Bablu Karmakar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
2022 Latest Caselaw 3119 Cal

                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                           APPELLATE SIDE

The Hon'ble JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI


                             C.R.A 58 of 2016
                                   With
                     IA No. CRAN 1 of 2021 (Not found)


                             Bablu Karmakar
                                    Vs.
                      Central Bureau of Investigation

For the Appellant:             Mr. Chinmoy Pal, Adv.,
                               Mr. Sourav Mondal, Adv.,
                               Mr.Archan Dutta, Adv.


For the C.B.I:                 Mr. Anirban Mitra, Adv.

For the State:                 Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, Adv.,
                               Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Adv.


Heard on: 23.02.2022, 25.02.2022, 01.03.2022
Judgment on: 09.06.2022.

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J. : -

1.

The appellant was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with

Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Special Case

No.10A/2011 by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Alipore vide

judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21st December,

2015. The appellant was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for one

year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer further simple

imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section

7 of the said Act. He was also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for

1 and ½ years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section

13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the said Act.

2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and

sentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

3. One Sunirmal Biswas lodged a written complaint before the

Superintendent of Police, CBI Anti Corruption Branch at Kolkata on 10th

March, 2011 stating, inter alia, that his son Sourav Biswas got an

information that came recruitment would be made by Netaji Subhas

Chandra Bose International Airport Authority to the post of peon. The

defacto complainant went to the office of the Airport Authority to inquire

about the authenticity of the said information. In the office of Airport

Authority, he came across Bablu Karmakar the appellant herein. The said

Bablu Karmakar assured him job of his son, but demanded bribe of Rs.1

lakh for a confirmed job to the post of peon. He also instructed the defacto

complainant to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- in advance by the next day of his

visit in front of International Terminal of the above named airport. The

appellant also directed him to make payment of the rest of the amount

within five days. The defacto complainant was not agreeable to pay any

bribe to a government employee for an official job. So, he made a

complaint with the concerned authority of CBI.

4. On the basis of the said complaint, CBI registered case No.RC-

0102011A0008 under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the FIR accused named

Bablu Karmakar and took up the case for investigation.

5. On completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet

against the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section

13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case was tried by

the learned Judge, Special Court, CBI at Alipore, South 24 Parganas.

6. During trial, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Some

documents, currency notes that were offered to the accused and other

materials were marked as exhibits and material exhibits in course of

evidence laid by the prosecution during trial of the case. The learned trial

judge on careful perusal of the evidence on record as well as upon due

consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the

prosecution and sentenced the accused accordingly.

7. It appears from the materials on record that the defacto

complainant was examined during trial as PW1. One Biswajit Nandy a

ticket examiner under Eastern Railways, one Prasenjit Banerjee a senior

ticket examiner of Eastern Railways, Smt. Tista Halder, Inspector of Police

posted at CBI, Kolkata were examined as PW2, PW3 and PW7 respectively

are pre-trap as well as post-trap witnesses. PW4 Mr. J.K Goel was posted

as General Manager (Human Resource), Airport Authority of India at New

Delhi accorded sanction for prosecution against the appellant. PW5

Sourav Biswas is the son of the defacto complainant for whose job the

appellant allegedly demanded bribe. PW8 Chandan Kr. Basak was posted

as Manager (Operation), Airport Authority of India, NSCBI Airport during

the period from 6th March, 2011 and 2nd April, 2011. PW9 Sri. Bajayanta

Mukhopadhyay is the Junior Scientific Officer (Chemistry) at Central

Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata in the year 2011. He examined the

seized currency notes and some liquid mixed with some chemical and on

chemical analysis submitted a report to the Investigating Officer. PW10

Subhrendu Gangopadhyay was attached to CBI Anti Corruption Branch

as SI of Police. He conducted investigation of the above noted case and

submitted charge-sheet against the appellant.

8. It appears from the evidence of the defacto complainant Sunirmal

Biswas (PW1) that during 2011 he used to earn his livelihood selling tea

leaves and painting sign boards. Sourav Biswas (PW5) is the son of PW1.

It is stated by PW1 in his evidence that in the month of March, 2011 his

son told him that the Airport Authority of India in the Kolkata office would

appoint some peons. PW1 informed the matter to one Rana Indu (PW6)

who previously used to run the techniques of sign board painting from

PW1, that the Airport Authority of India would appoint some peons and

requested him to inquire about the matter. The said Rana Indu

introduced the defacto complainant with accused Bablu Karmakar who

was posted in the Airport Authority of India on 7th March, 2011. Bablu

Karmakar clearly told him that the defacto complainant would have to

give a sum of Rs.1 lakh in exchange of a permanent job for his son. He

also told him that the defacto complainant would have to pay a sum of

Rs.5000/- as advance on 11th March, 2011 at the Terminal of the

International Airport. It is further stated by PW1 in his deposition that he

was not willing to pay such money as bribe to the said Bablu Karmkar.

So, on 10th March, 2011, he submitted a written complaint (Exhibit-1) to

the Superintendent of Police, CBI. On 11th March, 2011 at about 9 am the

defacto complainant was asked to come to CBI Office accordingly he

reached CBI Office with a sum of Rs.5000/- having five numbers of

currency notes of Rs.1000/- denomination each. A lady officer, named

Tista Halder asked the defacto complainant to give her the said currency

notes. Then Smt. Tista Halder mixed some powder on the said currency

notes. Thereafter, they washed her hand in presence of the defacto

complainant and other officers of CBI in a bowl the water turned into pink

as soon as she washed her hands. The said pink coloured water was

stored in a bottle. The bottle was duly sealed and labeled with an

identification mark-A. The labeled was fixed on the said bottle. The

defacto complainant duly put his signature on the bottle (Exhibit-2). Smt.

Tista Halder had kept the said currency notes of Rs.1000/- denomination

each in the left pocket of the shirt of the defacto complainant and warned

him not to touch the said currency notes. She also told the defacto

complainant that he would pay the said money to accused Bablu

Karmakar only when he would demand for the money. Pre-trap memo was

prepared in the office of the CBI in presence of the defacto complainant

and other Officers of CBI. At about 10.15 am the defacto complainant

being accompanied by CBI Officers and two independent witnesses who

are employees of Eastern Railways proceeded for the International Airport

at Kolkata by vehicles. At about 11.15 am the accused came near the

terminal of International Airport at Kolkata and asked him whether he

had brought money. The defacto complainant replied in affirmative. One

Mr. Biswajit Nandi and Snehansu Biswas, employees of Eastern Railways

and a CBI Officer were following the entire proceeding standing by his

side. When the accused demanded money, he took out the said currency

notes from the left side pocket of his shirt and handed over the same to

the accused. The accused counted the said currency notes by his hands

and had kept the said currency notes in the pocket of his pant.

Immediately Biswajit Nandi gave an indication that the accused received

the said sum of Rs.5000/- following such indication other CBI Officers

rushed to the spot and apprehended the accused and took him to the

chamber of the Manager of the Airport Authority at Dumdum. Then the

accused was taken to the training room situated on the first floor of

Airport terminal. He was directed to wash his right hand in the water in a

bowl. The said water turned into pink colour. One of the CBI Officer

collected the said pink coloured water in another bottle sealed the same

and marked with letter-B. The defacto complainant put his signature on

the said bottle. During evidence the signature of the defacto complainant

on the said bottle was marked as Exhibit-4. His signature on the label in

respect of the said seized bottle was marked as Exhibit-4/1. Then the

accused was asked to wash his left hand in water contained in a bowl the

said water also turned into pink colour. The pink coloured water was

similarly contained in a bottle sealed and labeled in presence of PW1 and

other witnesses. Then PW1 put his signature on the bottle. The currency

notes which were recovered from the accused persons were kept in a

packet and the packet was also sealed and labeled. The money bag/purse

of the accused was also washed in water and the said water contained in

bowl was turned into pink. The CBI Officer also seized the said money bag

of the accused persons. The signature of the defacto complainant was

marked as Exhibit-8 on the label of the money bag. The currency notes

and the money bag were marked as Mat Exhibit-(i) and (ii). A seizure list

was also prepared at the spot in respect of seized articles in presence of

the defacto complainant and his signature on the seizure list was marked

as Exhibit-9 series. The entire fact of raid, apprehension of the accused,

search and seizure were reduced to writing by an Officer of CBI at the

spot. During cross examination PW1 stated that he personally did not

make any inquiry in the office of the Airport Authority as to whether there

was any vacancy in the post of peon in the office of the Airport Authority

of Kolkata during the period between 7th March, 2011 to 10th March,

2011.

9. PW2 Biswajit Nandi and PW3 Prosenjit Biswas are the trap

witnesses. They corroborated the evidence of the defacto complainant to

the effect that on 11th March, 2011 as per the direction of their higher

authority they came to the CBI office at Nizam palace at about 9 am. They

were taken to a room at the CBI office and introduced with some CBI

Officers. They also disclosed the reason as to why they would conduct

raid at international terminal of NSCBI Airport. The witnesses fully

corroborated the evidence of PW1 to the effect that on demand by the lady

CBI Officer the defacto complainant handed over five currency notes of

Rs.1000/- denomination each and some powdery material was mixed with

the currency notes by the said officer. The currency notes were kept in the

pocket of the defacto complainant then the officer washed her hand by the

water contained in a bowl and the said water immediately turned into

pink. Both the witnesses put their signature on the seal and label of the

bottle containing pink water. Then they accompanied the defacto

complainant and other CBI Officers to International Airport Terminal at

Dumdum, they were standing in close proximity of the defacto

complainant. The accused came to the spot and asked the complainant as

to whether he have brought the money or not. When the complainant

replied in affirmative the accused demanded the money. The complainant

handed over the said money to the accused. He counted the currency

notes by his two hands and put it in a money purse and put the money

purse in the pocket of his pant. Immediately he gave an indication by

itching his head which attracted other CBI Officers and they apprehended

the appellant, recovered currency notes and he was taken to the office of

the Manager of Airport Authority. Then he was taken to a room, his hands

were washed in water contained in a bowl. The water turned into pink.

The money bag was also washed by water. The said water was also turned

to pink. A CBI Officer seized the water in bottles sealed and labeled the

same and then the accused was arrested.

10. PW4 Mr. J.K Goel accorded sanction for prosecution against the

appellant who was posted at NSCBI Airport, Dumdum as senior attendant

housekeeping. It is also deposed by PW4 that he issued the sanction order

on perusal of pre-trap memorandum, post-trap memorandum, written

complaint and other related documents forwarded to him by the CBI and

on being satisfied, the sanction for prosecution against the accused was

issued.

11. PW6 Rana Indu corroborated the evidence of the defacto

complainant that in the year 2011 the defacto complainant came to him

and inquired if any appointment would be going to meet at NSCBI Airport

by the Airport Authority of India. The witnesses advised the defacto

complainant to meet the accused who might help him for the job of his

son. It is further stated by him that he personally handed over a sum of

Rs.45,000/- to Bablu Karmakar for a job in Airport Authority of India but

the accused could not secure any job for him and also did not pay the

said sum of Rs.45,000/- to PW6. Inspector Tista Halder under whose

leadership pre-trap activities were conducted in presence of the witnesses

and pre-trap memorandum was prepared deposed during trial as PW7. It

is found from her evidence that she sprinkled phenolphthalein powder on

the currency notes of Rs.1000/- denomination which were brought by the

defacto complainant. Then she demonstrated the witnesses that as soon

as she washed her hands after sprinkling and mixing phenolphthalein

powder on the currency notes, the water turned to pink. She also

instructed witness Biswajit Nandy to make a sign by scratching his head

with both hands as soon as the accused would receive the money on

demand.

12. PW8 Chandan Kr. Basak is a retired Manager (Operation), Airport

Authority of India, NSCBI Airport, Kolkata. On 11th March, 2011 he was

posted at the same place under same designation. On 11th March, 2011

the Officers attached to CBI seized original attendance register of accused

Bablu Karmakar during the period between 1st January, 2011 to 11th

March, 2011, duty register for the period from 6th March, 2011 to 2nd

April, 2011. Service Book of the said Bablu Karmakar, the aforesaid

documents were handed over by Mr. J.K Goel, Joint General Manager

(H.R), CBI by a forwarding letter (Exhibit-12) signature of the witness at

page 25 of the attendance register dated 11th March, 2011 was marked as

Exhibit-13. Exhibit-14 is the duty roster of the accused for the period

between 6th March, 2011 to 2nd April, 2011. All these documents prove

that the accused was on his official duty on 11th March, 2011.

13. PW9, a Junior Scientific Officer of CFSL Kolkata examined the

sealed bottles containing water mixed with phenolphthalein powder.

During the period between 20th April, 2011 to 9th May, 2011 he prepared

a forensic examination and submitted his report (Exhibit-15). PW10 is

Subhrendu Gangapadhyay is a SI of Police attached to CBI. On 11th

March, 2011 he along with other officers and independent witnesses and

the defacto complainant laid trap to work out the allegation made by the

defacto complainant in respect of demanding illegal gratification by the

accused. He corroborated the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3. The

accused was apprehended by him, seizure of a sum of Rs.5000/- and

other post-trap invites were conducted by PW10 in presence of other

witnesses.

14. PW11 Vivek Kr. Sharma was posted as Junior Executive (H.R) in

the office of the Airport Authority of India at New Delhi. He has proved

and identified the original service book of accused Bablu Karmakar,

personal file of the said accused, attendance register of the accused at the

relevant point of time during trial of the case.

15. PW12 S.K Murmu is the Investigating Officer of this case.

16. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that even if it is proved

by the prosecution that some amount of money was recovered from the

possession of the appellant, such recovery of money is not sufficient

enough to prove the prosecution case of taking bribe by the appellant. The

prosecution must establish demand of gratification and such demand of

gratification must be established by convincing evidence. The

presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act would

be applicable under what circumstances and background has been laid

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Narsinga Rao vs. State of A.P :

2001 SCC (Cri) 258 the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the

said Act cannot overwrite the cardinal principle that the prosecution has

to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no need of proving

the defence case and it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case

beyond all reasonable doubt. If the appellant can establish doubt or

suspicion on the prosecution case relating to demand of bribe and taking

of bribe that would be sufficient.

17. Relying on the principles laid down in Suraj Mal vs. State (Delhi

Administration) : AIR 1979 SC 1408, it is submitted by the learned

Advocate for the appellant that mere recovery of money from the accused

is not sufficient. Where the witnesses make two inconsistent statements

in their evidence either at one stage or at the other, the testimony of such

witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy.

18. Coming to the instant case it is submitted by the learned Advocate

for the appellant that the independent trap witnesses are shown in the

charge-sheet as the most vital witnesses on behalf of the prosecution.

However, from the witnesses of the said two independent witnesses being

PW2 and PW3, it appears that they are the stock witnesses of CBI. They

attended number of raids conducted by the CBI previous to the raid

conducted on 11th March, 2011 to nab the accused. Therefore, it is not

safe for the prosecution to believe and rely on the evidence of the said two

independent witnesses. In support of his argument the learned Advocate

for the appellant also refers to a decision of this Court in Shri. Arya

Chowdhury vs. the State through CBI reported in (2006) 2 CLJ (Cal)

310. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that there

were serious contradictions and improbabilities in the evidence of the

witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. It is found from the evidence on

record that the accused was previously known by the defacto

complainant. One Rana Indu introduced them. The defacto complainant

met the appellant even prior to 11th March, 2011 for more than ones.

Thus, when a person who is previously acquainted with the defacto

complainant demand money from him, and the amount being small, it is

unexpected that the defacto complainant who advances money to the

appellant paid illegal gratification to him.

19. Referring to a Three Judges Bench decision of the Apex Court in B.

Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh : (2014) 13 SCC 55. It is

submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that in order to prove

a charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is the

bounden duty of the prosecution to prove demand of illegal gratification.

In the instant case there is no evidence whatsoever that the appellant

demanded the said sum of Rs.5000/- towards illegal gratification for

ensuring a job of the son of the defacto complainant. Mere recovery of

currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is

proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted

the money knowingly it to be a bribe. On the same principle the learned

Advocate for the appellant has placed reliance on the following judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

(i) Krishan Chander vs. State of Delhi : AIR 2016 SC

(ii) Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of Punjab : (2017) 8 SCC

(iii) P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of

Police, State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. : (2015) 10

SCC 152.

(iv) Selvaraj vs. State of Karnataka : (2015) 10 SCC 230.

20. To conclude it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the

appellant that the trial court relied on heavily upon the evidence of PW2

and PW3 who were associated in conduct of raid for recovery of tainted

money from the appellant as independent witnesses but the said two

witnesses cannot be termed as independent because they are the stock

witnesses of the prosecution. They were engaged in number of raids as

trap witnesses by the CBI. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence of PW2

and PW3 the accused ought not to have been convicted by the trial court.

In support of his contention the learned Advocate for the appellant relies

on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Som Parkash vs. State of

Punjab reported in AIR 1992 SC 665.

21. The learned P.P-in-Charge on the other hand, submits that the

defacto complainant clearly stated in his evidence that the accused

demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1 lakh from the defacto complainant.

The defacto complainant was not agreeable to pay the said sum and

immediately he lodged a written complaint in the local P.S. From the

evidence of the defacto complainant it is ascertained that the accused

instructed him to come to the terminal of NSCBI airport with the said sum

of Rs.5000/-. The defacto complainant went there being accompanied by

a team of CBI Officer and independent witnesses. All of them corroborated

the evidence of the defacto complainant. The tainted money was recovered

from the accused. Therefore, there is no ground to disbelieve the

prosecution case.

22. Coupled with the above evidence it is proved beyond any shadow of

doubt that a sum of Rs.5000/- in five currency notes of Rs.1000/-

denomination each was recovered from the accused. As the currency

notes contained phenolphthalein powder, the fingers of the accused were

dipped into a bowl of water and it turned pink. Moreover, the money

bag/purse of the appellant was also dipped into water and the water also

turned pink. No explanation has been given by the appellant why he

received the money and kept the same into his pocket. No suggestion was

also given to the witnesses that no money was received by the appellant.

Under such circumstances, the evidence adduced by the witnesses on

behalf of the prosecution cannot be held to be suspected. In support of

his contention the learned P.P-in-Charge refers to a decision of this Court

in Sarup Chand vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1987 SC 1441.

23. Reference has been made to another decision of the Supreme Court

in the case of Ramesh Kumar Gupta vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

reported in AIR 1995 SC 2121. On the question of corruption to the

evidence of the defects planning regarding demand and acceptance. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to held that the corruption need not

be direct it can be by way of circumstantial evidence also taking into

account of the surrounding circumstances, the learned Counsel for the

respondent invites this Court to affirm the judgment of conviction and

sentence passed by the trial court. On the same principle, the learned

Counsel for the respondent relies on another decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in A. Wati Ao vs. State of Manipur reported in 1996

CrLJ 403.

24. Having heard the learned Counsels for the appellant and

respondent and on careful perusal appreciation of entire evidence on

record both oral and documentary it is established beyond any shadow of

doubt that on 11th March, 2011 at about 11.15 am the defacto

complainant met the appellant on NSCBI Airport Terminal. From the

evidence of the defacto complainant it is further found that the accused

asked him as to whether he brought the money when the defacto

complainant replied in affirmative. The accused demanded the said money

and defacto complainant paid him a sum of Rs.5000/-. The said fact was

corroborated by PW2 and PW3. The question as to whether the receipt of

such amount is a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he

does not intent or do not in a position to do, in the instant case to secure

a permanent job for the son of the defacto complainant, is corroborated by

the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant and corroborated by him

in course of his evidence. The evidence of PW1 was also corroborated by

PW6 Rana Indu. PW6 introduced the defacto complainant with accused

Bablu Karmakar. It appears from his evidence that he arranged for job at

Airport Authority of India taking illegal gratification. PW6 also stated that

the appellant also took a sum of Rs.45,000/- from PW6 but did not return

the said money even on the date of his evidence. There is absolutely no

cross examination at this point. The appellant used to work as an

attendant in Housekeeping Department at Kolkata Airport. He used to

work as a sweeper. Thus, from the evidence of PW1 which was duly

corroborated by PW6 it is convincingly established that the accused

demanded illegal gratification for securing a job under Airport Authority of

India from the defacto complainant.

25. It is needless to say that once the accused accepted the gratification

from the complainant, it shall be presumed that the accused has accepted

the gratification as illegal remuneration. When the accused has failed in

his attend to rebut the illegal presumption, it shall be presumed unless

the contrary is proved, that there was a demand for taking illegal

gratification. Merely because there are minor contradictions, it cannot be

said that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond

all reasonable doubt. The learned Counsel for the appellant has raised

doubt about independent character of PW2 and PW3 on the ground that

they attended raid in other cases instituted by the CBI and they are the

stock witnesses of the CBI. Both the said witnesses are employees of

Eastern Railways. Assistance of the said two witnesses was called for by

CBI by a letter issued to the competent authority of the Eastern Railways.

The competent authority instructed the witnesses to attend CBI office on

11th March, 2011 accordingly they attended and witnesses pre-trap, trap

and post-trap incident. In all relevant documents they put their

signatures. Therefore, presence of PW2 and PW3 at a place of occurrence

where the appellant demanded money from the defacto complainant and

received the said money cannot be doubted. Their evidence also cannot be

thrown away on the ground that they were trap witnesses in some other

CBI cases.

26. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that on factual score, this

Court is not in a position to accept the ratio laid down by the Supreme

Court in B. Jayaraj (supra), Krishan Chander (supra), Mukhtiar Singh

(supra) and Selvaraj (supra) because in all the decisions the defacto

complainant could not adduce any evidence either because of his death or

because he was not available. In the instant case however, the defacto

complainant has been able to prove his case beyond any shadow of doubt.

27. The decision of this Court in Shri Arya Chowdhury (supra) is also

not applicable under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

28. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that by

adducing satisfactory, reliable and cogent evidence the prosecution was

able to prove that the appellant demanded and accepted illegal

gratification for securing a job of peon in NSCBI Airport for the son of the

defacto complainant. The prosecution has also been able to prove beyond

any shadow of doubt that the accused obtained for herself a pecuniary

advantage of Rs.5000/- by corrupt and illegal means and also by abusing

his position as a public servant and therefore he was rightly convicted for

the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section

13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

29. Considering the nature of offence and it is the fact to the society, I

am not inclined to alter the sentence passed by the trial court.

30. According, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal.

31. The appeal is dismissed on contest.

32. The appellant is directed to surrender before the trial court within

two weeks from the date of this judgment to suffer sentence.

33. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court below for

information and necessary action.

34. The appellant is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the judgment

affirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court

before the Apex Court of India.

35. The appellant be also informed that he is entitled to free legal aid

for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

36. Let a true copy of this judgment duly certified by the ACO of this

Court be handed over to the appellant free of cost.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)