JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.05.2003 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.446 of 2000, whereby the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- Name of appellant Conviction Sentence Appellant No. 1 Ismail Mohammad 1 Ismail Mohammad Under Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. Appellant No.2 Israfil Mohammad Under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 years 2. Brief facts of the case are that the incident took place on 14.08.2000 at 14.30 Hours. Applicant Rajesh Dubey S/o Chandrika Prasad Dubey was resident of Bemetara, District Durg and he ran the minibus on the name of Maa Sharda Travels from Bemetara to Khamariya Road. Two minibuses of accused Ismail had plied on the said road. On 14.08.2000, applicant Rajesh Dubey came to Regional Transport Office (hereinafter referred to as ‘R.T.O.’), Devpuri, Raipur for submission of tax, at that relevant time, Ismail and his younger brother was also there. Ismail asked him how had he come here, then he asked that he had to come for submitting tax, upon this, Ismail and his younger brother told to him that he had to come for changing the time of minibus and further that if the timing of minibus had changed, then it will not be right. Thereafter, applicant Rajesh Dubey left the office and went to a hotel for having breakfast. When he came out from the hotel, Ismail’s younger brother caught hold of his collar and abused him by saying that you had come here to change the timing of the minibus ahead of his vehicle and he will not leave him. He started slapping upon him by his hands. Thereafter, Ismail came there and caught hold of him and told to his younger brother for assaulting the applicant, upon this, his younger brother Israfil assaulted him by knife on his stomach, head, back as well as his private parts. When the applicant stopped him, he got injury on his right palm. He started slapping upon him by his hands. Thereafter, Ismail came there and caught hold of him and told to his younger brother for assaulting the applicant, upon this, his younger brother Israfil assaulted him by knife on his stomach, head, back as well as his private parts. When the applicant stopped him, he got injury on his right palm. After seeing fight between them, Jitendra Shukla of Bemetara tried to intervene, but he too threatened to kill. After assaulting them, appellant Ismail and his younger brother appellant Israfil fled from the spot towards Raipur on a motorcycle. The incident was witnessed by Deepak Bhardwaj, Dhananjay Tripathi, Jitendra Shukla and nearby shopkeepers. Jitendra Shukla picked him from there and took him to the office of R.T.O, from where, he was sent to MMI Hospital and Jitendra got him admitted. Dehatinalishi (Ex.P/3) was lodged by applicant, on which, wheels of investigation was started after registering the crime under Section 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) bearing Crime No.231 of 2000 at Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur. During investigation by the Police, medical examination of the applicant Rajesh Dubey was conducted and opinion was obtained. Memorandum statement of Israfil was recorded, thereafter, sharp edged iron knife as well as blood stained clothes of Israfil were seized and one Yamaha Motor-Cycle was also seized. Blood stained clothes of applicant Rajesh Dubey was seized from MMI Hospital. Blood stained soil and plain soil were seized from the place of incident. Thereafter, a spot map was prepared, seized articles were sent for chemical examination and its report was also received. After offence was found proved against the accused persons, they were arrested. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 3. In order to establish the guilt of the appellants/accused persons, prosecution has examined as may as 13 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents, whereas accused persons were examined 1 defence witness and exhibited 3 documents. 4. The statement of the appellants/accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which, they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 5. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.05.2003, learned First Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/ appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.05.2003, learned First Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/ appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits as under :- - learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the name of accused was not given in the First Information Report and proper identification was not done as per the law; - learned trial Court has not appreciated the fact that independent witnesses have not supported the case; - the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record; - the judgment of trial Court for sentence of 8 years is excessive and deserve to be reduced; - the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts; - in view of the aforementioned grounds, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is against the evidence and material available on record, which is liable to be set-aside and the appellants be acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 7. On the other hand, learned Penal Lawyer for the respondent/State would support the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court after considering all incriminating materials and circumstances available against the appellants has rightly convicted them for the offences, they have charged. Hence, the instant appeal is bereft of merits and liable to be dismissed looking into the commission of offence done by the appellants. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. Dr. Hence, the instant appeal is bereft of merits and liable to be dismissed looking into the commission of offence done by the appellants. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. Dr. Arvind Sen Gupta (PW-3), who is posted at MMI Hospital, Raipur has given report on 14.08.2000 vide Ex.P/5 after examining Rajesh Dubey and found following injuries:- (a) Incised wound of 2” x 1” x 1” over left side of abdomen; (b) Incised wound of ½” x ½” near navel; (c) Incised wound of 2” x ½” over left side of chest; (d) Incised wound of ½” x ½” over left side of chest; (e) Incised wound of 2” x 1” x ½” over right knee; (f) Incised wound of 3” x ½” over occipital region; (g) Incised wound of 1” x ½” over occipital region; (h) Incised wound of 2” over right hand. 10. Dr. Arvind Sen Gupta (PW-3) has further stated that injuries found on Rajesh Dubey were of serious nature. He had also done Sonography and X-ray of abdomen and chest. He further deposed that the injured was conscious and his pupils were normal. Dr. Arvind Sen Gupta (PW-3) stated that he had sealed the blood stained paint and shirt of injured and handed over to the concerned Constable for examination. 11. Dr. Arvind Sen Gupta (PW-3) stated that Police wanted query regarding the injuries of Rajesh Dubey, then, he opined that there were many wounds in the body, i.e., back, chest, navel, hands and head, which were serious in nature and if the treatment was delayed, the condition could have become serious. In this regard, he has given a report to the Police vide Ex.P/6. 12. Dr. Suvimal Dutt (PW-9) being posted as Senior Surgeon at MMI Hospital, Raipur has stated that injured Rajesh Dubey was admitted in the Hospital from 14.08.2000 to 29.08.2000 and on 15.08.2000, he had operated on his stomach. He found one wound on upper left side of stomach and one wound on lower side of stomach as well as one cut wound on left side of chest. He further found one cut on his right knee, one cut also on the head and wound in the stomach was deep. He found one wound on upper left side of stomach and one wound on lower side of stomach as well as one cut wound on left side of chest. He further found one cut on his right knee, one cut also on the head and wound in the stomach was deep. On internal examination, he found about one liter of blood in peratorial cavity, which was taken out, small intestine was found to be cut from two places inside and while giving report (Ex.P/16), he expressed his opinion that wounds on chest were of serious nature and death was also possible. He clarified in cross-examination that he had given the said report on being queried by the Police. He also stated that medical examination of injured was done by Dr. Arvind Sen Gupta (PW-3) and injured may have had injuries other than those which he himself has described. These were not mentioned in Ex.P/16. There is no such fact in the statement of Dr. Suvimal Dutt (PW-9), on the basis of which, his evidence is contradicted. His statement corroborated medical examination report (Ex.P/5) of injured as stated by Dr. Arvind Sen Gupta (PW-3). Thus, on the basis of the statement of both the doctors, it was found that injured Rajesh Dubey had received several cut wounds from sharp weapon on chest, abdomen etc. whose nature has been described as serious and death is also possible due to delay in treatment. Thus, it can be said that Rajesh Dubey had received life-threatening injuries. 13. Injured- Rajesh Dubey (PW-12) has stated in his evidence that his minibus used to run from Bemetara to Khamariya and the business was in the name of Maa Sharda Travels. The bus of appellant Ismail Khan also used to ply on the same route. On the date of incident, i.e., on 14.08.2000, he went to R.T.O. office, Raipur to submit tax entry. At about 02.00 pm, when he came out from the office, after having breakfast in the hotel, at that relevant time, appellant Israfil came and talked to him. He abused him in filthy language, caught hold of his collar and stated that he had come to take permit for earlier time from his vehicle and slapped him. At about 02.00 pm, when he came out from the office, after having breakfast in the hotel, at that relevant time, appellant Israfil came and talked to him. He abused him in filthy language, caught hold of his collar and stated that he had come to take permit for earlier time from his vehicle and slapped him. Thereafter, appellant Ismail came from behind, he also started abusing him and said to his brother to kill him, then, Israfil took out a knife and assaulted him on his abdomen, chest, back, leg, buttock, head and palm. At that time, appellant Ismail caught hold of him from behind. Due to injury, inside part of his stomach started coming out and he fell down. Jitendra Shukla (PW-13) picked him up and took him to R.T.O. Office, where officer has also came. Thereafter, he was sent in Jeep to MMI Hospital, Raipur where he was admitted for 20-25 days and his stomach was operated. Many people like Jitendra Shukla (PW-13), Dhananjay Tripathi (PW-6), Mukesh Sharma, and Bharadwaj etc. were present at the place of occurrence. After the incident, appellants fled away from the spot towards Raipur in a motorcycle. On that basis, Police had lodged report vide Ex.P/3. Thereafter, in jail, Israfil's identification was done by him. His full-pant, shirt, vest, underwear worn at the time of the incident were taken out and given to the Police. Rajesh Dubey had clearly stated that appellants had caused fatal injuries to him with a sharp knife under common intention. 14. Statement of Deepak Bhardwaj, alleged witness of the spot, has not been recorded by the prosecution. Amongst other witnesses, Jitendra Shukla (PW-13) and Dhananjay Tripathi (PW-6) have not made any statement against the appellants, but it has been told that there was an attack at R.T.O. Office. Raipur around 2.30 - 3.00 pm and they saw that Rajesh Dubey was covered with blood, then he was taken to R.T.O. Office. Both these witnesses have been declared hostile. They have not corroborated their Police statement even on the leading question that injured Rajesh Dubey was stabbed by the appellants. 15. Raipur around 2.30 - 3.00 pm and they saw that Rajesh Dubey was covered with blood, then he was taken to R.T.O. Office. Both these witnesses have been declared hostile. They have not corroborated their Police statement even on the leading question that injured Rajesh Dubey was stabbed by the appellants. 15. If assess the credibility of evidence of Rajesh Dubey, who was injured at the point of being stabbed by the appellants, it is clear from the statement of appellants recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and statements of injured Rajesh Dubey (PW-12), Dhananjay Tripathi (PW-6), Jitendra Shukla (PW-13) as well as Mohammad Madin (DW-1) that vehicle of Zubeda Begum in the name of Asif Travels was plying on the same route, where vehicle of injured Rajesh Dubey was used to ply, on which, earlier Mohammad Ismail used to take care of it. Dhananjay Tripathi (PW-6) is an Insurance agent, who was coming and going in R.T.O. Office usually. Buses of Jitendra Shukla (PW-13) are also and he also usually coming and going to the R.T.O. Office. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, Mohammed Ismail stated that Zubeida Begum had fired him from work after accusing him of irregularities in the accounts and hired her son-in-law and he has been falsely implicated so that he does not take up the job again. But it is not clear from anywhere that what interest Zubeda Begum has in implicating him. No reason has been clarified by the injured Rajesh Dubey for falsely implicating him. 16. Defence witness- Mohammed Madin stated in his evidence that when he stood near the gate of R.T.O. Office, there was a crowd in the afternoon and someone had stabbed Rajesh Dubey and from there, a fat boy was running away with a knife in his hand, whom people were shouting that he is the Thakur of Bemetara. He tried to state that Rajesh Dubey was killed with a knife not by the appellants but by some Thakur of Bemetara. But, it is noteworthy mentioned that during the prosecution evidence, none of the witnesses had been suggested by the defence that at the place of incident, people were shouting that there is a Thakur of Bemetara, as stated by this witness. But, it is noteworthy mentioned that during the prosecution evidence, none of the witnesses had been suggested by the defence that at the place of incident, people were shouting that there is a Thakur of Bemetara, as stated by this witness. Even appellants themselves have not given any suggestion that Mohammad Madin was present on the spot and some fat black boy ran away after stabbing him. Appellants have not made any statement of this nature even in the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In such a situation, presence of Mohammad Madin on the spot is not being reflected naturally and his statement is not found to be credible at all. 17. Dhananjay Tripathi (PW-6) and Jitendra Shukla (PW-13) are persons associated with the work of R.T.O. Office, hence, their presence appears on the spot. But, they have not supported the case of the prosecution against the appellants. Only because of this reason, statement of Rajesh Dubey cannot be termed as suspicious. In the Dehatinalishi (Ex.P/3) registered by Rajesh Dubey in the Hospital, name of appellants have been mentioned and these witnesses have present there. Since both these witnesses look after the work related to R.T.O. Office and appellants also look after the work of driving the vehicle, it is possible that their relationship is not bad and on such count, these witnesses are not making statement against appellants. In view of above, statement of injured Rajesh Dubey cannot be ignored. 18. Assistant Sub-Inspector, S. P. Singh (PW-2) has lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P/2) on the basis of Dehatinalishi (Ex.P/3) registered by the injured Rajesh Dubey in the Hospital. In Dehatinalishi (Ex.P/3), there is a clear mention of incident being executed by appellant Mohammad Ismail and his younger brother. In this regard, statement of Rajesh Dubey, aggrieved against the appellants, are also confirmed by Dehatinalishi. 19. M.Z. Siddiqui (PW-4) is the Regional Transport Officer and naturally, being an Officer of R.T.O. Office, Raipur, his presence is credible. In his evidence, he stated that on 14.08.2000 injured Rajesh Dubey had come to R.T.O. Office, then, he saw Rajesh Dubey in a bloody condition. He came to know that he got injuries in the fight. Blood was coming out from many parts of injured Rajesh Dubey. People accompanying him told that Israfil and another person had beaten up the injured and fled from the spot on motorcycle. He came to know that he got injuries in the fight. Blood was coming out from many parts of injured Rajesh Dubey. People accompanying him told that Israfil and another person had beaten up the injured and fled from the spot on motorcycle. Thereafter, he sent injured Rajesh Dubey to the Hospital by sitting in a jeep. It is also mentioned in Dehatinalishi (Ex.P/3) that injured Rajesh Dubey was taken to the R.T.O. Office. Dhananjay Tripathi (PW-6) has stated that he had sent injured Rajesh Dubey to the Hospital. Jitendra Shukla (PW-13) has also stated that he had brought injured Rajesh Dubey to R.T.O. These fact corroborates the statement of M.Z. Siddiqui. Immediately, after the incident, injured was brought to M.Z. Siddiqui and then it was told that injured was assaulted by Israfil and another person, which is not only relevant and admissible in evidence under the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, but also an important fact, in which, the name of perpetrator of the incident was known to M.Z. Siddiqui and thus, the statement of Rajesh Dubey, aggrieved against the appellants, is also corroborated by statement of M.Z. Siddiqui (PW-4), according to which, injured was assaulted by the appellants only. 20. Naib Tahsildar- Krishna Gopal Singh Chandel (PW-5) being posted in Tehsil Office, Raipur, stated that he had done test identification parade of appellant Israfil in the premises of the Central Jail, Raipur, where injured Rajesh Dubey had identified him by placing big finger upon him and in this regard, Ex.P/10 was prepared. The statement of this witness could not be rebutted and Rajesh Dubey had confirmed the said identification process. Rajesh Dubey has been consistent and unrebutted in his statement. In Dehatinalishi (Ex.P/3), name of Mohammad Ismail along with his brother has been mentioned, but name of Israfil has not been mentioned. Injured Rajesh Dubey has not only identified the appellant Israfil as the knife-slayer in the identification process, but also during the Court statement, he has narrated the events clearly by identifying the appellant Israfil. Therefore, there remains no doubt that the person accompanying Mohammad Ismail who stabbed Rajesh Dubey was the brother of Mohammad Ismail. Thus, statement of applicant Rajesh Dubey are also confirmed by the identification process. 21. Therefore, there remains no doubt that the person accompanying Mohammad Ismail who stabbed Rajesh Dubey was the brother of Mohammad Ismail. Thus, statement of applicant Rajesh Dubey are also confirmed by the identification process. 21. Patwari- Om Prakash Dewangan (PW-1) has prepared the spot map vide Ex.P/1, according to which, there was R.T.O. Office on one side and shops were on other side adjacent to Raipur- Dhamtari road. The incident has been shown in front of Sahu Photocopy Shop, which is a public place and according to statement of the witnesses, people keep coming and going there. 22. Sub-Inspector- Kadir Khan (PW-10) has stated that he has recorded Dehatinalishi (Ex.P/3) on the statement of Rajesh Dubey. Along with this, he has prepared spot map (Ex.P/20), according to which, the place of incident is a public place and this map also confirms the map prepared by the Patwari. 23. Sub-Inspector Kadir Khan (PW-10) has seized the blood stained soil and plain soil from the place of occurrence, full-pant, shirt, half-vest of the injured Rajesh Dubey in a sealed packet on being given by Dr. Arvind Sen Gupta vide Ex.P/17, on the statement of appellant Israfil, prepared memorandum (Ex.P/12) and on the basis of his statement and seizure of knife as well as motorcycle after being produced from the house of father-in-law Sheikh Aziz, prepared memo vide Ex.P/13 and Ex.P/14. He also seized full-pant and shirt of appellant Israfil vide Ex.P/14. Motorcycle has been seized vide Ex.P/19 and after getting the clothes of both the parties and seized knife examined by the doctor, according to his advice, it has been send to Laboratory for chemical examination, in respect of which, he has prepared draft of Superintendent of Police vide Ex.P/21 and report has been obtained vide Ex.P/22. 24. On the demand of the police, Dr. Arvind Sen Gupta (PW-3) has examined the clothes of appellant Israfil and give report vide Ex.P/7, examined the blood stained soil from the place of occurrence and give report vide Ex.P/9, examined the seized knife and give report vide Ex.P/8. He had prepared qurey report vide Ex.P/6 and stated that soil and clothes were sealed and handed over back for chemical examination. He further stated that length of knife was 6 inches and width was 1.5 inches. He had prepared qurey report vide Ex.P/6 and stated that soil and clothes were sealed and handed over back for chemical examination. He further stated that length of knife was 6 inches and width was 1.5 inches. According to him, injuries found on injured Rajesh Dubey could have come from that knife and many injuries on the injured Rajesh Dubey's body were of serious nature in the abdomen, chest, navel, hands, head and legs. If he was not treated on time, the situation could have become serious. According to the laboratory test report (Ex.P/22) obtained under the provisions of Section 293 of IPC, blood was found in the soil recovered from the place of occurrence, which confirms the fact that incident took place at the same place where Rajesh Dubey has told. Blood has also been found in full-pant, shirt and vest of injured Rajesh Dubey. Blood has also been found in the knife mentioned by the appellant Israfil as well as full-pant and shirt of Israfil. Appellant Israfil has not been able to give any explanation as to how blood came on his clothes as well as on the knife seized from him. 25. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances, it has been confirmed that injured Rajesh Dubey was assaulted with a knife by appellant Israfil. 26. The defence has not been able to establish any such fact or evidence so that the statement of injured Rajesh Dubey can be disbelieved. In respect to the value of statement of the victim, it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 10 SCC 259 that in the case of attempt to murder, the victim himself is a prime and important witness, who was present at the scene of the occurrence. He cannot be expected to name any other third party to save the real culprit, therefore, the aggrieved must be believed. 27. Reverting back to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it is found that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of injured Rajesh Dubey and according to his statement, appellant Israfil inflicted the above injuries upon him with a knife. 27. Reverting back to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it is found that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of injured Rajesh Dubey and according to his statement, appellant Israfil inflicted the above injuries upon him with a knife. During that time, with a common intention, appellant Ismail was not only involved, but he also held both the hands of injured, so that so many knife wounds were inflicted on the injured by Israfil. Thus, the injury caused to the injured by the appellants itself has been proved beyond doubt. 28. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the instant case does not make out as attempt to murder and in support of this argument, he has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1078 of 2023 decided on 11.04.2023; parties being, Panchram v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Another. 29. In Panchram (supra), the accused was a tailor by profession. The injury was caused by a scissor used by tailor. There was a dispute between the parties that the victim used to have a relationship with the wife of accused and in the said case, there was a settlement between the parties during the pendency of appeal and the victim was found to have only two wounds, i.e., a scratch on the neck and a cut wound on the thigh. By referring the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, instead of Section 307 of IPC, the conviction and sentence of the appellant was converted into Section 326 of IPC. 30. In the present case, there was commercial rivalry between the two parties. In the incident, not only one, but eight wounds were inflicted on different and delicate parts of the body of the injured, and the wounds have been caused with a sharp edged knife. The possession of knife by the appellants was not a natural thing, which they have been using in their business. It has been opined by the doctors that an operation was done for a wound in the stomach, in which, about one liter of blood was collected, which was taken out. The small intestine of injured Rajesh Dubey was also cut. It has been opined by the doctors that an operation was done for a wound in the stomach, in which, about one liter of blood was collected, which was taken out. The small intestine of injured Rajesh Dubey was also cut. It is also clear that at the time of the incident, one brother Ismile has held the injured and other brother has inflicted more than one wound i.e. eight wounds with a knife. 31. All these facts and circumstances show that the case against the appellants is one of attempt to murder. Hence, the appellants do not get the benefit of what has been determined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court due to difference in the facts of the precedent case and on the basis of evaluation of the entire evidence, it is held that appellants have attempted to murder of Rajesh Dubey with a common intention. The arguments advanced in this regard are not acceptable. The judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court is well merited and the conviction does not require any interference. 32. Insofar as the sentence awarded to the appellants is concerned, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, looking to the fact that the incident is about 23 years ago, but the nature of injuries is serious, when a lot of time has passed in the above situation, then it would be appropriate to exercise some leniency on the sentence awarded. 33. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant No.1 Ismail Mohammad under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and appellant No.2 Israfil Mohammad under Section 307 of the IPC is maintained, but the sentence awarded to them is partly modified reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 8 years to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. The amount of fine of Rs.5,000/- is also hereby maintained. It is further directed that if they are not paid fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, they would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The period spent by the appellants in custody shall be adjusted against their sentence period. The bail bonds of the appellants are cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the trial Court within a period of 30 days to suffer remaining part of sentence. 34. The period spent by the appellants in custody shall be adjusted against their sentence period. The bail bonds of the appellants are cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the trial Court within a period of 30 days to suffer remaining part of sentence. 34. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.