore, in absence of investigation from Kuldeep and Paramjeet, the accused appellants are wrongly connected with the alleged crime without any trustworthy evidence, therefore, the judgment impugned which is based upon circumstantial evidence deserves to be quashed. For the allegation of recovery of two pistol it is submitted that in whole of the investigation no evidence come out to prove the fact that pistols were used in the alleged crime and conviction is based upon the testimony of PW-17 Umesh, therefore, even if all the allegations levelled by the PW-17 Umesh is accepted then also the accused appellants cannot convict with direct evidence. While inviting attention towards recovery of iron rod it is submitted that the witness PW-17 Umesh himself stated in his statement that iron rod was lying in the container itself, which is identified by the complainant Umesh. Meaning thereby, recovery of iron rod from the place of occurrence is of no use so as to convict the accused appellants for alleged crime. The conviction which is based upon the evidence of last seen is not sustainable in law. Lastly, it is argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because no reliable or connective evidence is on record to prove the prosecution case on the basis of circumstantial evidence, therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed and set aside. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the accused appellants relied upon the judgments delivered in the case of Bhupan v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2002 SC 820 and Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2008 Cr.L.R (SC) 306 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that conviction cannot be based upon the recovery of weapon at the instance of accused when other evidence produced by the prosecution is not trustworthy, therefore, the finding given by the trial court for conviction and sentence passed against the accused appellants may be quashed. 10. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that although the case is based upon circumstantial evidence but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that complainant PW-17 Umesh has categorically said that on the date of occurrence when they reached the tea shop (Dhaba) on 7.1.2006 at 3HH near Sri Ganganaga welding and STD/PCO were also there and PW-17 Umesh and driver deceased Radheshyam stopped the container near the hotel and take tea and dinner at that time, three persons were working in the hotel came there and made inquiry from the driver Radheyshyam that from where you are coming and what type of commodity is lying in their container. It is also stated by him that they drink tea, after taking dinner in which some toxic material was used an due to that he became unconscious and driver Radheyshyam was kidnapped. It is also stated by him that they drink tea, after taking dinner in which some toxic material was used an due to that he became unconscious and driver Radheyshyam was kidnapped. Meaning thereby, there is material evidence on record to prove the facts that all the three appellants were in the hotel and it is the last seen when deceased and complainant Umesh take there dinner and later on Umesh Kumar found in unconscious condition and body of Radheyshyam driver was lying on the road. As per learned Public Prosecutor the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading trustworthy circumstantial evidence of recovery of iron rod, purse of complainant Umesh, two pistols and bullets. Upon the information given by the accused appellants, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused appellants for committing offence of murder and kidnapping. Therefore, both the jail appeals may kindly be dismissed. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor it emerges from the evidence on record that there is no direct evidence or eye witness of the incident. More so, the prosecution has relied upon the story narrated by PW-17 Umesh and recovery of two pistols, cartridge, iron rod and purse. The entire investigation is based upon the facts narrated by the witness PW-17 Umesh, author of the FIR. 12. We have perused the statement given by Doctor PW-2 Dr. Bal Krishan Panwar, who performed the post mortem of deceased Radheshyam. The entire investigation is based upon the facts narrated by the witness PW-17 Umesh, author of the FIR. 12. We have perused the statement given by Doctor PW-2 Dr. Bal Krishan Panwar, who performed the post mortem of deceased Radheshyam. The said witness gave the following statements in the trial, which reads as under:- ^'ko dk ckgjh ijh{k.k ij ik;k fd toku fgUnw ftldh mez yxHkx 30 o"kZ gS ftlds vUnj flQZ flj] xnZu] peM+h o peM+h ds vUnj dk QSfl;k feyk Fkk og ihB] isV vkSj mij ds gkFkksa dk QSfl;k o peM+h mifLFkr FkhA nksuksa iSjksa ds uk[kwuksa rd dk QSfl;k o Ldhu mifLFkr FkhA izkbZosV ikVZl mifLFkr FksA iq:"k fyax o mlds uhps dk Hkkx mifLFkr FkkA nksuksa rjQ ds vUMdks"k FkSyh lfgr mifLFkr FksA ftl ij fdlh rjg dk t[e ugha ik;k x;kA flj ds fiNyh lkbZM dh LdSYi ij ftldk ,sfj;k iSjkbZVy ls vkWDlhihVy {ks= rd esa ftldk vkdkj 9 lsUVh0 x.kk 2 lsUVh0 xq.kk gM~Mh dh lrg rd dk ySlhjsVsM cw.M Fkk tks e`R;q iwoZ dkfjr FkkA ftldh fn'kk vkxs ls ihNs dh rjQ FkhA iSjkbZVy o vkWDlhihVy {ks= dh gfM~M;ka VwVh gqbZ FkhA ?kko dqUnkyk ls dkfjr FkkA dzsfu;e o LikbZuy dksMZ esa flj dh peM+h] dadky o jhM [kEc ij vkbZ gqbZ pksVsa iwoZ esa crk;s vuqlkj FkhA jhM [kEc iw.kZr;% vuqifLFkr FkkA fnekx dh f>fYy;ka dVh QVh FkhA fnekx ds lkjs ikVZl ls cncw vk jgh Fkh vkSj lM+s xys FksA 'kjhj esa o{k vuqifLFkr Fkk] isV vuqifLFkr FkkA esjh jk; esa iksLVekVZe ds nkSjku ik;s x;s lHkh rF; bl ckr dks tkfgj djrs gSa fd e`R;q flj dh pksV dh otg ls gqbZ gSA e`rd dh e`R;q iksLVekVZe ls 4&5 fnu iwoZ esa gksuk ik;k x;kA esjh iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih0 4 ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA* In cross-examination PW 2 Dr. Balkishan Panwar stated as under:- ^esjh jk; esa e`R;q T;knk [kwu cgus ls gqbZ tks flj dh pksV ls e`R;q [kwu cgus ls gqbZA D;ksafd czsu dk ckdh ikVZl ekStwn ugha gksus dh otg ls ;g jk; ugha nh tk ldrh fd e`R;q czsu gSEczst ls gqbZ ;k czsu Mªkek ls gqbZA ;g lgh gS fd [kwu ;fn oDr ij jksd fn;k tkrk rks e`rd cp ldrk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd vxj dksbZ O;fDr flj dh pksV ls ?kk;y gks vkSj mlds ckn mldks ftUnk dks dqRrs [kk tk;s rks Hkh og O;fDr ej tk;sxkA* 13. Upon above statement of the doctor there was no fire arm injury therefore, the recovery of two pistols, one upon information given by accused appellant Lakhvinder Singh vide Ex.P/18 and other vide Ex.P/31 upon information given by Gurmeet Singh are of no use to hold accused appellant guilty for offence because no fire arm injury was found in the post mortem upon the body of Radheyshyam and upon the body of witness PW-17 Umesh, author of the FIR, therefore, the recovery of pistols and cartridge are not relevant circumstances so as to connect the accused appellant with the crime. 14. The third recovery of the purse of witness Umesh vide (Ex.P/17) upon information given by accused appellant Lakhvinder Singh. It is necessary to observe that in the FIR there is no disclosure by the author of FIR PW-17 Umesh that his purse was missing which is said to be recovered upon information given by the accused appellant Lakhvinder Singh, but it is very strange in the written report submitted by the complainant PW-17 Umesh it is nowhere stated by him that his purse is missing, but in his statement given in the Court by the said witness Umesh PW-17 he has improved his statement and said that – ^tc eSaus o pkyd us gksVy ij [kkuk [kk;k Fkk ml le; esjs ikl dkys jax dk jsXthu dk cVqvk Fkk ftlesa 1010@& :i;s FksA rFkk dqN dkxtkr FksA tks eq>s gks'k vkus ij esjh isaV dh tsc esa ugha feysA* 15. In view of the above fact that the author of the FIR Umesh PW-17 did not disclose the fact of missing purse from his pocket and before the Curt improved the statement, therefore, the case of prosecution based upon false and concocted story of recovery of purse so as to held accused appellant guilty for murder. In view of the fact that accused appellants cannot be convicted on the basis of recovery of two pistols, one iron rod and purse, we are of the opinion that above recoveries cannot be treated as trustworthy circumstantial evidence so as to connect and convict the accused appellants for the alleged offence of murder and kidnapping. The whole prosecution story is based upon last seen and recovery of pistols, purse of complainant Umesh and iron rod, but in absence of any injury by fire arm upon the body of Radheyshyam the recovery of pistol is not at all relevant. In view of above facts recovery of purse and Rs. 1110/- of complainant Umesh cannot be treated as an evidence to convict the accused appellant for the alleged crime. Similarly, PW-17 Umesh, author of the FIR categorically said in his statement that rod which is recovered near the body of Radheyshyam was lying in the container itself. Therefore, the recovery of iron rod from the site is not at all relevant to hold appellant guilty for alleged offence of murder because as per the prosecution evidence itself, the rod was already lying in the container. In view of the above facts, it is a case in which all the accused appellants are erroneously held liable for murder on the basis of irrelevant recovery of pistols, iron rod and purse. 16. With regard to the evidence of last seen, it emerges from evidence that complainant himself admitted before the court that they stopped their vehicle near Hotel (Dhaba) for taking dinner and all appellants were employees of that hotel, where they take dinner therefore, obviously last seen with deceased, Umesh and appellants in the Hotel (Dhaba) cannot be questioned. In our opinion, it is a case in which all the accused appellants are implicated upon suspicion on the basis of recovery of articles and last seen because there is no evidence of prosecution to prove motive. 17. In our opinion, it is a case in which all the accused appellants are implicated upon suspicion on the basis of recovery of articles and last seen because there is no evidence of prosecution to prove motive. 17. In the case of Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2008 Cr.L.R. (SC) 306 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that discovery of articles and weapon is a weak type of evidence and cannot be relied upon wholly for conviction in such a serious matter of murder. Para no.21 of the said judgment is as follows:- "21. The discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon on and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon the discovery. Once the discovery fails, there would be literally nothing which would support the prosecution case. We have already held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the house where alleged blood stains were found belonged exclusively or was possessed exclusively by the appellant, we have further pointed out that the discovery was absolutely farcical. There is one other very relevant factor ignored by both the courts that the prosecution never made any attempts to prove that the clothes belonged to the appellants. There is literally no evidence to suggest anything to that effect. Therefore, even if we accept the discovery, it does not take us anywhere near the crime. Both the Courts below have ignored this very important aspect. Once these two important circumstances are disbelieved, there is nothing which would remain to support the prosecution theory. We also fail to understand the finding of the High Court in respect of the motive. In our opinion, there was no motive whatsoever much less entertain able by the present appellant. He had nothing to do with the straying cattle nor was he a party to subsequent altercation between P.W.1 Arunachalam and the accused No. 2 Moyyasamy. Lastly, there is nothing on record to show that he was a henchman set up to take revenge by accused no. 2 Moyyasamy and he was set up by the accused no. 1 to revenge. We also did not understand that if there was no motive for Moyyasamy, how could there be any motive entertain able by the appellant. Therefore, even for that circumstance has to go." 18. 2 Moyyasamy and he was set up by the accused no. 1 to revenge. We also did not understand that if there was no motive for Moyyasamy, how could there be any motive entertain able by the appellant. Therefore, even for that circumstance has to go." 18. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if case is based upon circumstantial evidence then prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt while leading complete chain so as to held accused guilty. The following adjudication is made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras nos. 152 and 153 of the said judgment, which reads as under:- "A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:- (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made:- "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence." 19. Last seen evidence is one of species of circumstantial evidence. Last seen evidence as per Part III Section 7 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is relevant evidence against accused. For proving this evidence it is essential for the prosecution to prove two things, being that the accused was seen alone in company of deceased and at place where no other person is expected to interfere. Once this is proved burden of proof under Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, falls upon accused to prove his innocence. It is pertinent to mention that first burden of proof is on prosecution to prove above said elements and it is only after prosecution successfully proves them that burden shifts on accused to prove his defence. Last seen evidence does not by itself necessarily leads to inference that accused committed crime unless same is duly supported by other links in chain of circumstantial evidence unerringly pointing out guilt of accused. Theory of last seen together evidence is thus held to be not of universal application based on which conviction of accused can be sustained. It shall also be noted that last seen evidence is only relevant evidence to complete chain of circumstantial evidence. 20. For acceptance of circumstantial evidence the latest judgment in the case of Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2014) 4 SCC 715 is very important because in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that circumstances of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing the connectivity between the accused and the crime. 21. There must be something more establishing the connectivity between the accused and the crime. 21. After considering the aforesaid judgments, we are of the view that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the law is settled that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, all the circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. 22. In the present case two pistols and bullets were recovered from accused appellant Lakhvinder Singh and Gurmeet Singh but upon perusal of post mortem report as well as statement of PW-2 Dr. Bal Kishan it is clear that none of the injury found caused by fire arm, therefore, the said recovery of two pistols and bullet have no relevance for the offence of murder. Further, the author of the FIR Umesh did not disclose the fact in the FIR that his purse IS missing, but improved his statement in the court because in the investigation police recovered a purse upon information given by the accused Lakhvinder Singh. In our opinion, the recovery of purse cannot be used as evidence to convict the appellant because purse is not belonging to the deceased Radheyshyam. For the recovery of iron rod near the body of deceased Radheyshyam the witness Umesh himself stated in his statement that rod was lying in the container itself. In view of above facts it cannot be said that prosecution has established its case by leading trustworthy evidence so as to convict the accused appellant. 23. We have thoroughly examined the evidence on record in the light of the above judgments and arguments advanced by both the parties. In our opinion, all the circumstances are not complete because there is gap left in the chain of evidence of present case. Therefore, it is a case in which prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, we are of the opinion that conviction and sentence passed under Section 302, 328, 365, 394 and 120B IPC against the accused appellants is not sustainable in law, therefore, both these jail appeals are hereby allowed. The judgment dated 24.4.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Consequently, we are of the opinion that conviction and sentence passed under Section 302, 328, 365, 394 and 120B IPC against the accused appellants is not sustainable in law, therefore, both these jail appeals are hereby allowed. The judgment dated 24.4.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.4/2006 against the accused appellants is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused appellants may be released forthwith if not needed in any other case. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. the accused appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond each in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount each, before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Appeal allowed.