Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 853 (CAL)

Nirmal Roy v. State of West Bengal

2015-10-06

INDRAJIT CHATTERJEE

body2015
Judgment : Indrajit Chatterjee, J. This appeal has been preferred as against the judgment and order of conviction dated 23-04-2012 and 24-04-2012 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (newly created) Sadar Cooch Behar, in Sessions Trial No. 1(8) 2011 arising out of Sessions Case No. 220 of 2011 wherein the appellant was convicted in respect of the charge punishable under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as the said Code) and the learned trial court was pleased to clamp an order of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and further directed to pay fine of Rs.30,000/-, i.d., to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The case before the trial court can be summarized thus : One FIR was lodged by one Maiban Mongi Singh Company. Commander, BSF, BOP, Arjun giving rise to Kuchlibari P.S case No.3 dated 06.11.2011 wherein it was alleged that at about 15-00 hrs. when the BSF personnel were on mobile check post duty, being conducted by the Inspector, P.K. Jha, examined as P.W.4, an amount of Rs.27000/- was found to be in possession of the present appellant. The present appellant was brought to the camp and on further search, a Nokia Mobile along with the SIM Card and genuine Indian Currency Notes of Rs.170/- was recovered from the appellant. All the notes recovered from the present appellant was of denominations of Rs.500/-1) Sl. No. 9AM 491649 (Rs.500/- x 5) =2500/-2) Sl. No. 9AM 491650 (Rs.500/- x 17)=8500/-3) Sl. No. 9AM 491651 (Rs.500/- x 14) =7000/-4) Sl. No. 9AM 491652 (Rs.500/- x 18)=9000/-. After the case was registered, the investigation was taken up by the Sub-Inspector, R. R. Dhar who during the course of investigation examined the available witnesses, inspected the P.O., prepared the rough sketch map with index, seized those notes and forwarded those currency notes to BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) LIMITED and as per report dated 19-05-2011, the said expert reported that the notes, which were forwarded, were proved to be fake Indian currency notes (hereafter called as FICNs). After the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused for offence punishable under Section 489C of the Code. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. Ultimately, the case was transferred to the present trial court and Sessions Trial No. 1(8)2011 was registered before the learned trial court. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution. After the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused for offence punishable under Section 489C of the Code. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. Ultimately, the case was transferred to the present trial court and Sessions Trial No. 1(8)2011 was registered before the learned trial court. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution. All these witnesses except P.W.5, Bimal Roy, were police men – either from the West Bengal Police or from the Border Security Force. On behalf of the prosecution, several documents were marked as Exhibits. Exbt. 1 is the FIR. Exbt. 2 is the seizure list dated 06.01.2011, place of seizure being at Kuchlibari P.S in respect of FICNs, Indian currency notes and one Nokia mobile set. Exbt. 4 sources are the labels prepared by the IO signed by the witnesses. Exbt. 5 is the report of the expert regarding genuinity all those seized notes. Exbt. 6 is the formal FIR. Exbt. 7 is the letter of O.C Kuchlibari forwarding those notes to the expert agency through the ACJM, Mekligung. Exbt. 8 is the sketch that index. Several material exhibits were also marked being the FICN. It may be noted that before the court. The Nokia mobile set and the Indian currency notes were not produced. The defence preferred not to adduce any oral or documentary evidence. The defence case as made out when the witnesses were cross-examined was that the accused was framed and he was falsely implicated in this case. It was also specifically claimed that nothing was seized from his possession. When he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused claimed to be innocent/not guilty. As per order passed by this court in CRAN 3517 of 2013 dated 06-02-2013, the accused /appellant is enjoying bail. It was argued on behalf of the defence by Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned Advocate, by taking me to the evidence of PW 1 that is the FIR maker to say that the accused was apprehended in a passenger car but the said witness did not depose specifically from which type of car the accused was apprehended. He further submitted that this witness claimed that no seizure list was prepared at the P.O. As regards the evidence of PW 2 it was the submission of Mr. He further submitted that this witness claimed that no seizure list was prepared at the P.O. As regards the evidence of PW 2 it was the submission of Mr. Ganguly that this witness deposed that PW 1 directed the BSF personnel that is the raiding party to intercept the vehicle with the passengers and 5 or 6 passengers of the vehicle were taken to the camp and this portion of the PW 2 is at variance with the evidence of PW 1. Regarding the evidence of PW 3, that is, one head constable of BSF, Mr. Ganguly submitted that from the version of this witness it came out for the first time that one “Ambassador” car was intercepted and that this witness claimed that there was a source information. He further submitted that this witness depose that the checking was made in front of the camp. This witness deposed that one seizure list was prepared by PW 4 showing the seizure of such FICNs but such seizure list was not produced before the court. This witness contradicted the version of PW 1 that no seizure list was prepared and that PW 1 did not depose that he signed on the seizure list. Learned Counsel further took me to the evidence of this witness (PW 3) to show that he was not aware whether PW 4 took signature of any one of the said seizure list. Mr. Counsel further submitted that PWs 2 and 3 were not interrogated by the police. This witness PW 3 deposed that there were some residence on the side of the BSF camp but no one came from that police camp to be witness to the seizure list and similarly, the driver of that car, co-villagers and co-passengers were not asked to sign on the seizure list. As regards PW 4 it was submitted by Mr. Ganguly that in the said “Ambassador” car three passengers were inside the vehicle but PW 4 denied that any seizure list was prepared. As regards the evidence of PW 5 he submitted that this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution but this witness deposed in cross-examination by the defence that there were 4 or 5 passengers inside the vehicle and this witness see from a distance that nothing was recovered from the possession of the present appellant. As regards the evidence of PW 5 he submitted that this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution but this witness deposed in cross-examination by the defence that there were 4 or 5 passengers inside the vehicle and this witness see from a distance that nothing was recovered from the possession of the present appellant. He submitted that PW 7 is another BSF personnel who was also not examined by the IO and as such the evidence of such witness is to be assessed cautiously. Regarding the evidence of PW 8, it was submitted by the defence that this witness admitted the version of some PWs that one seizure list was prepared by the BSF and that this witness deposed that as per seizure list he resists those FICNs as produced by the accused appellant. On this point he submitted that if this seizure list was prepared by the BSF men then why the said seizure list was not produced. He also took me to the evidence of PW 8 to show that he deposed that those FICNs were not handed over by P.K. Jha (PW 4), but this is totally different from the seizure list (exhibit 8) wherein, I repeat that the said seizure was made as produce by the accused appellant. He further submitted that this PW 8 deposed that the driver was examined by him, but unfortunately this driver was not examined before the court and not only that the name of the driver did not come out from the version of the PW 8 or version of any witness. Mr. Ganguly summarized his argument as per the following points: (1) No independent witness was examined except PW 5 but if the evidence of the PWs are scrutinized then it will reveal that there were such independent witnesses. Thus he submitted that Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. was not complied with. (2) That PW 8 deposed in his cross-examination (at page 23 of the paper book) that the FICNs were not seized from Nirmal Ray and this is enough to give a clean chit to the present accused appellant. (3) That PW 3 deposed at least regarding one seizure list prepared by PW 4 at the PO showing the seizure of those FICNs but such seizure list was not produced before the court. (3) That PW 3 deposed at least regarding one seizure list prepared by PW 4 at the PO showing the seizure of those FICNs but such seizure list was not produced before the court. He further submitted that the existence of this seizure list has been dittoed by PW 8 (at page 22 of the paper book). (4) That the seizure list being not produced this breaks the vital link of actual seizure and handing over the notes to the police subsequently. (5) The signatures of the accused were not proved by expert evidence even though PW 8 deposed that there were signatures of the present accused appellant on such FICNs (at pages 20 and 21 of the paper book). (6) That the existence of driver and the co-passenger of the vehicle came out through the cross-examination of the witnesses but unfortunately none of them were named by the witnesses or in other words their names were not divulged and those witnesses naturally did not face the dock and as such the defence was devoid of a chance to produce those witnesses before the court to establish his case that he was innocent. On this point he also argued that even though PW 8 deposed that he examined the driver of the vehicle but he was not examined and even his name was not disclosed and as such the presumption under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act will apply. (7) As per evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 4 there was already a source information which was known to PW 1 but no G.D. entry maintained by the BSF was seized by the police even as per evidence of PW 3 (at page 14 of the paper book) the existence of the G.D. entry was very much apparent. (8) That PWs 2, 3 & 7 were not examined by the police and as such they disclosed it for the first time in court after one year. Thus, he submitted that these witnesses cannot be believed. (9) That the case as brought out by the prosecution is suspicious and as such the accused is entitled to get an order of acquittal and through alternative argument. (10) Mr. Ganguly submitted that the accused appellant was sentenced to suffer RI for seven years which is maximum period of sentence mentioned in that section. (9) That the case as brought out by the prosecution is suspicious and as such the accused is entitled to get an order of acquittal and through alternative argument. (10) Mr. Ganguly submitted that the accused appellant was sentenced to suffer RI for seven years which is maximum period of sentence mentioned in that section. He submitted that without admitting the prosecution case, if the court is satisfied with it then this sentence may be reduced. Considering the age of the accused, who was then 35 when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On behalf of the prosecution it was argued by Mr. Keshri that it is true that the investigation of this case was not conducted in a proper manner and that the IO must have been more vigilant in conducting the investigation of this case. He submitted that it is true that the alleged seizure list prepared by the BSF as claimed by PWs 2 and 3 were not produced before the IO but that cannot take away the entire prosecution story out of the gear. He further argued that the IO while preparing the seizure list wrote that the items were produced by the accused himself but it was not the real picture of this case and that can never the case. He submitted that the IO through his evidence rectified the defect which may be considered by this Court. He frankly submitted that the IO deposed that he took the signatures of the accused on all the FICNs which were duly proved before the learned trial court but unfortunately no questions were put in his cross-examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C on that score and as such the court will consider whether that part of evidence can be relied upon this appeal. He took me to the report of the expert to show that all those currency notes in total 54 in numbers were to be fake as found after examination by the expert. In reply it was submitted by the defence that it is the specific case of the defence that nothing was seized by the accused and accused was falsely implicated in this case. Regarding the item No.1 of the argument of Mr. In reply it was submitted by the defence that it is the specific case of the defence that nothing was seized by the accused and accused was falsely implicated in this case. Regarding the item No.1 of the argument of Mr. Ganguly that no independent witness was examined except PW 5 this court is of the opinion that in these days public witnesses are not interested to come to depose before the Court. On this point I can rely upon the decisions of the Apex Court as reported in AIR 2006 SC 3709 (State of A.P. vs. S. Rayappa & Others) and (2013) 6 SCC 588 (Pramod Kumar –vs-State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) in these two decisions the Apex Court held that non-examination of public witness is not automatically fatal to prosecution case, as ordinarily, public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witness. It was further held that evidence of police official is found to be reliable and trustworthy the court can definitely act upon the same. I can reiterate that the public has developed a tendency not to put them in trouble in any criminal proceeding, the reasons are many. The witnesses are to attend the courts time and again in connection with a particular case losing their daily earnings as their cross examination are deferred on flimsy grounds, they are to face unnecessary cross-examinations and apart from these, there is no protection for the witnesses. So very naturally PW 5 was declared hostile. Thus, this court relying on the version of the Apex Court is of the view that simply because no independent witness was examined, the prosecution story cannot be thrown out if there is other reliable and cogent evidence here the police/BSF personnel. Regarding the point No. 2 is raised by Mr. Ganguly, this court likes to say that the evidence is to be read as a whole. I like to quote the evidence of IO, PW 8 who deposed “It is true that BSF produced the Indian fake currency notes but I have mentioned in the seizure list due to inadvertence that Nirmal Roy produced the fake currency notes. It is true that no Indian fake currency note was seized from the possession of Nirmal Roy by me. It is true that no Indian fake currency note was seized from the possession of Nirmal Roy by me. I was not present at the time of search, seizure and arrest of the accused by BSF.” The IO further deposed that the seizure was made at Kuchlibari P.S. and that BSF personnel namely, Inspector P.K. Jha took the accused to Kuchlibari P.S. and he handed over all the fake Indian currency notes to him, some Indian genuine notes and one Nokia mobile phone at the P.S. This court is not unmindful of the fact that IO claimed that BSF prepared one seizure list at the P.O and he re-seized the articles. This IO failed to locate the seizure list in the CD. I wonder how the IO could say that one seizure list was prepared by the BSF at the PO even though he failed to locate such seizure list in the case diary. It is expected that the IO will depose in a criminal trial from the case diary and that cannot be from his memory and he tries to do that naturally he will falter. The evidence of the IO is to be verified with the evidence of PW 4 who produced the accused appellant and the alamat to the said police station. I can safely say that PW 4 candidly deposed what happened on that date both in the border and also at the P.S. In this item No.1 I must restrict myself regarding what happened at the P.S after PW 4 came there with the accused and the alamats. PW 1 actually wrote the FIR and signed the same and directed PW 4 to take the FIR, the apprehended accused and the alamat to Kuchlibari P.S. PW 4 complied the said order and he deposed within “I handed over the accused to Kuchlibari P.S. Police prepared a seizure list and I put my signature the seizure list. The witness identifies his signature in the seizure list, dated 06.01.2011. The signature of the witness in the seizure list dated 06.01.2011 as marked as Exbt. 2. The seizure list was prepared at Kuchlibari P.S. I also put my signatures on the notes.” This witness also identified his signatures on those FICNs and also proved his signatures on the four labels. The signature of the witness in the seizure list dated 06.01.2011 as marked as Exbt. 2. The seizure list was prepared at Kuchlibari P.S. I also put my signatures on the notes.” This witness also identified his signatures on those FICNs and also proved his signatures on the four labels. Thus, it is apparent from the evidence of PW 4 that he produced the accused and also those FICNs to the said police station and signed on the seizure list and notes as well as on the labels. The vacillating evidence of the IO can safely be read along with the evidence of PW 4 and the evidence of PW 4 may be given precedence over the evidence of the IO. As regards point No.3 I have already answered while answering point No.1 that the evidence of the IO is shaky regarding the seizure of articles. The IO tried to rectify the same through his evidence even though the document is to the contrary. The version of PW 3 may be believed that one seizure list was prepared by the BSF. It is true that non-production of seizure list is no doubt a circumstance against the prosecution but the question is should I disbelieve the entire prosecution story for non-production of the said seizure list which is as per the claim of PW 4 was not prepared at all. As per PW 3, PW 4 was the maker of the said seizure list. My answer is that PW 4 is to be believed compared to the evidence of PW 3 as PW 4 is the best person to say as to whether any seizure list was at all prepared he being the author of that alleged seizure list. Thus, this court is of the firm opinion that those FICNs were duly produced by PW 4 to the police station and what the IO did may be treated as defective investigation and from which the defence cannot rep any benefit. I repeat that if the evidence of IO is scrutinized then everyone will say in the same tone with this court that he was more interested in damaging the prosecution case and to help the defence/accused in a subtle manner. He prepared the defective seizure list without mentioning the prime fact that the seizure list was prepared as per the articles produced by PW 4. He prepared the defective seizure list without mentioning the prime fact that the seizure list was prepared as per the articles produced by PW 4. This shows the racket in between the local police and such criminal about which much is talked about. The IO rectified the mistake through his evidence by saying “It is true that no Indian fake currency notes was seized from the possession of Nirmal Roy by him”. The dubious role of the IO about which I have just told is also apparent that even though in the FIR there was clear mentioned that one Parimal Roy, son of Nikhil Roy of 127, Votebari was running the racket of fake Indian currency notes but the IO did not care to locate the house of Parimal and to search the same to unearth the truth. This IO deposed that he examined the driver of the vehicle but unfortunately the driver was not made a witness of seizure and was not named in the charge-sheet then how he can say on oath that he examined the said driver. He even failed to say properly the number of vehicle as of the registration numbers of the Motor Vehicles are of four digits after computerization and he deposed that the number of the vehicle was WB-77-920 and as such the fourth digit is missing. This IO did not try to ascertain from the Motor Vehicles Department about the ownership of the vehicle, did not investigate regarding the SIM of Vodafone, which was naturally in the mobile phone, seized from the accused to get further datas regarding the entire racket. Thus, this court is not convinced of the argument of Mr. Ganguly as noted in item No. 3. Regarding the Item No.4 by Mr. Ganguly that the non-production of the alleged first seizure list prepared by the BSF will break the vital link of actual seizure is also not convincing to this court as this court is not sure as to whether such a seizure list was at all prepared by the BSF as claimed by PW 2 but disclaimed by PW 4, who allegedly prepared the seizure list about which I have discussed in the previous paragraph. Every contradiction cannot prove the existence or otherwise of a document. Regarding the dispute as regards the handing over of the notes to the police subsequently as claimed by Mr. Every contradiction cannot prove the existence or otherwise of a document. Regarding the dispute as regards the handing over of the notes to the police subsequently as claimed by Mr. Ganguly, this court is appraised of the fact that in the seizure list it was wrongly written by the IO about whom this court has passed adverse remarks as regards the seizure of the notes as produced by the accused himself. The fact remains as corrected by IO through his evidence that actually the seizure list was made as produced by PW 4 and that is very natural also considering the fact of this case that BSF men apprehended the accused with the notes and naturally the accused cannot go alone to the police station with the FICNs just to surrender him there. Thus, this court is reiterated that the said seizure list was wrongly written by the IO of this Case. As regards the argument No.5 that the signatures of the accused were proved by expert evidence, this court is of the opinion that putting of signatures by the accused on all the notes ought not to have been relied upon by the trial court as no question was put to the said accused on that score when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and as such if the signatures are practically worth no value then what would have been reason of sending the signatures of the accused appearing on those notes to the expert. This court is not unmindful of the fact that it is the positive defence that nothing was seized from the accused. Regarding the point No.6 of the argument this court can say that the name of the driver and the co-passengers of the vehicle did not come out from the cross-examination of the witnesses and the investigating officer did not try to unearth the names of those co-passengers and the driver. The question now is as to whether this can be treated as so fatal for the prosecution to pass an order of acquittal in favour of the accused appellant. What did not come out at the time of investigation cannot be developed later on. It will definitely come within the purview of defective investigation about which I have already discussed. The question now is as to whether this can be treated as so fatal for the prosecution to pass an order of acquittal in favour of the accused appellant. What did not come out at the time of investigation cannot be developed later on. It will definitely come within the purview of defective investigation about which I have already discussed. In such circumstance this court is not willing to draw any adverse presumption against the prosecution under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. Regarding Item No.7 that is the non-production of the GD Entry as allegedly prepared by the BSF which was not seized by the IO this court can answer this point in the following manner that even if GD entry was prepared by the BSF as claimed by one PW but if this callous IO did not seize such GD entry can the accused get the benefit of such defective investigation? On this point I can rely upon the decision of the Apex Court as reported in (2013) 10SCC 192 Hema Vs. State, a three judge bench decision wherein the Apex Court held that merely because of a some defect in the investigation or lapse of the investigating officer, it cannot be ground for acquittal. It was further held that even if there had been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions etc. It is the obligation on the part of the court to scrutinize the prosecution evidence dehors such lapse to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and whether such lapses affect the page of finding out the truth. In that decision the Apex Court also relied upon the its own decision as reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567 (C. Munniappan Vs. State of T.N), (2012) 8 SCC 263 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 424 (Dayal Singh Vs. State of Uttranchal. To give the benefit to the prosecution to come out of this. Regarding another argument of Mr. Ganguli that PWs 2, 3 and 4 deposed that there was a source information which was not the version of PW 1 this court likes to say that whether there was source information or not is immediately the broad spectrum of a criminal case. The court will try to unearth as to whether such an incident at all took place or not. The court will try to unearth as to whether such an incident at all took place or not. I repeat it is immaterial whether the BSF personnel had any source information or not what is material is that how the accused was arrested and whether it was proved that he was arrested with such FICNs. Regarding Item No.8 as regard non-examination by the IO of PWs 2, 3 and 7 this Court can say that even if those witnesses were not examined by the IO, their entire evidence cannot be thrown out but their evidence is to be accepted with caution. On scrutiny of the evidence of these three witnesses this court can say firmly that they duly withstood the test of cross-examination and they may be termed as truthful witness. Regarding Item No.9 as raised by Mr. Ganguly, this court in view of the discussion so long made is of the firm opinion that there is no suspicion in the mind of the court to give any benefit of doubt to this accused on the facts and circumstances of this case. Thus, I have taken into consideration the evidence of the PWs, the documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution and also the total picture of this case as depicted by PWs. This court is satisfied that this accused appellant was duly apprehended by the BSF personnel near the border with peculiar types of all currency notes having the same serial numbers like 9AM 491649 (5 Numbers), 9AM 491650 (17 Numbers), 9AM 491651. This goes to show that the accused was aware that those notes were fake. This further proves that this accused is in the racket of circulation of FICNs which is not only threatening the sovereignty of our country but also damaging the economic fiber of this country. Very naturally the seizure list witnesses were declared hostile. There is nothing unusual in it. It is also true that the IO who was on the verge of his retirement at that point of time practically made damage to the investigation. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, hearing the argument of the parties this court is satisfied that the prosecution duly brought home the charge punishable under Section 489C of the IPC. The accused did not come out with any positive case but claimed that he was falsely implicated in this case. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, hearing the argument of the parties this court is satisfied that the prosecution duly brought home the charge punishable under Section 489C of the IPC. The accused did not come out with any positive case but claimed that he was falsely implicated in this case. Such type of defence cannot tilt the finding of the court in favour of the defence particularly when the prosecution has been able to prove the basic ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 489C of the IPC. I can say that this accused was fully aware that those notes were fake Indian currency notes considering the numbers of the notes as I have told just now. Now, the question is as to whether this sentence of seven years may be reduced to certain extent as prayed for by the defence. It was submitted by the defence that this accused had married during the period when he remained in bail and he has his wife, two children and old ailing parents. According to me all these may be a mitigating factor to reduce the substantive sentence from seven years to six years without altering the fine amount. Thus, this appeal is answered in part in favour of the defence only as regards the reduction of substantive sentence. There will be no order as to costs. The judgment and finding of guilt both are confirmed. The accused appellant is on bail as granted by this Court in CRAN NO.3517 of 2013 as per order dated 06.02.2013. The bail is hereby cancelled and so also the bail bond. The accused appellant must surrender before the trial court being the Additional Sessions Judge (newly created) Sadar, Coochbehar within one month from the communication of the order to the said accused appellant by the Officer-in-Charge of Kuchlibari Police Station, district-Coochbehar to be communicated by the learned trial court by sending the relevant portion of this judgment to the said Officer-in-Charge. If the accused fails to surrender within the stipulated time even after receipt of the notice then the trial court will be authorized to issue warrant of arrest against the said accused appellant to serve out the remaining portion of the sentence and to pay the fine amount. The proceeding against the sureties be also drawn up by the ACJM, Mekhligunj, if the accused appellant defaults in surrender. The proceeding against the sureties be also drawn up by the ACJM, Mekhligunj, if the accused appellant defaults in surrender. It may be noted that no mercy will be shown to the sureties in such a case while imposing the penalty amount. The trial court may also take up the matter with the ACJM, Makhliganj who in his turn will take up the matter with the sureties of the accused to inform the later about the order of this Court. After the period of appeal is over, the counterfeit notes shall be handed over to the Officer in Charge, Kuchlibari Police Station, District-Coochbehar on proper receipt, as per rule 222(2) of the Criminal Rules and Orders for sending the same to the Issue Department of the Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata with a brief report to this case. The seized genuine Indian Currency Notes of Rs.170/- and the Nokia Mobile Phone (Model No.1208) be returned to the convict (as those were the personal property of the convict) after the period of appeal is over on observing necessary formalities. The department is directed to transmit the lower court record at once to the learned trial court along with a copy of this judgment for necessary action on its part. Certified copy of this judgment be given to the parties as per rules.