Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Hassem Mia And Others vs State Of West Bengal on 8 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRA 19 of 2003
Hassem Mia and others
Vs.
State of West Bengal.
For the Appellants : Mr. Prabir Majumder,
Mr. Sukumar Ghosh,
Ms. Moumita Ghosh,
Mr. Snehansu Majumder.
For the State : Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwal,
Mr. Md. Kutubuddin.
Heard on : 09.06.2022
Judgment on : 08.07.2022
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
The appeal is against an order of conviction and sentence dated 27th
September, 2002 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court,
Nadia in Sessions Case no. 18 of 1996 convicting the appellants for
commission of offence punishable under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to
2
pay a fine of Rs. 2000 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further
period of three months each.
The criminal appeal 19 of 2003 is accordingly taken up for hearing and
disposal on merits.
Prosecution case against appellants is as follows:
On 19.11.1993 at about 6.35 P.M. when the complainant Golam Hossain
of village Thansara under P.S. Haringhata along with his brother Musa Ali
Mondal was returning home on a cycle from the Hat of Bhanderkhola, they
saw the accused persons in front of the house of Abdul Hakim along with
many others who had wrapped themselves with 'chaddar'. When the
complainant crossed them, he heard his brother Musa Ali shouting "Babago,
Mago". On lighting a torch the complainant found that all the accused persons
had 'gheraoed' Musa Ali, armed with sharp cutting Hensua and on seeing the
complainant they also chased him. Musa fled away but the accused persons
caught and took him to the other side of 'Suknamati Khal'. Musa fell on the
ground and the accused persons chopped him at random. Batul Sardar and
Subal Bag of the locality collected the local people on hearing the shouting of
Musa and chased the accused persons away. They then took Musa to Habra
Hospital. His son Saidul Islam, brother Mahammad Ali also accompanied him
Musa was seriously injured and his tongue was also cut away and he was
fighting with death. The said incident was as a result of a dispute between the
parties regarding some landed property.
3
Written complaint was filed with Haringhata P.S. being no. 19.11.1993
for offence punishable under Section 147/148/149/326/307 IPC. On
completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused
persons/appellants. Considering the materials on record charge was framed for
offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC against all the accused persons.
All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial the
prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 4 documents. The defence of
all the appellants (7) was of innocence and false implication.
On conclusion of trial, the Trial Judge by the impugned judgment and
order dated 27th September, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as
aforesaid.
Mr. Prabir Mazumdar, Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that on
the night of incident there was a "Yatra" in village Narayanpur and the victim
abused female members of the audience, as such he was assaulted by the
villagers. It is further defence of the accused persons that there are cases
pending between the parties and there is also enmity between them for a long
period. It is for such reasons that this false case has been filed against the
accused persons.
Further case of the defence is that the defacto complainant could not
recognized the persons who assaulted his brother Musa nor could victim Musa
recognize any of the persons who allegedly assaulted him. PW 8 Mohammed Ali
Mia, another brother of the victim has stated that he knows about the incident
4
but he did not see the same. He heard about the incident from Musa and other
persons. It is seen from the materials on record, admittedly Musa's son Saidul
(PW 7) had enticed away Arjina Khatoon daughter of Yusuf and after a 'Salishi',
matter was settled at the local P.S. and talaque was given to Arjina and her
custody was given to her father. It has also been proved before the Trial Court
that there are several cases pending between the parties and there is long
standing enmity between the parties. It is further submitted that no
independent witness supported the prosecution case and though PW 5 Subal
Bag and PW 6 Batul Sardar were named in the FIR as eyewitness but they have
not stated anything about any assault on Musa. These witnesses were also not
declared hostile. The investigating officer in this case has also not been
examined. Only the police officer who submitted chargesheet was examined. It
is further stated that the victim stated in his cross examination that Rahamat
assaulted him. It is further submitted that the injury reports were admitted
without examination of the Doctor and the court marked the injury report as
Exhibit 4 on a petition by the prosecution filed under Section 294 Cr.P.C. The
defence had raised strong objection to the said fact before the Trial Court but
the Ld. Trial Court did not take the objection of the defence into consideration.
The Trial Court erroneously relied upon the oral testimony of only the alleged
victim to convict the accused persons. In spite of coming to the finding that in
order to prove the exact nature and gravity of the injuries the evidence of the
Doctor as well as injury report of the Medical College and Hospital was
essential but though in this case there was neither any injury report nor any
5
evidence of Doctor, the Trial Court held that even without medical evidence the
Court could base the conviction and findings of guilt on the oral evidence of
only the injured. Admittedly the Trial Court was aware of the fact that
prosecution had failed to produce all the injury reports and also failed to
examine the Doctors. Though there being no direct evidence of the Doctors or
any injury reports, the Trial Court believed the (unchallenged) testimony of the
injured and also believed the oral testimony that he was attacked with a
'Ramdao' though no weapon was seized, admittedly in this case. That though
the witnesses have named separate weapons, the Trial Court held that in spite
of witnesses naming different weapons, the court could easily hold that the
weapon used was a sharp cutting weapon, as the victim had suffered bleeding
injuries.
In view of such erroneous findings in the prosecution case the Ld.
Lawyer for the appellants submits that all the appellants are entitled to get
benefit of doubt in this case and the conviction and sentence imposed is liable
to be set aside.
The Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing in this case places the
prosecution case with his argument to the effect that the accused persons
attacked the victim and injured him grievously and the said fact has been
proved by support of oral and documentary evidence.
The defacto complainant (PW 2) in his evidence has stated that Musa had
ill relations with Abdul Hakim and others and as such they might have
6
assaulted him. As Musa was shifted to hospital and was admitted at Calcutta
Medical College and Hospital for 24 to 25 days, the defacto complainant had
filed the FIR and has identified his signature on the written complaint. In view
of the said fact it is submitted by the prosecution that the evidence of the
defacto complainant corroborates the prosecution case in spite of having
turned hostile. There is no denial that the defacto complainant was
accompanying the victim Musa at the time of assault. Further case of the
prosecution is that the victim Musa Ali PW 3 has corroborated the case as
stated in the written complaint, that all the accused persons assaulted him
with deadly weapons (Ramdao) and as such he suffered injury on the right
cheek by the side of ear and on his tongue and head. It has been stated by
Musa that the accused persons cut his tongue and he became senseless and
he remained in hospital for treatment for 23 to 24 days. PW 3 recognized the
accused persons with the light of the torch and identified all the accused
persons in court. The son of the victim is Saidul Islam Mondal PW 7 and has
corroborated the evidence of the victim and has categorically stated that the
victim narrated all the facts to him. This witness on hearing hue and cry had
gone and found his father the victim lying with the bleeding injuries. Further
case of the prosecution is that the Ld. Trial Court rightly relied upon PW 5 and
6 Subul Bag and Batul Sardar who had witnessed the occurrence and not
declared hostile. It is seen by this court that the Ld. Trial Court was aware of
the fact that these two witnesses though not declared hostile have stated in
their evidence that they do not know who assaulted Musa (victim). The Trial
7
Court held that the injured himself is the best witness and as such could be
believed without any corroborative evidence. The Trial Court believed the
victim's oral testimony even without the support of any medical evidence and
held that it is sufficient to prove the prosecution case beyond all reasonable
doubt. The Trial Court also believed the statement of the injured that he was
attacked with a Ramdao, a sharp cutting weapon, as the injured suffered
bleeding injuries. It is further submitted that as the Trial Court has come to
the right finding, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Analysis of evidence
Prosecution Witness 2 is the defacto complainant. He is also the real
brother of the victim Musa. He has deposed that on the date of incident he
heard hue and cry and found that his brother Musa Ali was lying on the road
by the side of the house of accused Abdul Hakim with bleeding injuries. This
witness has stated that though he asked Musa as to who assaulted him, Musa
stated that due to darkness he could not recognize any person. He stated that
as he had ill-relationship with Abdul Hakim and others, they might have
assaulted him. This witness lodged the written complaint as Musa was shifted
first to Habra Hospital and then to Calcutta Medical College and Hospital,
where he stayed for 24/25 days. This witness was declared hostile by the
prosecution. He has admitted his signature on the written complaint but has
denied the contents. On being cross examined he has categorically stated
that he cannot identify any of the persons who assaulted Musa on that day.
8
Prosecution Witness 1 is the scribe of the written complaint and has
admitted his signature and has stated that the contents of the written
complaint was written as per statement of PW 2 the defacto complainant.
Prosecution Witness 3 Musa Ali Mondal is the victim. It is the
evidence of this witness that the Trial Court has relied upon without any
documentary evidence in support of his oral testimony. None of the Doctors
were examined by the prosecution nor any of the medical papers from the
Calcutta Medical College and Hospital was produced before the Trail Court,
though the victim allegedly was admitted in the said hospital for 23 to 24 days.
This court surprisingly also finds that all the pages of the oral evidence
recorded by the Trial Court does not contain the signature of the witness.
In spite of the said discrepancy, this court now proceeds to discuss the
evidence of the victim in this case and to decide as to what extent the
prosecution has been able to prove their case against the accused persons.
This witness on oath has stated that on the date of incident when he was
returning from the 'Hat' his brother PW 2 was behind him at the place of
occurrence. The accused persons tried to assault him but he fled towards
Suknamati Khal but the accused persons chased him and assaulted him near
the Khal with Ramdao on his hand, right cheek, tongue and head. He has
stated that the accused persons cut his tongue and he became senseless. He
regained his senses after 6 days. He has further stated, that PW 2, his brother
had focussed the torch and with that light he recognized the accused persons.
This witness has identified all the accused persons on Dock. He has further
9
stated that he has narrated the total incident to his son, brother and other
villagers. On being cross examined the victim has stated that his statement
was recorded by the police. He has admitted that there are two cases between
the parties. This witness has further admitted that the matter of his son
marrying Arjina Khatoon daughter of Yusuf was settled at the thana, talaque
given and custody was given to her father. He has admitted that accused
Sukumar has filed a false case against him and has stated that though the
villagers tried to settle the dispute between the parties this witness did not
agree. This witness has further stated that when he was being assaulted, his
brother Golam (PW 2) and other relatives could not come to save him as they
did not run behind him.
As such this court finds that the evidence of PW 2 the defacto
complainant is true to the effect that he did not see any of the accused
persons assaulting the victim. The statement of PW 2 defacto
complainant is corroborated by the statement herein made by the victim
himself admitting that Golam PW 2 and others did not run behind him
and as such could not save him.
Prosecution Witness 4 is Debendranath Sarkar, he knows the victim
(declared hostile) but he has stated that he could not recognize the persons
who committed the incident and as to how he sustained injuries and has
admitted in his cross examination that Musa had disturbance with others at
10
the time of seeing 'Yatra' on the date of incident and has further stated that
several cases are pending between the parties.
Prosecution Witness 5 knows both the parties to the case and knows
about the incident but does not know how Musa sustained injuries.
Prosecution Witness 6 Batul Sardar is the son of PW 4. This witness
does not know anything about the incident.
Prosecution Witness 7 is Saidul Islam Mondal, the son of the victim
Musa Ali Mondal. Admittedly he is a hearsay witness as he heard about the
whole incident from his father the victim Musa Ali. He did not see the incident.
He has stated that his father suffered injuries in the year 1993 near Suknamati
Khal. The whole incident was narrated to him by his father after his father
regained his senses. This witness has corroborated the evidence of the victim
as heard by him from the victim. Admittedly this witness was in his house at
the time of occurrence and on hearing hue and cry he went to the spot and
found that his father was lying with 'chopped' and bleeding injuries. He took
his father to the hospital.
Prosecution Witness 8, Mohammaed Ali Mia knows about the incident
but was not present in the house on the date of incident. He is the brother of
the victim Musa Ali and has heard about the total incident from his brother.
He has further stated that the victim named all the accused persons who were
responsible for his injuries and has identified the said persons on Dock. This
witness admitted in his cross examination that he did not state any of these
11
facts to the police and has stated the same before the court for the first
time.
Prosecution Witness 9 is Md. Sukur Ali Mondal. He along with others
had found Musa Ali lying with bleeding injuries but no one stated to him the
name of the persons who had assaulted Musa. On being cross examined he
has denied seeing accused Sukumar, Ranen and Idris fleeing away.
Prosecution Witness 10, Sub Inspector of Police Murali Mohan Das is
the investigating officer in this case, who submitted the chargesheet.
Prosecution Witness 11, Jiban Krishna Chatterjee is the recording
officer of the formal FIR.
Prosecution Witness 12 is the same person, who was examined as
PW 10.
Documentary evidence.
The documents exhibited in the present case which formed part of the
documentary evidence are, Exhibit 1 the written complaint. Exhibit 2 is the
Jimmanama. Exhibit 3 is the formal FIR. Exhibit 4 is the only injury report
produced before the court and marked as Exhibit 4 on a petition under Section
294 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution. No Doctor has been examined in respect of the
only injury report marked Exhibit 4. Though this document has been marked
as Exhibit, it is seen that the admission of the report as Exhibit was strongly
12
objected to by the defence. The Trial Court has observed the same in the
judgment under appeal.
Some of the pages of the oral evidence of almost all the witnesses
including that of the victim (PW 3) does not contain the signatures of the
witnesses.
Identification of the accuseds/appellants by the victim PW 3.
The defence has challenged that the evidence of the victim that he has
identified the appellants as the persons who assaulted him in the incident in
this case with deadly weapons, was not been supported by the complainant
(PW 2) who is also the brother of the victim nor by any proper documentary
evidence.
PW 4, 5, 6 and 9 have also not supported the victim's case regarding the
identification of the appellants as the persons who assaulted the victim.
PW 7 is the son of the victim. This witness is not an eyewitness to the
incident and he has admitted on dock that he heard about the total incident
from his father the victim PW 2.
PW 8, brother of the victim has also stated that he cannot say who
assaulted and caused hurt to Musa the victim. This witness also stated that he
was told by Musa that the appellants assaulted him but he himself did not see
the incident. As such it is seen that not a single witness other than the
13
victim himself has identified the appellants as the persons who had assaulted
him.
It is the further case of the prosecution that as the victim has ill
relationship with his brother defacto complainant, the defacto complainant has
not supported the case of the victim against the appellants. On perusal of
Exhibit 1 series, the written complaint, it is seen that the appellants have been
named in the written complaint lodged by the defacto complainant PW 2. This
witness on oath before the court has totally denied being present at the time of
incident. This witness has not corroborated the contents of the written
complaint and has stated he was in his house when the incident occurred. It
has been stated by him in his examination in chief that victim Musa had told
him that Abdul Hakim and others might have assaulted him. Though this
witness denied the contents of the written complaint, PW 1 the scribe of the
written complaint has stated that he wrote the written complaint as per
statement of PW 2 (defacto complainant).
It is seen from the evidence of PW 3, the victim that he recognized the
accused persons when they tried to attack him, when his brother Golam (PW 2)
focussed the torch upon the accused persons. In his cross examination on
05.09.2001
the victim has admitted that when he was being assaulted he
raised hue and cry. He categorically stated "my brother Golam (PW 2) and
other relatives could not come to save me. At that moment Golam and
other relatives did not run behind me".
In view of this such statement this court finds that as the victim himself
admitted that neither the defacto complainant, Golam nor his other relatives
followed him, they could not save him and as such this Court finds that the
statement of the defacto complainant to the extent that he did not see
the persons who assaulted Musa is hereby corroborated by the evidence of
the injured victim Musa himself. It has already been discussed that none of
the other witnesses have supported the case of the victim and his case that he
was assaulted by the appellant.
The Trial Court has solely based its judgment and order of conviction on
this statement of only the victim and found no reason to disbelieve the victim
in spite of there being no supportive medical evidence nor any supportive oral
evidence.
Motive of crime
In the present case the case has been made out that the victim Musa use
to tease women-folk and on the date of incident also, such incident occurred
and as such he was assaulted on the way back from the Hat. It has also come
before this court that admittedly there are several cases pending between the
parties.
The victim has also admitted that a matter relating to the marriage of his
son with Arjina Khatoon daughter of Yusuf was settled at the local police
station and talaque was given and Arjina was given in custody to her father. He
has also admitted that his niece Khunsi Khatoon was murdered in the house of
Sukumar Mondal and Sukumar had also filed a case against this victim.
The victim has also admitted that the villagers tried to settle the dispute
in this case between the victim and the accused persons/appellants but the
victim did not agree. This witness has further stated that he had signed on a
settlement paper under coercion. But has admitted that he did not file any
complaint against the said coercion. Nor did he state the said fact before the
court. As such it is clear that there are several long standing disputes
between the parties.
Injuries sustained by the victim as stated on oath.
The victim has stated that he was assaulted with a Ramdao on his hand,
right cheek by the side of ear and also on his tongue and head. He has also
stated that after the accused persons cut his tongue he became senseless and
regained his senses at Calcutta Medical College and Hospital after 6 days. He
stayed in the Medical College and Hospital for 23 to 24 day for treatment.
Evidence of the victim relating to injuries sustained, as stated by him.
Exhibit 4 is the only injury report before the court. This is the report of
the medical officer of the Habra General Hospital, North 24 Parganas. It is seen
from the formal FIR marked Exhibit 3 that the place of occurrence in the
present case is Thansara under Kalyani Division of District Nadia and the case
relates to Haringhata P.S. of Nadia District. The victim stated that when his
tongue was cut, he lost his senses and he regained his senses after 6 days
when he was shifted to Calcutta Medical College and Hospital. PW 2 Golam
Hossain the defacto complainant has deposed that Musa Ali was shifted from
Habra Hospital to Calcutta Medical College and Hospital. The Doctor who wrote
the said injury report has not been examined but the injury report has been
marked as Exhibit 4 on the application of the prosecution under Section 294
Cr.P.C. The Trial Court has relied upon the said injury report in spite of
holding therein that the prayer of the prosecution under Section 294 was
strongly objected to by the defence. In page 15 of the judgment under appeal,
it is seen that in spite of accepting the objection of the Ld. defence counsel, the
said injury report was marked Exhibit 4. The Trial Court while deciding the
evidentiary value of Exhibit 4, further held that even if the court ignored the
injury report the court could not ignore the evidence of the victim who was
mercilessly assaulted and was admitted in the Medical College at Calcutta for
24 to 25 days (no medical papers produced). This court finds that the Trial
Court erroneously in spite of exhaustive cross examination of the victim held
that there was no dispute regarding the assault of the victim by Ramdao and
injuries sustained on the body of the victim. This court finds that the Trial
Court in spite of no supportive evidence solely relied upon the oral testimony of
the victim including the injuries as stated to have been sustained by him due
to the assault by the appellants.
This court finds that the injuries (sustained) as stated by Musa (victim)
are as follows:
(a) Assault with Ramdao.
(b) On hand.
(c) On right cheek by the side of ear.
(d) Tongue was cut.
(e) On the head.
Injuries as noted in the only injury report marked Exhibit 4 (of Habra
General Hospital).
(a) Profuse bleeding per nostrils.
(b) Bleeding from the face from lacerated injuries.
(c) G.C. was poor.
(d) Injuries were of grievous type.
On comparison of the oral evidence of the victim and the sole testimony
of the injured relied upon by the Trial Court. This court finds that no injury on
hand was noted by the Doctor nor on the tongue when the victim was first
examined at Habra Hospital. The Doctor present therein has noted in the
injury report that the "patient was transferred to Medical College and
Hospital and nothing (details) could be examined due to serious condition
of the patient". It is also not mentioned as to who had brought the victim to
the hospital though PW 7 Saidul Islam Mondal, the son of the victim has stated
that he called a rickshaw-van and later took his father to Habra Hospital by
Matador Van. As such the only injury report before this court though marked
Exhibit 4 in spite of strong objection by the defence but relied upon by the
Trial Court while convicting the accused persons appears to be against the
principle of natural justice, when the principles lay down that a person is
entitled to get benefit of doubt unless the charge against the said person is
proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Admittedly no documents, medical
papers relating to the treatment of the victim Musa at Calcutta Medical
College and Hospital has been produced by the prosecution before the
Trial Court nor has the Doctor of either the Habra Hospital or the Calcutta
Medical College and Hospital been examined.
Defective investigation vis-vis fair trial
The appellants have prayed for benefit of doubt due to the faulty
investigation in the present case. It is seen that the investigation in the present
case, as it appears from the records is prima facie in accordance with law.
Question of not seizing any deadly weapons as stated by the prosecution being
Ramdao, Hensua etc. cannot be held to be defective in view of the fact that the
investigation herein deserves the benefit of doubt that there may not have
been any such weapons/articles found, to be seized.
Fair investigation is the foundation of a fair trial. This is undisputed
proposition of law.
On perusal of the judgment under appeal it is seen by this court that the
Trial Judge relied wholly, only oral evidence of the victim alone. In spite of no
corroboration by a single witness nor supported by any proper or complete
documentary medical evidence.
This court finds that there is no substantive oral or documentary
evidence on record to support/substantiate the charge as held to be
proved by the Trial Court.
The reason being:
(i) That the complainant PW 2 being the brother of the victim did not
support the prosecution case. He further stated that he did not see
as to who assaulted his brother Musa as he was not present. The said
fact has been admitted by the victim himself in his cross examination
where he has admitted that his brother Golam, the defacto
complainant and his relatives did not run after him, when he was
going to be assaulted and as such could not save him.
(ii) The injury report marked Exhibit 4 in spite of strong objection by the
defence has not been proved by the examining Doctor before the
court.
(iii) The injuries in the injury report and the injuries as stated by the
victim himself do not match.
(iv) Admittedly there are several cases pending between the parties in
this case.
(v) No weapons as alleged was seized in this case.
(vi) No Doctors either of Habra Hospital nor of Calcutta Medical College
and Hospital were examined.
(vii) No medical papers from Calcutta Medical College and Hospital where
the victim was allegedly admitted and treated for 24 to 25 days was
produced before the court.
(viii) Some of the pages of the oral evidence recorded of almost all the
witnesses including that of the victim (PW 3) does not contain the
signatures of the witnesses.
Now, It is for this court to see in view of the observation has made above
as to whether the prosecution succeeded in making out a convincing case
before the Trial Court for recording a finding as to the accuseds being guilty. In
the present case even if the Doctors have not been examined, the total medical
papers relating to the treatment of the victim, if produced before the Trial Court
could have substantiated the case of the prosecution, if the same had been
corroborated by the other witnesses. In the present case neither the medical
papers were produced nor the Doctors examined nor did a single witness
including the complainant, his own brother support the case of the
victim. The Trial Court solely believed the evidence of the victim, when even
the single injury report produced before the court did not match the oral
evidence of the victim himself relating to the kind of injuries sustained by him.
The Trial Court also came to the finding that in spite of there being no
direct evidence regarding weapon used, the Trial Court believed the evidence of
the victim and his statement that he was attacked with a Ramdao. In spite of
the fact that no weapon at all was seized in the present case.
As such on such findings from the evidence as recorded, it is seen that
though the victim prima facie suffered injuries for which no evidence either oral
or documentary other than that of the victim has come before this court to
prove the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt, the
Trial Court held the accuseds to be guilty.
No injury reports matching the injuries as stated above and absence of
corroborative evidence including that of the complainant, goes against the case
of the prosecution and thus accuseds/appellants are entitled to get the benefit
of doubt.
In view of the said findings of this court in respect of the materials on
record and the evidence both oral and documentary against the present
accuseds/appellants, this court finds that the prosecution has not been able to
prove the charge as framed against the accuseds/appellants beyond all
reasonable doubt before the Trial Court. But the Ld. Trial Court erroneously
came to the findings leading to the conviction of the accuseds/appellants.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is constrained to hold that
the conviction and sentence of the appellants are liable to be set aside.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
Connected application if any also stands disposed of.
None of the complainants/appellants are in custody. Accordingly, they
are discharged from their respective bail bonds.
Lower court records along with copies of this judgment be sent down at
once to the learned trial court as well as the Superintendent of Correctional
Home for necessary compliance.
Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties
on priority basis on compliance of all formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
