Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 773 (CAL)

S. K. Pear v. State of West Bengal

2019-08-01

JAY SENGUPTA, MD.MUMTAZ KHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : Md. Mumtaz Khan, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants assailing the judgment, order of conviction and sentence dated February 9, 2009 and February 10, 2009 respectively passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track II Court, Rampurhat in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2009 arising out of Sessions Case No. 15 of 2003 whereby appellants were convicted for the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 302/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short referred to as the IPC)and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default to suffer imprisonment for one year more with a direction for set off in terms of provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P.C.). They were acquitted from the charge for the offence punishable under Section 498 A IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: On August 1, 1999 at about 21.30 hrs, PW 1, step-father of the victim, lodged a written complaint at the Rampurhat Police Station to the effect that his daughter (victim) was given in marriage with the appellant No. 1 about seven and half years ago and of their wedlock two children were born. On July 30, 1999 at about 09.00 hrs victim's husband(appellant no.1) and mother-in-law(appellant no.2) assaulted the victim severely and thereafter, appellant No.2, Fulkara Bibi, sprinkled kerosene oil on the person of his daughter and appellant No. 1, Pear Sk. with match stick set her on fire. Thereafter villagers came running and admitted her in the hospital. It was also informed that the appellant No. 1 was admitted at the Rampurhat Sub Divisional Hospital for his injuries. He then informed the Magistrate who came to the Hospital and recorded the statement of victim. Thereafter, his daughter during her treatment at the Hospital succumbed to her injuries on August 1, 1999. 3. On the basis of the above written complaint, Rampurhat Police Station Case No. 92 dated August 1, 1999 was started against the appellants under Sections 307/ 302/34 IPC and the case was endorsed to PW 10 for investigation who investigated the same. Thereafter, case was investigated by PW13, PW9 and finally by PW12 who then after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellants. 4. Thereafter, case was investigated by PW13, PW9 and finally by PW12 who then after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellants. 4. On August 2, 1999, PW10 held inquest over the dead body of the victim at the Rampurhat Hospital Police Morgue in presence of PW 1, PW3, PW17 and one Abdul Latib and prepared a report (Ex. 2/A). During inquest he found skin of the deceased from the face to feet and also the skin on the backside from below the hair of the head to the heel were burnt and save and except burn injuries he did not find any such mark of other injury. During inquest the names of the appellants surfaced to be the persons who set fire to the victim after pouring kerosene oil. 5. On the same date, PW 4 conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the victim and found superficial burn extending from head to heal excepting behind both knee joints, blackening, charring of skin with few blister formation seen at places. On puncturing the blisters the underlying tissues were seen reddened. Red lines were seen between healthy and burnt areas, hairs were singed, tracheal soots were present. Cherry red colour blood was seen on dissecting vessels. No external injury was seen except burn injury. According to the doctor, the cause of death was due to extreme shock from aforesaid burn injuries which was ante mortem and might be accidental in nature. After the postmortem examination P.W.4 prepared a report (Ex. 5). 6. On March 11, 2004, charges under Sections 498A/ 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC were framed against the appellants and on their pleading not guilty to the charges, trial commenced. 7. Prosecution in order to prove the case, examined 13 witnesses and also produced and proved the written complaint, formal FIR, inquest report, postmortem report, rough sketch map with index, seizure list, admission ticket, bed-head ticket, dying declarations etc. and thereafter on completion of trial and after examination of the appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C. learned trial judge passed the impugned judgment. Mr. and thereafter on completion of trial and after examination of the appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C. learned trial judge passed the impugned judgment. Mr. Asraf Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, submitted that the impugned judgment, order of conviction and sentence are not sustainable in law due to delay in lodging the FIR, non examination of the charge-sheet witnesses Soma Let and Razia Bibi who got the victim admitted in the hospital, the Staff Nurse and Dr. K.K. Mondal reported to be witnesses for the dying declaration, fire brigade personnel or villagers, absence of any definite opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon with regard to the cause of death, doubt with regard to the recording of dying declarations recorded either by the doctor or by the Executive Magistrate as the same do not figure in the inquest report though prepared in presence of PW1 amongst other. According to Mr. Asraf Ali, prosecution has failed to prove the charge of murder against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. 8. Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the delay in sending the FIR will not make the entire case of the prosecution doubtful and furthermore, no such point was raised to the Investigating Officer during trial. He admitted that the dying declaration (Ex. 9) was recorded in the bed-head ticket and the doctor who gave certificate as to mental fitness of the victim was not examined but due to the same dying declaration can not become unacceptable as the doctor who attended the victim recorded the first dying declaration in the bed head ticket was duly examined as P.W.11 and he himself found the victim mentally fit to make dying declaration. He also submitted that the dying declaration recorded by Magistrate was proved by the Magistrate (PW8) himself and the same was corroborated by PW5, mother of the victim and there is no evidence on record that either the doctor or the Magistrate had any such animosity to implicate the appellants. He further submitted that though the step father of the victim and the FIR maker as also the biological father of the victim turned hostile but that will not render the prosecution case doubtful. He also submitted that the appellants during their examinations under Section 313 Cr. He further submitted that though the step father of the victim and the FIR maker as also the biological father of the victim turned hostile but that will not render the prosecution case doubtful. He also submitted that the appellants during their examinations under Section 313 Cr. P.C. save and except taking the plea of innocence did not explain how the victim sustained burn injuries on her person. According to Mr. Roy Chowdhury, prosecution has been able to prove the charge of murder against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and the learned Trial Judge was quite justified in passing the impugned judgment. 9. Mr. Roy Chowdhury relied the decision of Ravi Chander and others Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1998 (9) SCC 303 and of Laxman Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 1491 in support of his submissions. 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and have gone through the evidence and the documents on record to consider the propriety of the impugned judgment. 11. It is not in dispute rather admitted position that the death of the victim was unnatural and she died at Rampurhat Sub-Divisional Hospital due to burn injuries. PW4 the Autopsy Surgeon during postmortem examination also found superficial burn extending from head to feet excepting behind both knee joint, blackening, scarring of skin with few blister formation seen at places and on puncturing the blisters the underlying tissues seen redden and accordingly opined that the cause of death was due to extreme shock from the aforesaid burn injuries which were ante mortem and might be accidental in nature. 12. PW1 is the step father of the victim and FIR maker. He has simply deposed that on 30.07. 1999, victim was hospitalized and she died on August 1, 1999 at about 3.00 p.m. due to burn injuries. He heard victim made statement to the Magistrate but cannot say what she has stated to the Magistrate. He identified the written complaint (Ex.1) lodged by him. He also identified his signature (Ex. 2) on the inquest report. He also identified his signature (Ex. 3) on the statement of the victim. He was declared hostile by the prosecution as he did not support the prosecution case. 13. He identified the written complaint (Ex.1) lodged by him. He also identified his signature (Ex. 2) on the inquest report. He also identified his signature (Ex. 3) on the statement of the victim. He was declared hostile by the prosecution as he did not support the prosecution case. 13. PW 2 is the Home Guard who took the dead body of the victim at the Rampurhat Sub Divisional Hospital Morgue for post mortem examination. 14. PW 3 is the witness to the inquest. According to him he heard that victim got burn injuries and died. He was also declared hostile by the prosecution as he did not support the prosecution case and was cross- examined by the prosecution and was challenged that during investigation he stated to the investigating officer that he came know from Soleman Sk. (P.W.1) that on the date of incident the husband and mother-in-law of Sohar Banu (victim) assaulted her and set her on fire after sprinkling kerosene oil which he denied but from the evidence of P.W.9 it appears that he stated all these to him during investigation. 15. PW 4 is the autopsy surgeon who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body to the victim. 16. PW 5 is the mother of the victim and presently wife of PW 1. Previously she was married with P.W.6, brother of PW1. Victim was borne of wed-lock of P.W.5 and Bhuluk Sk (P.W.6), brother of PW1. She has deposed that mother in law of the victim (appellant No.2) sprinkled kerosene oil on the person of the victim and her husband Pear Sk. (appellant No.1) set her on fire resulting in her death. Victim made statement before the Magistrate in her presence in the hospital and told that her mother-in-law sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and her husband set her on fire and after recording of the statement both she and the victim put their LTI thereon. During cross examination by the defence she clearly stated that on getting information of burning of the victim they went to the hospital and she was all along with the victim in the hospital till her death. She also went to the police station and narrated the incident. She admitted that appellant No. 1 also got burn injury and was treated in that hospital but under police guard. 17. PW6 is the biological father of the victim. She also went to the police station and narrated the incident. She admitted that appellant No. 1 also got burn injury and was treated in that hospital but under police guard. 17. PW6 is the biological father of the victim. He was declared hostile by the prosecution as did not support the prosecution case though during cross examination by the prosecution admitted that he stated to the police that on being informed about the incident of burning he along with PW 1 and PW5 went to Rampurhat Sub-Divisional Hospital and found the victim with burn injuries. He also admitted that he stated to the Police that on the date of incident an altercation took place between the victim and her husband and at that time mother-in-law of the victim sprinkled kerosene oil on the victim and her husband set her on fire and that victim also stated this to the Magistrate, which he came to know from PW5 and PW1 who were present at the time of making statement by the victim. 18. P.W.7 is also a witness to the inquest. According to him, he came to know from the mother of the victim that appellant No.2 sprinkled kerosene oil on the victim and appellant no. 1 set her on fire and victim made statement before Magistrate. During cross examination he deposed that PW 1 informed him about the incident at about 12.00 noon over telephone and he found mother of the victim sitting beside the victim in the Hospital and PW 1 was also present in the hospital on that date. He had talk with the victim and at that time no doctor or Nurse was present. 19. PW 8 is the executive Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration of the victim in the Hospital. According to him, on July 30, 1999 in between 04.00 p.m. to 4.35 p.m. he recorded the dying declaration of the victim in the Hospital. Patient was identified by the Staff Nurse Jharna Mondal and Dr. K.K. Mondal of that Hospital certified that the patient was conscious and fit to give dying declaration. He identified the signature and endorsement of Dr. K.K. Mondal (Ex. 3/1). He also deposed that he also found that patient was capable enough and fit to make her statements. Patient was identified by the Staff Nurse Jharna Mondal and Dr. K.K. Mondal of that Hospital certified that the patient was conscious and fit to give dying declaration. He identified the signature and endorsement of Dr. K.K. Mondal (Ex. 3/1). He also deposed that he also found that patient was capable enough and fit to make her statements. On his query victim told that quarrel took place with her husband leading to a dispute of going of her son to school, then at that time her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil on her body and her husband set fire on her body. After recording of the statement, victim put her thumb impression in his presence and it was identified by the pen of PW 1 in his presence. At the time of recording of dying declaration mother of the victim (PW5) was present and she stated that her son-in-law usually perpetrated torture and assault on her daughter and that he married another woman. He also recorded her statement and she put her LTI which was attested by PW1 who was also present at the time of making of dying declaration. He identified the signature of PW1 (Ex.3/2) on the statement. He identified the dying declaration recorded by him (Ex. 3/3). During cross examination he clearly stated that on his arrival at the room of the Hospital where the victim was admitted he found Dr. K.K. Mondal and Staff Nurse Jharna Mondal in the room and except them no other staff of the Hospital was present. He did not agree to the defence suggestion that the victim was not in a sound state of mind to make any statement and the statement in question was not made by the victim. 20. P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W.12 and P.W.13 are the investigating officers of this case. P.W.13, the officer-in-charge of Rampurhat P.S., after drawing up the FIR entrusted the case to P.W.10 for investigation who then investigated the case since 1.8.99 to 17.45 hrs. of 2.8.99. Thereafter, P.W.13 as per order of Circle Inspector of police Rampurhat took up investigation of the case. P.W.13 then investigated the case and thereafter, on account of his transfer he made over Case Diary to P.W.9 for investigation. P.W.9 then investigated the case and on his transfer he made over case to P.W.12. P.W.12 then investigated the case and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. 21. P.W.13 then investigated the case and thereafter, on account of his transfer he made over Case Diary to P.W.9 for investigation. P.W.9 then investigated the case and on his transfer he made over case to P.W.12. P.W.12 then investigated the case and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. 21. PW 11 is the Medical Officer of Rampurhat Sub Divisional Hospital who provided treatment to the victim and recorded her statement with regard to sustaining of her burn injuries. 22. Admittedly, none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution are the witness to the occurrence and the entire case of the prosecution is based on the dying declaration of the victim, one recorded by the attending doctor (P.W.11) in the morning on the day of her admission in the hospital on July 30, 1999 and the other one by an Executive Magistrate (P.W.8) also on the same date in between 04.00 p.m. to 4.35 p.m. 23. With regard to the dying declaration, it is well-settled that importance of a dying declaration is that such declaration is made in extremity when the party is at the point of death and when every hope of this world is gone and every motive to falsehood is silenced and such declaration was made in a fit state of mind and was not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. Reference may be made to the decision of a Constitution Bench in the matter of Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 710 . 24. It is now well settled proposition of law that that conviction can be recorded on the basis of a dying declaration alone, if the same is wholly reliable. It is also well known that in a case where inconsistencies in the dying declarations, in relation to the active role played by one or the other accused persons, exist, the court shall lean more towards the first dying declaration than the second one. Reference may be made to the decision of Ranjit Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2006) 13 SCC 130. 25. In the case at hand, we find from the evidence on record that the victim was admitted in the Rampurhat Sub-Divisional Hospital on July 30, 1999 for burn injuries on her person and she ultimately succumbed to her injuries on 1st August, 1999. vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2006) 13 SCC 130. 25. In the case at hand, we find from the evidence on record that the victim was admitted in the Rampurhat Sub-Divisional Hospital on July 30, 1999 for burn injuries on her person and she ultimately succumbed to her injuries on 1st August, 1999. P.W.11, the Medical Officer of Rampurhat Sub Divisional Hospital, has specifically deposed that the victim Sahar Banu Bibi was admitted in the female surgical ward of Rampur SD Hospital on July 30, 1999 for her burn injuries on her person and she was under his treatment from July 30, 1999 to July 31, 1999. He has also deposed that victim stated before him that as a result of quarrel her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil on her body and her husband put fire on her body at their residence on that date at about 7.30 a.m. and he noted that statements on the treatment sheet and also wrote about the treatment given to the patient on the bed head ticket (Ext.9) as attending physician. He admitted during cross that he has not noted the pulse rate or the blood pressure of the victim or the percentage of burn injuries on the bed head ticket but clearly stated that he gave medical treatment to the victim on the basis of his experience and observation with open eyes only. He did not agree to the defence suggestion that the patient was not capable of making any statement before him nor she made any statement to him. 26. We also find from the evidence on record that mother of the victim (P.W.5) has also made claim of making dying declaration by the victim to the Magistrate in her presence in the hospital. PW 8,the then Deputy Magistrate and Collector of Rampurhat, has deposed that on July 30, 1999 in between 04.00 p.m. to 4.35 p.m. he recorded the dying declaration of the victim as per the order of the Sub Divisional Officer as well as requisition from the Police Station. The patient was identified by the Staff Nurse Jharna Mondal and he recorded the statement in that Hospital and Dr. K.K. Mondal of that Hospital certified that the patient was conscious and fit to give dying declaration. He identified the signature and endorsement of that doctor (Ex. 3/1). The patient was identified by the Staff Nurse Jharna Mondal and he recorded the statement in that Hospital and Dr. K.K. Mondal of that Hospital certified that the patient was conscious and fit to give dying declaration. He identified the signature and endorsement of that doctor (Ex. 3/1). He further deposed that he also found that patient was capable enough and fit to make her statements. On his query victim Sahar Banu deposed that a quarrel was taken place with her husband over a dispute of going of her son to school, then at that time her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil on her body and her husband set fire on her body. After recording the statement, victim put her thumb impression in his presence and it was identified by the pen of PW 1 in his presence. He also deposed that at the time of recording of dying declaration mother of the victim (PW5) was present and she stated that her son-in-law usually perpetrated torture and assault on her daughter and he married another woman. He also recorded her statement and she put her LTI which was attested by PW1 who was also present at the time of making of dying declaration. He identified the signature of PW1 (Ex.3/2) on the statement. He identified the dying declaration (Ex. 3/3) stating that it was recorded by him in his handwriting and signature. During cross- examination he stated that on his arrival at the room of the Hospital where the victim was admitted he found Dr. K.K. Mondal and Staff Nurse Jharna Mondal in the room and except them no other staff of the Hospital was present. He did not agree to the defence suggestion that the victim was not in a sound state of mind and physical condition to make any statement and that the said statement was not made by the victim. 27. The above statement of P.W.8 also finds corroboration from the mother of the victim (P.W.5). P.W.5 too has deposed that mother-in-law of the victim (Appellant no.2) sprinkled kerosene oil on the body of her daughter and her husband (Appellant no. 1) set her on fire and she died in Rampur Hospital. 27. The above statement of P.W.8 also finds corroboration from the mother of the victim (P.W.5). P.W.5 too has deposed that mother-in-law of the victim (Appellant no.2) sprinkled kerosene oil on the body of her daughter and her husband (Appellant no. 1) set her on fire and she died in Rampur Hospital. Her daughter made statement to the Magistrate in her presence and told that her mother-in-law has sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and her husband set her fire and after recording of such statement of the victim both she and victim put their LTI on the same. During cross she admitted that she got information of the burning of her daughter at her residence in presence of her husband (P.W.1) and her children. They then went to the hospital and thereafter went to the P.S. where she narrated the incident and her husband was also examined by police and then police told that that the statement of the victim would be recorded. They then went to the court of SDO and narrated the incident to him. She also clearly stated that she was all along with the victim till her death in the hospital. Interestingly she was not challenged by the defence that she was not present at the hospital at the time of recording of the statement of the victim nor the victim made any statement to the Magistrate (P.W.8) in her presence. She was also not challenged by the defence that the victim was not in a position to talk or to make any statement. P.W.1, step-father of the victim and the FIR maker who was subsequently declared hostile by the prosecution has deposed that on 30.07. 1999 victim was hospitalized and she died on August 1, 1999 at about 3.00 p.m. due to burn injuries. He heard victim made statement to the Magistrate but could not say what she has stated to the Magistrate. He identified his signature (Ex. 3) on the statement of the victim. He was declared hostile by the prosecution as he did not support the prosecution case. Interestingly no suggestion was put to him from the side of the defence that the victim did not make any statement in his presence nor he signed on the statement of the victim. He identified his signature (Ex. 3) on the statement of the victim. He was declared hostile by the prosecution as he did not support the prosecution case. Interestingly no suggestion was put to him from the side of the defence that the victim did not make any statement in his presence nor he signed on the statement of the victim. Even no suggestion was put to him that the victim was not in a position to make any statement and/or that no such statement of the victim was recorded by the Magistrate in his presence. 28. Under the circumstances, there appears no reason why the statement of P.W.8, the Executive Magistrate, shall not be believed. Furthermore, Executive Magistrate is a disinterested witness and there is no material on record to suspect that he has animus against the appellants or was in any way interested in fabricating the dying declaration. The dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate (Ext.3/3) tallies with the dying declaration recorded by the doctor on the Bed-Head Ticket (Ext.9). Even nothing was brought out on record to suspect that the doctor had animus against the appellants. It is well settled that a dying declaration can be oral or in writing and if recorded in writing there is no specified statutory form for such recording. So, the statement/dying declaration of the victim recorded by the attending doctor even on the bed-head ticket can be acceptable. 29. It is true that the inquest report is silent with regard to recording of any dying declaration but we do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the appellants that for such omission the very existence of dying declarations be doubted. The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding the apparent cause of death, namely, whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or by some machinery etc. The section does not contemplate that the manner in which the incident took place or the evidences on which the prosecution will rely should figure in the inquest report. 30. Regarding non-examination of charge-sheet witnesses Soma Let and Razia Bibi who got the victim admitted in the hospital or the Staff Nurse in whose presence dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate and Dr. 30. Regarding non-examination of charge-sheet witnesses Soma Let and Razia Bibi who got the victim admitted in the hospital or the Staff Nurse in whose presence dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate and Dr. K.K. Mondal who gave the certificate (Ext.3/1) with regard to patient's mental fitness to make dying declaration, we find from the evidence of P.W.11, the attending doctor, that he on finding the patient conscious and fit recorded her statements. On being challenged by the defence that the patient was not capable of making any statement before him nor she made any statement to him, he did not agree. P.W.8, the Executive Magistrate also specifically deposed that he too found that patient was capable enough and fit to make her statements. Nothing was brought out on record to suspect that the doctor (P.W.11) or the Executive Magistrate (P.W.8) had any animus against the appellants. In such circumstances, non examination of the above witnesses can not render the dying declarations unacceptable. Similarly, non-examination of fire brigade personnel or any villagers will not make the prosecution case doubtful as the case of the prosecution is based on dying declaration of the victim and for that matter above witnesses have no role to play. Furthermore, even we accept that the house of the appellants also got burnt due to fire and the appellant no.1 too had to be hospitalized due to burn injuries but there is nothing on record to suggest that the victim had any role to play for such fire or the house caught fire by other means. Even the appellants did not take any such defence during trial or their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. save and except taking the plea of innocence. They did not even adduce any defence witness. 31. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not require our interference on the above grounds. 32. Even the appellants did not take any such defence during trial or their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. save and except taking the plea of innocence. They did not even adduce any defence witness. 31. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not require our interference on the above grounds. 32. Regarding the submission that there was delay in lodging the FIR, we find from the record that incident of burning took place on July 30,1999 at the matrimonial home of the victim within the jurisdiction of Rampurhat P.S. The FIR maker (P.W.1) is the resident under the jurisdiction of More gram P.S. On getting the news of the incident mother of the victim (P.W.5) and her step-father (P.W.1) came rushing to the hospital where the victim was hospitalized and thereafter went to the P.S. and also took initiative so that the victim's dying declaration was recorded. It has come out from the evidence that they regularly visited the hospital as the condition of the victim was very serious and ultimately victim succumbed to her injuries. So, considering the serious condition of the victim it was expected that they were very much anxious and might have remained busy for her treatment and when the very hope of survival of the victim was lost they approached the P.S. Moreover, according to the settled principle of law mere delay in lodging FIR will not necessarily be fatal to the case of the prosecution. After, taking into account the facts and circumstances of this case in the light of the totality of evidences on record we are of the opinion that the delay as pointed out was not fatal to the prosecution case. 33. Therefore, our interference with the impugned judgment is not required on the above ground. 34. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances on the basis of which the impugned judgment is passed, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment does not require our interference on the above grounds in view of the settled propositions of law as discussed herein above. 35. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants. 36. A copy of this judgment along with the Lower Court Records may be sent down to the learned Trial Court forthwith. 37. 35. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants. 36. A copy of this judgment along with the Lower Court Records may be sent down to the learned Trial Court forthwith. 37. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard. I agree - Jay Sengupta, J.