Judgment : Md. Mumtaz Khan, J. This appeal is preferred by the appellant assailing the judgement, order of conviction and sentence dated April 27th,2009 and April 28th,2009 respectively passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track 5th Court, Malda in Sessions Trial No. 71(12) of 2007 arising out of Sessions Case No. 321 of 2007. By virtue of the impugned judgement and order appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under section 302/201of I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2000/- in default simple imprisonment for two months for committing offence under Section 302 IPC and to also suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 201 IPC and both the offences were directed to run concurrently and the period of detention undergone to be set off as per provisions of law while the accused Biswajit Das and Sibani Roy were acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. as found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 302/201of I.P.C. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:- On May 27th, 2007 at about 6.30 a.m. P.W.1, Dwijendra Nath Mondal, a member of Gazole Panchayat Samity, received an information at his house about lying of a beheaded dead body under the Asansahid bridge of their locality. He then went there and found a dead body of an unknown person, aged about 30 years, fair complexion bearing sharp cut bleeding injuries on his throat and chest was lying there. Accordingly on that date at about 8.05 a.m. he lodged the complaint (Ext.!) at the Gazole P.S. On the basis of that complaint, a case being Gazole P.S. Case No. 79/2007 dated May 27th, 2007 under section 302 I.P.C was started against unknown person investigation ensued and on completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and two others namely Sibani Roy and Biswajit Das under Section 302/201/120B/34 IPC. Thereafter, charge was framed under Section 302/201/120B/34 IPC against this appellant and those two other charge sheeted accused persons on December 7th, 2007 and after they denied their involvement in the crime, trial commenced. Thereafter, charge was framed under Section 302/201/120B/34 IPC against this appellant and those two other charge sheeted accused persons on December 7th, 2007 and after they denied their involvement in the crime, trial commenced. Prosecution examined 24 witnesses and also produced and proved the FIR, seizure lists, statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C inquest report, PM report, serological test report, rough sketch map etc. (Exbts. 1 to 17) and also produced the wearing apparels of the victim and the accused, weapon of offence etc. (Mat. Exbts. 1 to XII) and thereafter on conclusion of trial learned court below found this appellant only guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302/201 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2,000/-in default simple imprisonment for two months and to also suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default simple imprisonment for one month and acquitted Sibani Roy and Biswajit Das. It has been submitted by Md. Taimur Hossain, learned advocate for the appellant, that there is no eye witness to the incident in question and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt has been drawn has not been fully established and as such the impugned judgment, order of conviction and sentence passed by Ld. Court below is liable to be set aside for the following reasons: 1) P.W.10 and P.W.12 have claimed that on previous day of the incident they have last seen together the victim with the appellant to go towards Rathbari by a rickshaw but their claim of last seen theory could not be believed in the light of the evidence of P.W.18 and also in view of the strained relation between the victim and the appellant over the reported theft and/or snatching of the rings and mobile phone of the victim by the appellant. 2) P.W.10 as well as P.W.12 have also claimed that on the previous day of incident they along with one Dibyendu Sengupta/Das and the victim had liquor at the house of P.W.18 but P.W.18 has not stated about the presence of P.W.10 or P.W.12 or any Dibyendu Sengupta/Das at his house on that day. Furthermore, said Dibyendu Sengupta/Das has also not been examined by the prosecution. Furthermore, said Dibyendu Sengupta/Das has also not been examined by the prosecution. 3) It is also the claim of P.W.10 as well as P.W.12 that they along with the victim went to Namsari at noon and had bath, lunch and then returned back to Rathbari and therefrom went to Kalinga hotel where appellant came and the victim went away with him. But according to P.W.18 victim left his shop at 3/4 P.M. 4) The allegation of theft and/or snatching of finger rings and mobile phone of the victim by the appellant as claimed by P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W.12 and P.W.18 did not find corroboration from P.W.24 or the GDE (Ext.18). According to P.W.9 victim told them about snatching of his finger ring and mobile phone by one Buro and one woman. According to P.W.10 victim told them about theft of his two finger rings and one mobile phone by the appellant and one Nengiri while according to P.W.18 victim toldhim about stealing of his mobile phone and finger ring by the appellant. Whereas according to P.W.12, victim told them that appellant snatched away his two gold rings and one mobile phone. But according to P.W.24, on May17, 2007 victim lodged GDE (Ext.18) at E.B. P.S. stating that he lost his mobile with SIM card only. 5) It had come out from the evidence on record that throughout the day victim consumed liquor but no liquor was found in his stomach by the doctor, P.W.15 who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the victim on May 27, 2007. According to the doctor and the P.M. report death was within 36 hours of examination which means victim was murdered long before the night of May 26, 2007. 6) In the case of circumstantial evidence motive has a very important role to play but in the instant case prosecution had failed to prove the motive behind the death of the victim. 7) According to Md. Taimur Hossain, learned advocate for the appellant, the factum of seizure of the weapon of offence and other articles has not been proved properly and there is a doubt about seizure in view of the contradictions in between the statements of seizure witnesses and draws our attention to the statements of P.W.4 and seizure witnesses namely P.W.10, P.W.11, P.W.13, P.W.14, and P.W.22. i) According to P.W.4, once police had been to the house of appellant but found the door of the house under lock and accordingly after unlocking the door police entered into the house but did not find anybody or anything from that house. ii) According P.W.10 police took him to the house of the appellant and found the house under lock. Thereafter, police after opening the door with the help of the father of the appellant entered there and recovered on mobile Sim card, one jewelery shop receipt, one cotton jean pant of the victim, one pair of sandle with belt, one lungi, one churidar and one ram da and that all the clothes were blood stained though he did not state to the Magistrate about the reported recovery of those articles. iii) According to P.W.11, about one year back police took him to the house of the appellant and thereafter police seized one Sim card, one receipt issued by jewelery shop, one jean pant, one pair of sandle, one lungi, one ladies pyjama, one orna and one axe by a seizure list on which he signed (Ext.6/1) though during cross-examination he admitted that he signed on the seizure list as per request of police. iv) According to P.W.22, on June 3, 2007 police came to the house of the appellant and recovered one mobile Sim card, one receipt of jewelery shop, one jean pant, one pair of sandle, one lungi, one pyjama, one orna and one axe by a seizure list on which he signed (Ext.6/2) though during cross-examination he also admitted that he signed on the seizure list as per request of police. The claim of P.W.10 that house of the appellant was under lock and key and with the help of the father of the appellant police opened the door and entered therein and recovered blood stained clothes had not been corroborated by P.W.11 or P.W.22. Moreover, P.W.5, jewelery shop owner, has not stated about issuance of any receipt nor any receipt book was seized. Even no khata on which appellant reportedly put his signature after taking money was seized. Police reportedly seized only one white stone from P.W.5 but there is no explanation why gold rings reportedly handed over to him by the appellant and other accused persons were not seized. Even no khata on which appellant reportedly put his signature after taking money was seized. Police reportedly seized only one white stone from P.W.5 but there is no explanation why gold rings reportedly handed over to him by the appellant and other accused persons were not seized. P.W.8, wife of the victim, identified two stones reportedly fitted with the ring of her husband though there was no whisper about seizure of two stones. v) According P.W.13 in the last part of Jaistha police brought the appellant and his friend to their village and thereafter appellant and his friend took out three pants, two shirts, one mobile set and one hasua from the house of the appellant which police seized and prepared a document on which he signed (Ext.10). vi) According to P.W.14 in the last part of Jaistha police brought the appellant and his friend to their village and appellant took out three pants, two shirts, one mobile set and one hasua from his house which police seized and prepared a document on which he signed (Ext.10/1) though during cross-examination both of them have admitted that they signed on the document as per the request of police. There is no whisper who else was present at the time of reported seizure and/or who called them at that place. As per the seizure lists, Exts. 6 & 10, I.O. visited the house of the appellant both on June3,2007 and June7,2007 and on both the occasions Gaya Nath Roy was present and he signed on the seizure lists but neither Gaya Nath Roy nor the I.O. of the case has been examined by the prosecution. According to Md. Taimur Hossain, learned advocate for the appellant blood group of the victim did not match with the blood appearing either on the weapon of offence or the wearing apparels recovered from the possession of the appellant. It is also submitted by Md. Taimur Hossain, learned advocate for the appellant that in the case of circumstantial evidence chain of circumstances must be complete by reliable and clinching evidence and most clearly point out to the guilt of the accused, so as to lead to the conclusion that it is the accused only and no other person should have committed the offence of murder of the deceased and mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof. But the prosecution has miserably fail to prove with the chain of the circumstances and theory of last seen together and also failed to prove the motive behind the commission of the offence of murder. In view of the above there was no scope to convict the appellant under the provisions of Section 302/201 of IPC. Ld. Advocate representing the state, Mr. Ranabir Roychoudhury fairly submitted that there is no eye witness to incident and the entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence. He also submitted that on May17, 2007 mobile phone and finger rings of the victim were snatched away by the appellant and this has been corroborated by co-villagers P.W9, P.W.10, PW.12 and P.W.18 and on the same day order was placed before the jeweler, P.W.5, for making necklace and ring with those stolen rings and there is no evidence to show any enmity between the appellant and the witnesses to disbelieve their oral testimony. Mr. Roychoudhury, learned Advocate representing the state further submitted that on the previous day victim was last seen together with the appellant by the villagers namely PW10 and PW12 and on the next day his dead body bearing sharp cut injuries was found and the autopsy surgeon, PW15 has elaborately and specifically described the injuries found on the person of the victim and also opined that those injuries may be caused by a hasua and he was not challenged by the defence on this score and it was immaterial whether stomach was empty or not. According to Mr. Roychoudhury appellant was apprehended on June7, 2007 and thereafter he taken to his house along with one another accused and there from he brought out the weapon of offence and bloodstained clothes and the serological test report confirms stains of blood on those articles excepting hasua. According to Mr. Roychoudhury, learned Advocate representing the state even if motive is not proved in the case based on circumstantial evidence the entire case will not go away and the contradictions as pointed out by the defence are not so vital to disprove to allegation of the prosecution. According to Mr. Roychoudhury all the above circumstances lead to conclude the guilt of the appellant in commission of murder of the victim. According to Mr. Roychoudhury all the above circumstances lead to conclude the guilt of the appellant in commission of murder of the victim. In support of his contention he relied upon the decisions of Amitava Banerjee @ Amit @ Bappa Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2012 (1) SCC (Cri) 624 and Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2012 (3) SCC (Cri) 685. We have considered the submissions advanced by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the respective parties and have given our thoughtful consideration to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the materials on record including the FIR, inquest report, rough sketch map with index with regard to the place of occurrence, post mortem report, serological report, seizure lists, extract of GDE, statements recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., charge sheet, charges framed amongst other materials for examining the propriety of the impugned judgement and the order of conviction and sentence. Admittedly none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution are the witness to the occurrence and the entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence. It is the settled proposition of laws that where the cases rests squarely on the circumstantial evidence the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the offence of the accused. The chain of circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and must be completed and most clearly point out to the guilt of the accused. This has been elaborately discussed by us in a judgement dated July 15th, 2015 delivered in the matter of Biswajit Jamadar @ Habla vs. State of West Bengal (in re: C.R.A. No.671 of 2013) with the matter of Kanaiya @ Hukka Yadav vs. State of West Bengal (in re: CRA 594 of 2014). In the above judgment we arrived at the above conclusion taking into consideration the proposition of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in the matter of Hanumant Gobind Nargundkar and Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in A.I.R. 1952 Supreme Court 343 and the relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:- “10. …... In the above judgment we arrived at the above conclusion taking into consideration the proposition of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in the matter of Hanumant Gobind Nargundkar and Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in A.I.R. 1952 Supreme Court 343 and the relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:- “10. …... It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstance should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” While delivering the judgement in the above appeal bearing C.R.A. No.671 of 2013 with CRA 594 of 2014, we further took into consideration that the above proposition of law was repeated and reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again. Reference may be made to the decision of Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 755 and the relevant portions of the above decision are quoted below:- “10. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Sukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Eradu v. State of Hyderabad, Earabhadroppa v. State of Karnataka, State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi, Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P.). (See Sukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Eradu v. State of Hyderabad, Earabhadroppa v. State of Karnataka, State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi, Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P.). The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis supplied) The ld. Court below took into consideration the evidences of P.W. 4, 5 and 8 to arrive at a conclusion that the appellant was involved with the theft of finger ring of the victim. But on perusal of the evidence of those witnesses we find that there is nothing in their evidence that they have seen the appellant to commit theft nor it their evidence that victim told them about commission of such theft by the appellant. They have even nowhere whispered about commission of any such theft of any finger ring of the victim by the appellant. Even if the evidence of P.W.5, the jewelery shop owner, that the appellant along with Sibani and her brother came to his shop on May17, 2007 and handed him over two gold rings asking him to prepare a necklace and a ring with white stone with the gold of those finger rings and subsequently police seized white stone from his shop is believed then there is no explanation what happened to those finger rings and why those rings were not seized. Even no such khata, on which the appellant reportedly put his signature while taking money in lieu of those rings was seized. Interestingly during cross-examination P.W.5 even admitted that he has no document to show that appellant, his wife and her brother came to his shop and placed order of making gold necklace and gold ring with the golds of two rings supplied by them. Interestingly during cross-examination P.W.5 even admitted that he has no document to show that appellant, his wife and her brother came to his shop and placed order of making gold necklace and gold ring with the golds of two rings supplied by them. From the evidences on record we also find that the allegation of theft and/or snatching of finger rings and mobile phone of the victim by the appellant as claimed by P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W.12 and P.W.18 did not find corroboration from the GDE (Ext.18). According to P.W.10 victim told them about theft of his two finger rings and one mobile phone by the appellant and one Nengiri though from Ext.8,it appears that he stated before the Magistrate that victim told him that one Sibani wife of Buro/appellant snatched away his gold finger ring and mobile. P.W.18 has claimed that victim told him about stealing of his mobile phone and finger ring by the appellant though he stated before the Magistrate (Ext.12) that victim lost his finger ring and mobile. But according to P.W.9 victim told him about snatching of his finger ring and mobile phone by one Buro and one woman. Whereas according to P.W.12, victim told them that appellant snatched away his two gold rings and one mobile phone. But according to P.W.24 victim lodged GDE (Ext.18) at E.B. P.S. stating that he lost his mobile with SIM card. There was no allegation of theft or snatching of rings and phone by the appellant. Thus we find vital contradictions in their statements. Under the circumstances, ld. Court below was not justified in holding that appellant was involved with the theft of finger ring of the victim. There was no allegation of theft or snatching of rings and phone by the appellant. Thus we find vital contradictions in their statements. Under the circumstances, ld. Court below was not justified in holding that appellant was involved with the theft of finger ring of the victim. The learned court below took into consideration the evidences of the P.W.15, the doctor who held P.M. examination and found sharp cut injuries on the neck and chest of the victim being caused by hard and sharp cut instrument and lacerated wound over the scalp caused by hard and blunt object and opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature except the injuries over the chest which were post mortem and the death was due to the effects of ante mortem injuries and homicidal in nature, P.W. 13, P.W. 14, witnesses to the alleged recovery of weapon of the offence and the pant of the victim on the basis of the reported disclosure and production by the appellant from his house and P.W.10 and P.W. 12, who allegedly last seen together the victim with the appellant to arrive at a conclusion that it is none but the appellant who was involved in the commission of murder of the victim and thereafter caused disappearance of the evidence of murder. So, the first circumstances alleged against the appellant is that victim was last seen together in his company. To prove this the only evidence is that of P.W.10 and P.W.12. According to both P.W.10 and P.W.12 on the previous day of incident they along with one Dibyendu and the victim had liquor at the house of P.W.18 but P.W.18 has not stated about the presence of either P.W.10, P.W.12 or any Dibyendu at his house on that day. It is also their evidence that they along with the victim went to ATM counter where victim withdrew Rs.500/ and therefrom they went to Nimsari at noon and had bath, lunch and then returned back to Rathbari and therefrom went to Kalinga hotel where appellant came and the victim went away with him and subsequently came to know that victim was murdered. But it is the specific statement of P.W.18 that victim left his shop at 3/4 P.M. From Ext.12 also it appears that he stated before the Magistrate that victim on 26th May 2007 came to his shop for taking liquor and thereafter he left his shop for his house at 2.30/2.45 P.M. and he does not know how he died but he heard that probably he was run over by a train. There also he has not stated about the presence of anyone else at his shop. Furthermore, said Dibyendu Sengupta has not been examined by the prosecution for the reason best known to the prosecution. There is also no documentary evidence about the reported withdrawal of money from the ATM counter by the victim. Admittedly both P.W.10 and P.W.12 were apprehended and detained by police at the P.S. for interrogation over the death of the victim. Their claim of last seen theory did not appear to be believable in the light of the evidence of P.W.18 and also in view of the strained relation between the victim and the appellant over the reported theft and/or snatching of the rings and mobile phone of the victim by the appellant. In such circumstances no presumption could be drawn on the issue of last seen together. That apart there was no also other evidence in support of this circumstance. That being the position, we are of the view that prosecution has failed to prove the last seen theory against the appellants. Another circumstances which the prosecution has tried to prove against the appellant is the recovery of the weapon of offence and the pant of the victim from the house of the appellant on the basis of his disclosure to the police. In this regard prosecution has relied on the evidences of P.W.13, and P.W.14, witnesses to the alleged recovery and seizure. According to P.W.13 in the last part of Jaistha police brought the appellant and his friend to their village and thereafter appellant and his friend took out three pants, two shirts, one mobile set and one hasua from the house of the appellant which police seized and prepared a document on which he signed (Ext.10). According to P.W.13 in the last part of Jaistha police brought the appellant and his friend to their village and thereafter appellant and his friend took out three pants, two shirts, one mobile set and one hasua from the house of the appellant which police seized and prepared a document on which he signed (Ext.10). Whereas according to P.W.14 in the last part of Jaistha police brought the appellant and his friend to their village and appellant took out three pants, two shirts, one mobile set and one hasua from his house which police seized and prepared a document on which he signed (Ext.10/1) though during cross-examination both of them have admitted that they signed on the document as per the request of police. There appears to be contradictions in between the statement of P.W.13 and P.W.14, the seizure witnesses. There is nowhere whisper about the presence of any other person at the time and place of reported recovery and/or the description and condition of the house though the seizure list shows signature of one Gaya Nath Roy. There is also no whisper that those articles were at all sealed and labeled by the I.O. It appears from the seizure lists, Exts. 6 & 10 that on June3, 2007 as well as on June7, 2007 I.O. visited the house of the appellant and on both the occasions father of the appellant, Gaya Nath Roy was present and he signed on the seizure lists. According to P.W.13 as well asP.W.14 appellant made extra judicial confession about commission of murder of the victim and brought out those articles but their above statements did not found corroboration from any quarter. Prosecution has neither examined Gaya Nath Roy nor the police officer in whose presence appellant made such statements and thereafter brought out weapon of offence and the articles from his house. Interestingly the reported weapon of offence namely hasua produced before court during trial and exhibited during examination of P.W.13 was not the hasua recovered from the house of the appellant as P.W.13 himself admitted during cross-examination that there was special identification mark on the hasua but he does not find the identification mark on the said hasua. Thus we find that save and except the verbal claim of P.W.13 and P.W.14 there is no such statement leading to the reported recovery of weapon of the offence. Thus we find that save and except the verbal claim of P.W.13 and P.W.14 there is no such statement leading to the reported recovery of weapon of the offence. In view of the above the claim of recovery of weapon of offence from the possession of appellant appears to be doubtful. Moreover, no inference can be drawn against the appellant by mere recovery of a weapon as a result of a reported disclosure to the police, if no evidence connecting the weapon with the crime alleged to have been committed by the appellants. This is missing in the present case. Even the origin or blood group on the hasua could also not been determined as per the Serological test report (exts. 17). Therefore, this link in the chain of circumstances is also not established by the prosecution. The learned court below did not take into consideration the above fact of this case to apply the settled principle of law. We also find from the record that prosecution has not brought any evidence against the appellant to prove the motive behind such murder. In the instant case thus, we find that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn have not been fully established. Learned court below convicted the appellant u/s 302/201 I.P.C. for commission of murder and causing disappearance of evidence after appreciating the evidence available on record. On critical analysis of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on record we do not find any such evidence to the effect that the appellant in order to screen himself from legal punishment caused disappearance of the evidence of offence. Moreover no such question to that effect was also put to the appellant during his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of circumstances which could link the appellant with the crime. The court below convicted the appellant on a mere superfluous approach without in depth analysis of the relevant facts. In view of the distinguishable facts and circumstances of this case, the decisions of Amitava Banerjee @ Amit @ Bappa Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2012 (1) SCC (Cri) 624 and Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2012 (3) SCC (Cri) 685 cannot come as an aid to support the case of the prosecution. In view of the distinguishable facts and circumstances of this case, the decisions of Amitava Banerjee @ Amit @ Bappa Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2012 (1) SCC (Cri) 624 and Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2012 (3) SCC (Cri) 685 cannot come as an aid to support the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated April27, 2009 and April28, 2009 respectively passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, 5th Fast Track Court, Malda in Sessions Trial No. 71(12)/07 arising out of Sessions Case No. 321 of 2007 are hereby set aside. Copy of this judgement along with the lower court records be sent down to the trial court immediately by special Messenger for information and taking necessary action. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard. I agree