JUDGMENT By the Court.—The argument of aforesaid both appeals were concluded on 9.5.2017, when, following order was passed by us: Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Harish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Saghir Ahmad assisted by Kumari Meena, Sri A.N. Mulla, Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned AGAs for the State and Smt Manju Thakur, State law officer. We will give reasons later. But we make the operative portion here and now. Since both the aforesaid appeals arise out of one and the same judgment dated 16.9.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Farrukhabad, therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of by way of a common judgment. Both the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 16.9.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.) Farrukhabad in S.T. No. 489 of 1993 (State of U.P. v. Brijesh and another) by which the appellant-Brijesh Singh - has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 302 IPC, and three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 IPC, and in default of payment of fine two months additional imprisonment; and appellant-Mahendra Pal- has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of life with fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 302/34 IPC and 3 months R.I. for under Section 324/34 IPC, and in default of payment of fine two months additional imprisonment are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. Appellants are on bail, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cacelled and their sureties discharged subject to their complying with Section 437-A Cr.P.C. There shall, however, be no order as to cost. Here are the reasons : 2. Appellants have preferred appeals against the judgment and order of conviction dated 16.9.1995 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No. 489 of 1993, State v. Brijesh and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 87 of 1993, under Sections 302, 324, 302/34, 324/34 I.P.C., Police Station-Talgram, District-Farrukhabad, whereby the appellant-Brijesh Singh - has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 302 IPC, and three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 IPC, and in default of payment of fine two months additional imprisonment; and appellant-Mahendra Pal- has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of life with fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 302 IPC, and three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 IPC, and in default of payment of fine two months additional imprisonment; and appellant-Mahendra Pal- has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of life with fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 302/34 IPC and 3 months R.I. for under Section 324/34 IPC, and in default of payment of fine two months additional. Sentences to run concurrently. 3. Prosecution story unfolded by FIR leads to facts relevant for proper adjudication of this appeal reflects that FIR was lodged at the instance of informant-Balbir son of Ram chandra Yadav at Police Station-Talgram, District-Farrukhabad on 25.5.1993 at 7.15 a.m. regarding some incident of assault being caused by appellant-Brijesh in company of another co-accused by firing from countrymade gun on deceased-father of the informant on 25.5.1993 at 5.00 a.m. with allegation that mango grove of the informant lies to the north of the village, which was partitioned in the year 1980 by grand-father of the informant-Nawab Singh and till then the informant was enjoying possessory right over the same. Sons of informant’s uncle Mahendra Pal and Mahendra Pal’s son-Brijesh- are notorious persons and they are trying to forcibly take possession of the grove. On 24.5.1993 at about 2.00 p.m. informant’s mother had gone to pick fallen mangoes from the tree in the grove, whereupon, Mahendra Pal and Brijesh- extended vituperative language and warned him not to come to pick mango again. This fact was told by the informant’s mother to himself and his father. Today informant’s father was grazing fodder to the animals in the morning at around 5.00 a.m., when Mahendra Pal and his son Brijesh armed with country-made pistol, appeared at the house of the informant and asked his father that they also have got share in the grove, whereupon, informant’s father told them that the grove has already been partitioned and you people do not have any share in the grove. This infuriated the accused persons and in the meanwhile at the exhortation of Mahendra Pal, Brijesh fired on informant’s father, which hit informant’s father and he sustained serious injuries and fell down. Informant’s brother-Jitendra- was also present on the spot and he tried to intervene in the incident, whereupon Brijesh gave blow from the blunt side of the countrymade gun to Jitendra. Incident was also witnessed by Chandrapal Singh and Ram Nath apart from other co-villagers. Informant’s brother-Jitendra- was also present on the spot and he tried to intervene in the incident, whereupon Brijesh gave blow from the blunt side of the countrymade gun to Jitendra. Incident was also witnessed by Chandrapal Singh and Ram Nath apart from other co-villagers. Accused made their escape good towards southern side of the village. Informant has come to the police station alongwith the injured father and brother. Report be lodged and action be taken. 4. The contents of aforesaid information were taken down in the Check FIR on 25.5.1993 at 7.15 a.m. at Case Crime No. 87 of 1993, under Sections 307, 504 IPC, Police Station-Talgram, District-Farrukhabad. Check FIR is Exhibit Ka-8 on record. On the basis of entry so made in the Check FIR, the case was registered against the aforesaid accused in the General Diary, which is Exhibit Ka-9. 5. Record further reflects that injured-Jitendra was medically examined at District Hospital, Fatehgarh on 25.5.1993 at 8.00 a.m., wherein, the following injury was noted on examination : Incised Wound : 1.5 x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on vential aspect of right wrist joint adjoining the base of right thumb. Margins clear cut, blood oozing present. Opinion : Simple in nature, caused by sharp edged weapon. Duration less than one day. 6. This injury report has been proved by Dr. R.K. Singh P.W.5, which is Exhibit Ka-7 on record. 7. Record further reflects that another injured Ramchander died in the morning of 25.5.1993 and report regarding the same was sent to the police station for holding inquest, whereupon inquest process was drawn and inquest report was prepared on 25.5.1993. It commenced at 9.00 a.m. and completed at 11.15 a.m.. In the inquest, an opinion was expressed for conducting postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased-Ramchander therefore, relevant papers were prepared and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Jagmohan P.W.4 on 25.5.1993 at 2.10 p.m., wherein the following ante-mortem injuries were noted during examination : 1- Multiple pellet wounds of entry on front of head right side in an area of 11 cm x 9 cm right side, Margins inverted, lacerated ecchymosed, on dissection, right temporal and parietal bone fractured. Membrane and brain were lacerated, large hematoma. Jagmohan P.W.4 on 25.5.1993 at 2.10 p.m., wherein the following ante-mortem injuries were noted during examination : 1- Multiple pellet wounds of entry on front of head right side in an area of 11 cm x 9 cm right side, Margins inverted, lacerated ecchymosed, on dissection, right temporal and parietal bone fractured. Membrane and brain were lacerated, large hematoma. 2- Gutter shaped G.S.W., measuring 1cm x 0.2cm subcutaneous deep on top of right shoulder, margins laterally inverted, lacerated and medially everted and lacerated. In the opinion of the doctor cause of death was stated to be shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. Postmortem examination report is Exhibit Ka-4. As the investigation was in progress, the investigation was initially conducted by Ahamd Ali Khan P.W.3, who proceeded to the spot prepared site plan, Exhibit Ka-2 and also prepared memo of simple and blood stained clay roll, Exhibit Ka-3 and also completed other formalities and recorded statement of witnesses and on information being received regarding death of Ramchander on 25.5.1993, the case was converted under Section 302 IPC from Section 307 IPC. Subsequently, the investigation was taken over on 26.5.1993 by Brahmadeen Yadav P.W.7. He also carried out the investigation by recording statement of witness/injured and completed the investigation by filing charge-sheet against appellants, which is Exhibit Ka-13. 8. Consequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions from where it was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge D.A.A., Farrukhabad after numbering the same as Sessions Trial No. 489 of 1993, whereupon the trial Court heard the accused on the point of charge and was prima facie satisfied with the case against accused under Sections 302, 324 (for accused Brijesh) and under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 IPC (for accused Mahendra Pal). The charges were read over and explained to the accused, who denied charges and claimed to be tried. 9. The prosecution in order to bring home guilt of the accused examined as many as 7 prosecution witnesses. Brief reference of the same is sketched herein under : 10. Balbir Singh PW-1 is the first informant and he has lodged the First Information Report. He has proved written report Exhibit Ka-1. 11. Jitendra PW-2 is stated to be injured eye-witness. Ahmad Ali Khan is PW-3. He is one of the two Investigating Officers of this case. Brief reference of the same is sketched herein under : 10. Balbir Singh PW-1 is the first informant and he has lodged the First Information Report. He has proved written report Exhibit Ka-1. 11. Jitendra PW-2 is stated to be injured eye-witness. Ahmad Ali Khan is PW-3. He is one of the two Investigating Officers of this case. He has conducted major part of the investigation and has proved the same. Dr. Jagmohan Verma P.W.4 has conducted autopsy on the cadever of the deceased-Ramchander and has proved the postmortem examination report, Exhibit Ka-4. Dr. Ramakant Singh P.W.5 has examined injured Jitendra and has proved the injured as Exhibit Ka-7. Nokhai Ram Yadav P.W.6 is the Head Moharir who has proved the entry made in the concerned Check FIR, Exhibit Ka-8 and General Diary, Exhibit Ka-9. 12. Brahmadeen Yadav P.W.7 is the subsequent Investigating Officer. He has proved his part of the investigation and after completing the investigation he has filed charge-sheet, Exhibit Ka-13, against the accused. 13. Thereafter the evidence for prosecution was closed. The appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took plea of defence that they were falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. 14. The defence, in turn, did not lead any evidence. The learned trial Court after hearing the case on its merit and after considering record and evaluating evidence and circumstances recorded conviction against the accused and passed sentence against them as aforesaid. 15. Consequently, this appeal. 16. Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel has vehemently claimed that in this case the prosecution version is vacillating and the same is not static to the point that the allegations made in the First Information Report are based on correct facts. The injury caused on Jitendra P.W.2 is self evident that it was not caused by hard blunt object as opined by the doctor, but was caused by some sharp edged weapon. The prosecution version, as stated in the First Information Report, does not corroborate ocular testimony of the two prosecution witnesses of fact-Balbir Singh P.W.1 and Jitendra P.W.2. 17. One witness-Balbir Singh P.W.1 states that injury was caused by blunt side of the countrymade gun to injured Jitendra, whereas Jitendra P.W.2 the injured himself says that accused-Brijesh fired on him which hit him and caused injury on arm. 18. 17. One witness-Balbir Singh P.W.1 states that injury was caused by blunt side of the countrymade gun to injured Jitendra, whereas Jitendra P.W.2 the injured himself says that accused-Brijesh fired on him which hit him and caused injury on arm. 18. He submits that two contradictory statements regarding injury being caused on Jitendra may not be correct, as either of the two may not be correct for the reason that the nature of the injury as claimed to have been caused on Jitendra P.W.2, by no stretch of imagination, can be believed that the same has been caused by firearm injury. 19. The doctor who conducted the postmortem examination has not ruled out time of death of the deceased-Ramchander-that it might have been caused some time around 2.00 a.m. in the night also. Not only this, but the injuries can be manufactured, if the person was in a condition to suffer some pain. Variation on the material point of incident both in the testimony of Balbir Singh P.W.1 and Jitendra P.W.2 is indicative of fact that both of them have not witnessed the incident and both were not present on the spot and the injury on Jitendra P.W.2 has been manufactured just to give extra-thrust to the cooked up story. The entire theory relied on by the prosecution does not inspire confidence and no conviction can be had on such filthy material. Lastly, he submits that the body of the deceased was lying at some unknown place in the darkness of night and when the informant came to knowledge about death of his father, he, out of animosity, lodged the FIR against the appellants. Virtually, it is a case of no evidence. 20. Per contra learned AGA vehemently opposed the contention and has submitted that the trial Court rightly evaluated the testimony on record and it properly appreciated the same and after recording clear cut finding has based its findings of conviction on materiel on record. Some variation in the testimony of the witnesses of fact is natural one, but variation in the testimony is not of a degree, which may over throw case of the prosecution. Ocular testimony of the incident inspires confidence. Findings of conviction and the sentence awarded under circumstances, of the case is justified. 21. Some variation in the testimony of the witnesses of fact is natural one, but variation in the testimony is not of a degree, which may over throw case of the prosecution. Ocular testimony of the incident inspires confidence. Findings of conviction and the sentence awarded under circumstances, of the case is justified. 21. Upon consideration of the submissions so raised and the claim made by both the sides, the moot point for adjudication relates to fact whether the prosecution has been successful in establishing charges under Section 302 and 324 IPC beyond shadow of reasonable doubt against the appellants? 22. Bare perusal of the First Information Report gives impression regarding motive behind commission of the crime. FIR entails facts that there is some mango grove lying to the northern side of village-Bhulani, which was partitioned by the informant’s grand-father Nawab Singh in 1980 and till then the informant was enjoying continuous possession of the mango grove. Informant’s relative Mahendra Pal and his son Brijesh being notorious person were trying to forcibly grab mango grove from appellants and as prelude to the incident as to what happened that informant’s mother went to pick/collect mangoes fallen on the ground due to storm at 2.00 p.m. on 24.5.1993. Informant’s mother was abused by Mahendra Pal and Brijesh and they warned informant’s mother that they have also got a share in the grove and she should not collect mangoes. Informant’s mother came back to home and told this fact to his father and himself. It so happened that on the following day i.e. 25.5.1993 around 5.00 a.m. when Mahendra Pal and Brijesh possessing country-made gun in their hand appeared at the door of the informant and asked his father that they do have a share in the grove, whereupon, informant’s father told them that the grove has already been partitioned and now they have no share in his grove. At this, Mahendra Pal exhorted Brijesh and Brijesh with intention to kill fired on informant’s father which caused serious injury to him and he fell down. In the meanwhile, informant’s brother Jitendra also tried to intervene when Brijesh assaulted him with the blunt side of the country-made gun. The incident was witnessed by Chandrapal Singh and Ramnath besides other villagers. Assailants were challenged, whereupon they escaped from the scene towards southern side. In the meanwhile, informant’s brother Jitendra also tried to intervene when Brijesh assaulted him with the blunt side of the country-made gun. The incident was witnessed by Chandrapal Singh and Ramnath besides other villagers. Assailants were challenged, whereupon they escaped from the scene towards southern side. It was requested that the informant has come to lodge the report alongwith the injured father and brother. 23. The aforesaid description contained in the First Information Report is to be scrutinized vis-a-vis testimony of prosecution witnesses of fact. 24. Once thing is apparent about the incident that Jitendra was assaulted by blunt side of the gun by Brijesh but testimony of Jitendra in his examination-in-chief on page 23 of the paper book has comeforth that Brijesh fired on him, which hit him on his arm. Then in the cross-examination on page-24, he has specifically stated that he could not show this injury at the police station when he reached over there after the incident. He testified that he could not know that he sustained any injury. He came to know about the injury when he reached Fatehgarh then he adds that injury was caused to him by the wooden butt. The butt was struck in a manner as lathi blow is given. This caused swelling and injury. 25. At this stage, it can be visualized that the version of manner of assault being caused has come forth in the examination-in-chief of witness Jitendra when he testified that Brijesh fired on him, which hit him on the arm, then in cross-examination he says assault was caused by butt (wooden). In the light of aforesaid testimony of P.W.2 manner of causing of injury on Jitendra become dubious. He has specifically testified in his examination-in-chief that he (Jitendra) was assaulted with the butt of the gun when he tried to intervene. That way it is obvious that as per testimony, the overwhelming fact on point of manner of injury being caused lays stress that the assault was caused by wooden butt of the gun. Thus, while considering testimony of Balbir Singh P.W.1 it becomes apparent that it corroborates the manner of assault on Jitendra by testing that injury was caused by empty gun in his testimony, which manner of assault being caused on Jitendra has not been described in the FIR that it was so casued by wooden butt. Thus, while considering testimony of Balbir Singh P.W.1 it becomes apparent that it corroborates the manner of assault on Jitendra by testing that injury was caused by empty gun in his testimony, which manner of assault being caused on Jitendra has not been described in the FIR that it was so casued by wooden butt. Therefore, authenticity of their version is to be tested on the testimony of the doctor who medically examined Jitendra (P.W.2). We have before us testimony of doctor witness Dr. Ramakant Singh P.W.5, who medically examined Jitendra on 25.5.1993 at 8.00 a.m., wherein he noted the following injuries: Incised Wound : 1.5 x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on vential aspect of right wrist joint adjoining the base of right thumb. Margins clear cut, blood oozing present. Opinion : Simple in nature, caused by sharp edged weapon. Duration less than one day. 26. This injury report has been proved by the doctor as Exhibit Ka-7. 27. Doctor witness has been cross-examined, whereupon, he has answered in the affirmative on suggestion being made to him that this injury can be suffered if the person has capacity to endure pain. 28. Here the nature of the injury itself is in sheer contrast to the version of both the witnesses of fact Balbir Singh P.W.1 and Jitendra P.W.2- the injured to the ambit that assault if caused by blunt side of the wooden part of the gun then such an assault cannot be incised wound. In the cross-examination the doctor witness has categorically stated that the injury caused on the injured was caused by some sharp edged weapon and surprisingly, there was no contusion found around the wound at the time of examination. This by itself belies fact that the incident was infact witnessed by the aforesaid two witnesses of fact and that injury was caused by Brijesh on Jitendra. It means that Jitendra P.W.2 is a procured witness in order to give colour to the story suggested by the informant. There is nothing on record, which may reasonably give impression that the butt of the gun was of the nature bearing sharp edges, therefore, the nature of injury falsifies the ocular testimony of the aforesaid two witnesses of fact and their authenticity and presence on the spot becomes dubious. It can be summed up that the ocular testimony is contrast to the medical testimony/report (Exhibit Ka-7) 29. It can be summed up that the ocular testimony is contrast to the medical testimony/report (Exhibit Ka-7) 29. Not only this, but the version of the incident as given by Balbir Singh P.W.1 in his testimony also appears to be that at the time when the shot hit deceased Ramchander he was on the terrace (chabutara) and when he tried to run away he fell down in the process by the side of the terrace. Testimony is crystal clear on the point that after the shot hit, the deceased ran from terrace then he fell down few paces away from the terrace. This particular piece of testimony of Balbir Singh P.W.1 appears on page-19 of the paper book in his cross-examination. On this point the site plan, Exhibit Ka-2, is quite informative. In the site plan spot ‘A’ is the place where deceased- Ramchander was standing at the time of the incident and Brijesh fired him from the place marked in the site plan by word ‘B’ and ‘C’ is the place on the terrace from where the informant, his brother Jitendra and informant’s mother saw the incident, which place is located six steps away from place marked by word ‘A’. Obviously, the shot hit on the terrace, but the informant pointed out place marked by word ‘A at a different place from the terrace where shot was stated to have hit the deceased, on which place the deceased infact fell down but shot was not fired at place ‘A’. 30. The Investigating Officer has also clarified the situation when he has stated in his cross-examination that he recovered ‘Agocha’ (Towel like cloth) from place ‘A’, whereas Balbir Singh P.W.1 says that this ‘Agocha’ was recovered from the terrace. The Investigating Officer also says on page-29 of the paper book in his cross-examination that he did not find any blood on the terrace. He has also given distance of place ‘A’ from the terrace as 3-4 steps. He has specifically stated that the site plan was prepared at the instance of the informant. 31. The Investigating Officer also says on page-29 of the paper book in his cross-examination that he did not find any blood on the terrace. He has also given distance of place ‘A’ from the terrace as 3-4 steps. He has specifically stated that the site plan was prepared at the instance of the informant. 31. Thus, it is obvious that the main spot where the deceased Ramchander was hit with gunshot was on the terrace and was not on place ‘A’, a place few paces away from the terrace, because place ‘A’ lies 3-4 steps away from the terrace where the deceased fell down after he sustained gunshot injury and tried to escape but he fell down at this ‘A’ place while fleeing away. This particular aspect of the case assumes vitality to the ambit that no one infact saw the incident when the gunshot actually hit deceased Ramchander. That way we have strong reason to believe in suggestion of the defence that the incident occurred in the darkness of night and it was caused by some unknown persons and during the day when the informant saw his father lying on the ground, he cooked up false story on ground of enmity, because the accused side has been leased out some one bigha barren land, which they are using for cultivating crop and the informant side has forcibly taken possession over some part of that leased land are forcibly trying to cultivate crop on that piece of land, due to which, they are inimical towards the accused. 32. This way, we also gather some clue regarding the actual time of the incident from the testimony of Dr. Jagmohan Verma P.W.4, who conducted autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased- Ramchander on 25.5.1993 at Mortuary- Faehgarh at 2.10 p.m. On postmortem examination he found following injuries : 1- Multiple pellet wounds of entry on front of head right side in an area of 11x9 cm. Margins were inverted, lacerated achymosed. On dissection right temporal and parietal bones were found fractured. Membranes and brain were lacerated. 2- Gutter shaped wound 1x0.2 cm subcutaneous deep on top ofright shoulder. Margins laterally inverted, lacerated and echymosed and medially everted and lacerated. In the opinion of the doctor cause of death was stated to be shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. Postmortem examination report is Exhibit Ka-4. 33. Membranes and brain were lacerated. 2- Gutter shaped wound 1x0.2 cm subcutaneous deep on top ofright shoulder. Margins laterally inverted, lacerated and echymosed and medially everted and lacerated. In the opinion of the doctor cause of death was stated to be shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. Postmortem examination report is Exhibit Ka-4. 33. In his cross-examination he has stated by describing duration of death which he has stated to be about 12 hours that is to say it might have been caused anytime commencing from 2.10 a.m. on 25.5.1993 upto 7.00 a.m. in the morning and he has stated about possibility of the aforesaid ante mortem injuries being caused around 2.00 p.m. in the night intervening 24/25.5.1993. 34. Thus, it is obvious that none of the prosecution witnesses infact saw the occurrence, but their testimony is based on guess work and animosity and the same becomes dubious and wholly unreliable. Not only this, but also several suggestions have been made on count that the letter meant for medical examination of the injured did not bear relevant description and time in a position when the FIR had already been lodged at 7.15 a.m. on 25.5.1993. This way suggestion has been made that the FIR is ante timed. Although we do not give much importance to this aspect because of its being of trivial nature, but the copy of the FIR as per testimony of Balbir Singh P.W.1- the informant, was received by him in the evening, which force to the suggestion that even the FIR was ante-timed. Thus, on the basis of scrutiny of facts evidence and circumstances of this case, obviously, the incident becomes dubious to have been caused by the present appellant and the manner and style of the incident becomes opaque and the testimony of the witnesses is on the face contradictory in material particulars on the point of the incident and nature of injury being received by the injured witness Jitendra. 35. On the wholesome reading of the entirety of the incident no confidence can be placed on it. It can be conveniently observed that the prosecution testimony does not inspire confidence and the same cannot be said to be of the magnitude, which may work out conviction of the appellants. 36. 35. On the wholesome reading of the entirety of the incident no confidence can be placed on it. It can be conveniently observed that the prosecution testimony does not inspire confidence and the same cannot be said to be of the magnitude, which may work out conviction of the appellants. 36. Trial Court misread both on evidence and facts and appreciated testimony in a casual manner and the manner and style of causing the incident and the contradictory testimony of the two prosecution witnesses of fact, which on the face gives impression that both the witnesses of fact were not present on the spot and they did not witness the incident. 37. In view of aforesaid foregoing discussion, obviously the testimony of trial Court becomes erroneous and illegal and the judgment and order of conviction dated 16.9.1995 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge (DAA), Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No. 489 of 1993, State v. Brijesh and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 87 of 1993, under Sections 302, 324, 302/34, 324/34 I.P.C., Police Station-Talgram, District-Farrukhabad is hereby set aside. Both the appeals are allowed. 38. We have already observed in our operative portion that appellants-Brijesh Singh and Mahendra Pal are on bail, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and their sureties discharged subject to their complying with Section 437-A Cr.P.C. No further observation need be made. 39. Let a copy of this order be certified to the concerned trial Court for its intimation and follow up action.