Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 764 (RAJ)

TOOFANMAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2018-03-14

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment dated 29.06.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur in Sessions Case No.51/2009, whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: "Under Section 365 IPC sentencing them to five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 302 IPC sentencing them to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to of payment of fine to further undergo sentence of 1 year rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 201 IPC sentencing them to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Facts of the case are that Bhagwan Sahai (PW4) submitted a written report (Ex.P8) on 25.07.2009 at 8.05 AM, on the basis of which the FIR (Ex.P9) was got registered at Police Station, Phulera, District Jaipur. As per the case of the complainant, his nephew Ram Niwas and brother Lalit were sleeping along with the complainant himself in the house on 22.07.2009 at 4.00 AM. In the meantime, a telephone call of his nephew Ram Niwas from mobile no.9982886685 was received on mobile no.9928167456. After seeing the mobile, Lalit gave it to Ram Niwas and told him about call of Toofan. His nephew Ram Niwas talked to Toofan Kantwa and thereafter told them that Toofan Kantwa has asked that he along with Chittar Kantwa was coming on motorcycle to meet him outside the village, so he was going to meet them. He stated that they would meet him near the boundary of village outside the Bhasinghpura Village. After telling this, his nephew Ram Niwas went from the house saying that he would return very soon. Afterwards, till today on 25.07.2009, he did not return to his house. They have searched him but could not find. His nephew Ram Niwas had given as sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as loan to Toofan Kantwa for doing business. The loan amount was given on 20.01.2009. It was agreed that the amount would be returned on 20.07.2009 but Toofan Kantwa had not returned that amount. They have searched him but could not find. His nephew Ram Niwas had given as sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as loan to Toofan Kantwa for doing business. The loan amount was given on 20.01.2009. It was agreed that the amount would be returned on 20.07.2009 but Toofan Kantwa had not returned that amount. They were having full doubt that his nephew had been abducted by Toofan and Chittar Kantwa and taken somewhere else and they could come harm to him with the intention not to return the loan amount. His nephew Ram Niwas has mobile no.9928167456 which till date i.e. from 22.07.2009, is switched off. It was mentioned that his nephew and the persons, who had abducted his nephew be searched and the persons, who abducted him be punished. 3. That the police on the basis of the said information registered the case under Section 365 IPC and registered FIR no. is 119/2009 and commenced investigation. The accused-appellants were arrested and at their instance the dead body of deceased was recovered. The police submitted the charge sheet against both the accused persons for offence u/s.365, 302 and 201/34 IPC. The learned trial court framed the charges against both the accused persons but they denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited 49 documents to prove its case. Defence did not produce any witness but exhibited three documents. The learned trial court after recording evidence and hearing both the parties, convicted the accused appellants and sentenced them as mentioned above, vide judgment dated 29.06.2012. Hence this appeal. 4. Shri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-appellants has argued that admittedly, there is no eye witness of the occurrence and the case hinges entirely on the circumstantial evidence. If the circumstances, which has been put forth by the prosecution are considered in entirety conviction of the accused appellants cannot be sustained. It is submitted that from a bare perusal of the impugned judgment, it is clear that the learned trial court in its finding has not discussed as to what were the circumstances, on the basis of which, it has convicted the accused appellants. This clearly indicates that the learned trial court has failed to consider the material available on record and has not applied its mind before coming to the conclusion. This clearly indicates that the learned trial court has failed to consider the material available on record and has not applied its mind before coming to the conclusion. The learned trial court has thus totally over looked the material aspect of the case and failed to examine the statements of the witnesses critically. 5. First circumstances against the accused appellants is that both of them took Ram Niwas at 4.00 AM on 22.07.2009 from his house. It is important to note that there is no evidence on record to say that they saw deceased Ram Niwas going with the accused appellants on the date and time, as alleged by the prosecution. The case on this aspect hinges on the testimonies of Bhagwan Sahai (PW4) and Lalit Kumar (PW8). Both of them have stated that they were sleeping on the roof of the house, where Ram Niwas was also sleeping. On 22.07.2009 at 4.00 AM, a call from mobile of Toofan was received on the mobile of Ram Niwas. Ram Niwas told that both the accused appellants were calling him outside the village. Thus in these circumstances, this evidence does not show that actually Ram Niwas, who left the house at about 4.00 AM on 22.07.2009 came outside the village and went along with the accused appellants on motorcycle. The evidence to this effect is totally missing. Even if the evidence produced by the prosecution is taken on its face value, it cannot be said that Ram Niwas left the house with the accused appellants. The learned trial court has not critically examined the statements of these witnesses. 6. Second circumstance is that on the basis of the information, given by accused appellants under Section 27 of Evidence Act, the dead body of Ram Niwas was recovered from the well of Ratan Singh, situated in the field in the Village Tan Rojdi, District Jaipur. The prosecution has examined various witnesses to this effect. The case of the prosecution is that Toofan gave the information Ex.P34 and Chittar gave the information Ex.P35. Ex.P34 was given at 3.30 PM on 25.07.2009 by Toofan and Ex.P35 was given on the same day at 3.45 PM by Chittar. Admittedly there is no eye witnesses to prove this information except Jitendra Singh (PW21), Investigating Officer. The seizure memo of dead body is Ex.P12 and site plan is Ex.P13. Ex.P34 was given at 3.30 PM on 25.07.2009 by Toofan and Ex.P35 was given on the same day at 3.45 PM by Chittar. Admittedly there is no eye witnesses to prove this information except Jitendra Singh (PW21), Investigating Officer. The seizure memo of dead body is Ex.P12 and site plan is Ex.P13. Admittedly, there is no witness examined by the prosecution to show that these are those persons, who went inside the dry well, which is 45-50 fit deep and took out the dead body out side the well. Thus, those persons were material witnesses but the prosecution has not produced by any of them. It is contended that the statements will show that the story of taking out the dead body from the well of Ratan Singh, is totally false and concocted. Bhagwan Sahai (PW4) has stated in crossexamination that he put his signature on Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 on the dated of occurrence i.e. 22.09.2009. He has stated that first of all, he put his signature of Ex.P13 and only after that his signature was taken on Ex.P12, Ex.P13 was prepared on 25.07.2009 at 5.20 PM and Ex.P12 was prepared on the same day i.e. on 25.07.2009 at 4.50 PM. Thus, his statement totally demolished the case of the prosecution. The statement of Bhanwar Lal (PW6) again demolished the case of the prosecution. As per his statement, at the time of preparing inquest report, only accused persons were there and they were called by the police personnel afterwards. This witness has stated further that at the time of recovery of dead body, no family member of the deceased were present except Bhagwan Sahai. Bhagwan Sahai does not say so and he has not stated a word to show that anybody went inside the well in his presence and took out the dead body. The another witness is Bajrang Lal (PW7). In examination in chief, he has not stated a word regarding recovery of dead body. He has stated that at the time of preparing inquest report, they themselves reached on spot. Ratan Singh owner of the field was not called. Thus, his statement again demolished the case of the prosecution regarding this fact that Bhawan Sahai (PW4), Bhanwar Lal (PW6) and Bajrang Lal (PW7) were present and thus, all these witnesses came on spot when the inquest report was being prepared and did not witness the recoveries. 7. Ratan Singh owner of the field was not called. Thus, his statement again demolished the case of the prosecution regarding this fact that Bhawan Sahai (PW4), Bhanwar Lal (PW6) and Bajrang Lal (PW7) were present and thus, all these witnesses came on spot when the inquest report was being prepared and did not witness the recoveries. 7. Learned counsel argued that Ramesh Chand (PW9) is the witness of inquest report (Ex.P.10). He has not stated a word that any of the witnesses namely Bhagwan Sahai (PW4), Bhanwar Lal (PW6) and Bajrang Lal (PW7) were present at that time and that the dead body was taken out from the well in his presence. Nathu Ram (PW10) has stated that before his arrival at that place, there was nobody and only these persons went there. Only police personnel were present there. He has stated that when he reached there, then he found that on the body of Ram Niwas was covered by a white bade-sheet. Thus, the above witnesses have not stated a word regarding taking out the dead body from the well. Only statement is of Jitendra Singh (PW21), who is Investigating Officer. Bhanwar Lal (PW6) and Bajrang Lal (PW7) are the motbirs of this document Ex.P12 but both of them have not stated a word about their presence and as to who went inside the well and took out the dead body. Thus, in these circumstances, the story of the prosecution, regarding recovery of the dead body on the basis of that statement is totally false. 8. It is contended that the case of the prosecution is that on the basis of the information, Ex.P36 and Ex.P37, given by Toofan and Chittar respectively, 6 pieces of mobile phone were recovered through Ex.P.7 site plan. The prosecution has examined Sohan Lal (PW2) to prove this fact. From his statement, it is clear that this recovery has got no value. There is nothing on record to show that pieces, which were recovered on the basis of the information of accused appellants, are proved by Jitendra Singh (PW21) and also connected the accused appellants with crime. The learned trial court has not properly considered this aspect of the case and erred in convicting the accused appellants. Another fact of recoveries of chappal, shoes and motorcycle also does not connect the accused appellants with the crime. The learned trial court has not properly considered this aspect of the case and erred in convicting the accused appellants. Another fact of recoveries of chappal, shoes and motorcycle also does not connect the accused appellants with the crime. Nobody has proved that chappal and shoes are of the accused and the deceased. They were recovered from the open place, lying for many days. When the prosecution has not examined to prove that deceased Ram Niwas went on motorcycle then recovery of motorcycle of one of the accused appellant has got no value. The learned trial court has not properly considered this aspect of the case and erred in convicting the accused appellants. 9. It is contended that the learned trial court has not properly considered the statement of Bhagwan Sahai (PW4), Bhanwar Lal (PW6), Bajrang Lal (PW7), Lalit Kumar (PW8) and Ratan Singh (PW18), who have made improvements, contradictions and omissions in their testimony. Thus, no conviction can be sustained on the basis of the statement of these witnesses. The learned trial court has not properly considered the statement of Jitendra Singh (PW21), who is the Investigating Officer. From his statement, it is clear that the investigation is tainted one and he has created the false evidence to get the accused appellants convicted. The learned trial court did not give the accused appellants, proper opportunity of hearing and producing the evidence on the point of sentence as per the mandatory provisions of section 235 Cr.P.C. Thus, the sentence imposed upon the accused appellants is bad in law. 10. Shri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-appellants has argued that report of the FSL regarding foot mould and motorcycle tyre mark, which has been received subsequent to the recording of the entire prosecution evidence cannot how be allowed to be taken on record by recourse to Section 301, 311 and 391 Cr.P.C., as it would tentamount to filling the lacuna proceedings of the prosecution. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution witnesses namely; Ramesh Chand Chaudhary (PW9) and Ratan Singh (PW18) have categorically admitted that about 50-60 people assembled around the well wherefrom the dead body was recovered. In such circumstances, it was highly improbable that foot prints of the accused would be found intact on the basis of which foot mould could be developed. In any case, it is a weak type of evidence. 11. In such circumstances, it was highly improbable that foot prints of the accused would be found intact on the basis of which foot mould could be developed. In any case, it is a weak type of evidence. 11. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants further argued that the prosecution witnesses including Bhagwan Sahai (PW4) and Lalit Kumar (PW8) have stated that the dead body was that of the deceased Ram Niwas. Dr. Madhu Sudan Tank, who conducted the postmortem has stated that the duration of the death was between 2 to 5 days from the date the dead body was subjected to postmortem. The dead body was fully decomposed. In these circumstances, the trial court has erred in treating this dead body to be that of Ram Niwas. Unless it was proved that the dead body was of Ram Niwas, the accused-appellants could not be convicted for the alleged offence of murder. 12. Shri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel argued that prosecution has come with the case that there was motive on the part of the accused appellant Toofan. Bhagwan Sahai (PW4), Bhanwar Lal (PW6), Bajrang Lal (PW7) and Lalit Kumar (PW8) are the witnesses to this effect. There is no written document available on record. The story of alleged motive that the deceased having given a sum of Rs.1,00,000 as loan to the accused Toofan stands falsified from the statement of brother of deceased Lalit Kumar (PW8), who when confronted with his police statement (Ex.D2), failed to explain why this fact was not stated by him when the police recorded his statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C. The theory of the loan of Rs.1,00,000 has been introduced subsequently. Moreover, even the statement of Bhagwan Sahai (PW4) in his behalf also cannot be accepted because both Bhagwan Sahai (PW4) and Lalit Kumar (PW8) have stated that deceased was a student of B.A. Final Year and that it has not been proved that he had so large earnings so that he could give by saving therefrom, a huge amount of Rs.1,00,000 on loan to accused. Learned counsel argued that the broken pieces of alleged cellphone vide Ex.P5 cannot prove anything apart the accused. Mere production of the receipt/bill of its purchase (Ex.P41) by Ramniwas does not prove anything because until it is proved that the accused had telephonically contacted the deceased on the said cellphone, this evidence cannot be read against the accused. Learned counsel argued that the broken pieces of alleged cellphone vide Ex.P5 cannot prove anything apart the accused. Mere production of the receipt/bill of its purchase (Ex.P41) by Ramniwas does not prove anything because until it is proved that the accused had telephonically contacted the deceased on the said cellphone, this evidence cannot be read against the accused. The learned trial court has discarded the evidence of call details for want of certificate requisite u/s.65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. It is argued that the prosecution case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence and since there are several missing links in the chain of circumstances, the learned trial court was wholly unjustified in convicting the accused-appellants for the alleged offences. 13. Smt. Sonia Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor for State and Shri Mahesh Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the dead body of deceased Ram Niwas was recovered vide memo (Ex.P11) only after the information was given by the accused pursuant to memo u/s.27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P12). This dead body was handed over to Bhagwan Sahai, the uncle of the deceased. Bhagwan Sahai (PW4) in his statement has admitted having signed (Ex.P12) and also stated that the photographs on the record were that of the dead body of his nephew. It is submitted that the mould foot print of chappal of the accused Toofanmal and the mould marks of motorcycle tyre were lifted from the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.P1 and the shoes of the accused Chittar Mal was recovered vide Ex.P2. The chappal of the accused Toofanmal was recovered vide Ex.P3. Even though the aforesaid articles were sent for FSL examination, but the report was belatedly received. The prosecution should be given opportunity to now exhibit them to form the part of the record in accordance with Section 311 and 391 Cr.P.C. The matter be therefore remanded before the trial court for putting this particular circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to confront the accused. 14. On hearing learned counsel for the accused-appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and perusing the impugned judgment, we find that the learned trial court, in first 19 pages of the judgment out of total 26 pages, has discussed ocular as well as documentary evidence and the cited judgments. 14. On hearing learned counsel for the accused-appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and perusing the impugned judgment, we find that the learned trial court, in first 19 pages of the judgment out of total 26 pages, has discussed ocular as well as documentary evidence and the cited judgments. Analysis of the evidence actually began from page 20, which is where the findings on different aspects have been recorded by it. The learned trial court has relied on the evidence of Bhagwan Sahai (PW4) and Lalit Kumar (PW8) and has held that since these two witnesses have supported the case initially set up by the prosecution that the deceased left their house after telling them that both accused-appellants Toofanmal and Chittarmal had come outside the village and called him. When we see written report, we find that therein the informant merely stated that deceased Ram Niwas left their house saying that the accused had called him outside the village and that deceased had loaned a sum of Rs.1,00,000 to Toofanmal on the promise that he would refund the same on 20.7.2009, but till date that money has not been returned. This may be a circumstance of different nature, but certainly not the evidence of last seen. The learned trial court has however, on that basis held that after the deceased left to meet the accused, he was not seen by anyone. The learned trial court has alluded itself into believing the aforesaid evidence as that of the evidence of last seen, which in our considered view, is an erroneous approach. 15. We are not inclined to countenance the statement that dead body cannot be accepted to be that of Ram Niwas because on perusal of the photographs, which are on record, we find that the dead body was capable of being identified. Even if, therefore, Bhagwan Sahai (PW4) and Lalit Kumar (PW8) had not in so many words uttered that they identified the dead body as that of Ram Niwas, but whatever they stated is sufficient to hold that it was the dead body of Ram Niwas. Bhagwan Sahai (PW4) has stated that inquest of the deceased Ram Niwas is Ex.P10, which contains his signatures from 'A' to 'B'. The receipt of the dead body of the deceased was proved by him vide Ex.P11, which also contains his signatures. Bhagwan Sahai (PW4) has stated that inquest of the deceased Ram Niwas is Ex.P10, which contains his signatures from 'A' to 'B'. The receipt of the dead body of the deceased was proved by him vide Ex.P11, which also contains his signatures. The recovery memo of shoes of Ram Niwas is Ex.P4, which also contains his signatures. The delivery memo of the dead body of deceased Ram Niwas (Ex.P12) also contains his signatures. The note below at Ex.P12 states that Bhagwan Sahai (PW4) was present and on seeing the dead body, he identified it to be that of his nephew Ram Niwas. The site plan of the well from where the dead body of the Ram Niwas was taken as Ex.P13 also contains his signatures. Not only this, this witness has also said that he identified the dead body of Ram Niwas even from the photographs which are on record. 16. As regards the motive of offence, of course, the informant Bhagwan Sahai as PW4 has alleged so in his written report and in the Court statement but Lalit Kumar (PW8) in his statement recorded by the police (Ex.D2) dated 25.7.2009, the date on which the dead body of Ram Niwas was found, had omitted to so mention. Be that as it may, the fact is that the deceased was a student and despite statement by Bhagwan Sahai (PW4) and Lalit Kumar (PW8) in their cross examination that he used to do parttime work in a company, it could not be documented either by production of any receipt, bank pass book, or any other bank account details etc. that he actually had so much or earnings that he loaned the sizable amount of Rs.1,00,000 to the accused. 17. The learned trial court has not believed the statement of Phoola Ram (PW3), who has stated that when he was going on maruti car from Phulera to Brahmgarh Dham and passed by village Rojdi, he saw accused-appellant along with deceased on motor cycle no.RJ14 36 M 1563. The learned trial court has found his statement unnatural because in the normal human conduct, a person who is driving a car on the road would only have a brief glimpse of the motor cycle crossing his way. The learned trial court has found his statement unnatural because in the normal human conduct, a person who is driving a car on the road would only have a brief glimpse of the motor cycle crossing his way. In that brief moment, it would not be possible for such a person to not only identify three persons on the motorcycle, but also see the number of motorcycle. Thus on such a momentary glimpse, he could not have seen the faces of all the three and also seen number of motor cycle. In fact, this witness in his cross examination has stated that even though he told this fact to his neighbour Ram Karan S/o Kana Ram Jat that he saw Ram Niwas along with Toofan and Chittar in the night of the fateful day, but he did not disclose this fact to the police since the police never asked him. No such witness by the name of Ram Karan has been produced by the prosecution. 18. Moreover, the learned trial court has held that the evidence of foot mould does not prove anything against the accused because the prosecution itself has failed to produce such evidence and while so holding, the learned trial court has also observed that the evidence of foot moulds is a weak type of evidence and cannot form basis of conviction in a serious case as that of murder. At this belated stage, we are not inclined to grant the prayer of learned Public Prosecutor to remand the matter when the accused has already remained behind the bars for last ten years and this appeal is waiting its decision before this court for last as long as six years. This is also because we endorse the view of the learned trial court that the evidence of foot moulds is indeed a weak type of evidence, particularly when the statement of witnesses also show that 50-60 persons had gathered around the well in which the dead body was found. 19. This is also because we endorse the view of the learned trial court that the evidence of foot moulds is indeed a weak type of evidence, particularly when the statement of witnesses also show that 50-60 persons had gathered around the well in which the dead body was found. 19. So far the alleged call details and on that basis linkage the cellphone of the accused with that of deceased is concerned, the learned trial court has held that except the fact that a phone call was received by deceased from Toofanmal as mentioned in the written report (Ex.P8) submitted by informant Bhawan Sahai (PW4), no evidence with regard to call details could be proved unless the competent officer of the concerned cellphone company came forward to prove the same in the proceedings as per Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. Admittedly neither the certificate requisite under that provisions such officer has been produced, therefore, such call details cannot be believed. In that view of the matter, the broken pieces of cellphone allegedly of the deceased recovered vide memo Ex.P5, does not prove anything against the accused. 20. The learned trial court has wrongly held that since according to postmortem report (Ex.P15), the duration of death was 3 to 5 days, which proximate to the time the deceased left his home for going to the accused, it must be held that deceased went to the accused and not to any other person, else he would have definitely come in contact with any other person which in that case has not happened, which in our view is a perverse findings. The duration of the death proximates to the time of the deceased going but this cannot afford any basis to infer that the deceased had gone to the accused and no one else. In fact, the trial court has recorded another perverse findings that the accused has not taken any specific defence in his examination u/s.313 Cr.P.C. that deceased was not with him and no such cross examination has been made by defence from the prosecution witnesses, therefore, this circumstance should be read against the accused. We cannot approve of such an approach on the part of the learned trial court, which was wholly uncalled for. We cannot approve of such an approach on the part of the learned trial court, which was wholly uncalled for. As per the law, it is the prosecution, which has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but converse it is not true that the accused should prove himself innocent. Even otherwise, this circumstance was put to both accused with reference to statement of Bhagwan Sahai (PW4) in question no.4 of their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which they have denied as being incorrect and, therefore, the finding of the learned trial court besides being perverse is also based on misreading of evidence. 21. The analysis of the evidence and the examination of findings recorded by the learned trial court as aforediscussed clearly show that there are in this case several missing links which give rise to the possibility that the deceased might have been killed by any other person than the accused. In fact, when the learned trial court has disbelieved Phoola Ram (PW3), there was absolutely no evidence of deceased being lastly seen in the company of the accused. The statements of Bhagwan Sahai (PW4) and Lalit Kumar (PW8) that deceased left their house saying that he was going to the accused, who were calling him outside the village, however, cannot be considered as an evidence of last seen, which is what has been observed by learned trial court. Moreover, the distance of time between which the accused left the house and when his dead body was found, was also as long as three days and the prosecution has not led any effort so as to show all the efforts made to trace out the deceased during this interregnum. Whatever circumstances are sought to be proved against the accused by the prosecution in the present case as incriminating one, are hardly proved by clinching or reliable evidence. Besides, all these circumstances when joined together, cannot form the chain of circumstance so complete as to point to the guilt of the accused-appellants and nonetheless, that it is they alone and nonelse who could commit the murder of deceased. In other words, there are several such circumstances, which may be compatible with the innocence of the accused and, therefore, we find ourself unable to concur with the view taken by the learned trial court in convicting the accused-appellant. In other words, there are several such circumstances, which may be compatible with the innocence of the accused and, therefore, we find ourself unable to concur with the view taken by the learned trial court in convicting the accused-appellant. The accused-appellants have thus able to make out a case for extending them the benefit of doubt. 22. In view of above discussion, the appeal deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of accused-appellants dated 29.06.2012 is set aside. The accused-appellants Toofanmal and Chittarmal are acquitted of the charges for offence u/s.302, 365 and 201 IPC. Accused-appellant Chittarmal is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender. Accused-appellant Toofanmal, who is in jail, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with any other case. 23. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.