Chand Mal and Others vs State of Rajasthan

R.S. Chauhan, J.—Aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.7.2008, the appellants, Chand Mal and Bhagchand have filed two separate appeals before this court. While Chand Mal has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 777/2008, Bhagchand, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 778/2008. However, as both the appeals emanate from the same impugned judgment, they are being decided by this common judgment.

By the said judgment Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Tonk, had convicted Chand Mal for offences under Sections 302 and 394 IPC. For offence under Section 302 IPC he has been sentenced to life imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, and further directed to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof. For offence under Section 394 IPC he has also been sentenced to life imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, and directed to further undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof. It was directed that both these sentences would run concurrently.

On the other hand, the appellant, Bhagchand has been convicted only for offence under Section 411 IPC; he has been sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, and directed to further undergo three months of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.

Briefly the facts of the case are that on 12.9.2007, at 9:55 PM, Mahaveer (P.W.4) submitted a written report (Ex. P.15) before the S.H.O., Police Station Deoli. The said report when translated into English, reads as under:--

To

The S.H.O., Police Station Deoli.

Sub.: For the purpose of registering a report and for initiating legal proceedings:

Sir,

In reference to the above subject, it is to submit that on 12.9.2007 my mother Barji Devi, wife of Devaram Raigar, aged 60 years, had gone to work in the fields. Around 2:00 PM I had also gone to the fields to collect fodder. At that time my mother was working in the field. Having collected the fodder, I came back home. Every day my mother would come back home between 5:00 to 6:00 PM. But despite the fact that darkness had fallen, my mother did not return to our house. Therefore, I went to the fields to look for her. Although I found a pile of fodder and a dantli (sickle) lying there, but I could not locate her. Since it was already dark, I came back home and told the villagers that my mother had not come back. Taking eight to ten persons with me, around 8:30 PM we all went to the fields to look for her. All of us searched for her. We found the dead body of my mother lying in the crop of Bajra (a rough food grain). Her throat was slit and both her hands, having been amputated, were lying beside her. The silver bracelets of both the hands were missing. Her other jewellery was also missing. I can recognise these jewellery pieces. Some killers have killed my mother, and have taken away her jewellery. Therefore, I am submitting this report for initiating legal action."

On the basis of this report (Ex. P.15), the Police Station Deoli registered a FIR (Ex. P.21), namely FIR No. 295/2007 for offences under Sections 302 and 394 IPC; it started the investigation. During the course of the investigation, on 14.9.2007, the police arrested Chand Mal. During his police custody, on 17.9.2007, Chand Mal made a statement (Ex. P.20) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, wherein he claimed that on 12.9.2007 he had sold two silver bracelets to Bhagchand Agrawal, who runs a jewellery shop in the Patwa Bazaar. Therefore, he could take the police to the said shop and get the two silver bracelets recovered. Upon this information, by recovery memo (Ex. P.11), two silver bracelets were recovered from Bhagchand''s shop. Therefore, on 18.9.2007, the police also arrested Bhagchand. Subsequently, after completing the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet for offences under Sections 302 and 394 IPC against Chand Mal, and submitted a charge-sheet for offence under Section 411 IPC against Bhagchand, before the Judicial Magistrate Deoli. The learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to Sessions Judge, Tonk. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the learned Judge. The learned Judge framed charges for offences under Sections 302 and 394 IPC against Chand Mal, and a charge for offence under Section 411 IPC against Bhagchand. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses, and submitted forty-one documents. The defence did not examine any witness, but did submit four documents. After completing the trial, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Hence, these two appeals before this court.

In order to bring home the charges under Sections 302 and 394 IPC against Chand Mal, the prosecution has produced the following pieces of evidence against the appellants. Against Chand Mal the prosecution has submitted evidence of the last seen through Mahaveer (P.W.4) and Smt. Phoola (P.W.7). Secondly, in order to prove the homicidal death of Barji Devi, the prosecution has examined Satya Narayan (P.W.3) and Dr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta (P.W.11). Thirdly, it has proven the recovery of the blood stained sickle through Prem Chand (P.W.1), Shivraj (P.W.2) and Ramesh Chand (P.W.12) the ASI, Police Station Deoli, the Investigation Officer of the case. Fourthly, it has produced the evidence of the recovery of the silver bracelets through Ramesh Chand (P.W.12) and the recovery witnesses Prem Chand (P.W.1) and Shivraj (P.W.2). Lastly, it has produced the FSL report (Ex. P.41) in order to establish that the blouse, the ghagra (the petticoat), the loogri (a sari like cloth which is wrapped around the body), the blood stained sickle, and the Pant and Shirt belonging to Chand Mal, all had blood group ''B'' upon them. Therefore, according to the prosecution, it had submitted cogent and convincing evidence which unerringly points towards the guilt of both the accused.

Mr. Moinuddin, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, the case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. Yet, the prosecution has not submitted a complete chain of circumstances which would unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused persons. Even if the prosecution case were to be accepted on its face value, even then the offences under Sections 302, 394 and 411 IPC have not been established by the prosecution.

Secondly, the evidence of last seen is extremely weak sort of evidence. Since Barji Devi, the deceased, and Chand Mal belong to the same family, and were engaged in agricultural activities, Chand Mal''s presence in the field on the fateful day is not unnatural. Therefore, even if he were seen by Mahaveer (P.W.4) and by Smt. Phoola (P.W.7) at the field, there is nothing unusual about his presence. But, merely his presence in the field would not lead to an inference that it is he who had killed Barji Devi.

Thirdly, even if the recovery of the blood stained sickle were accepted, for the sake of argument, even then the said recovery does not connect Chand Mal to the alleged crime. Despite the fact that according to the FSL report (Ex. P.41) there is a presence of blood group ''B'' on the clothes of the deceased, the clothes of the accused and on the sickle, but even then, this does not establish the case of the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. For, the prosecution has not eliminated the possibility that the blood group ''B'' could belong to the accused himself. In order to buttress the argument that it is the duty of the prosecution to eliminate such possibility, the learned counsel has relied on the case of Prakash v. State of Karnataka [(2014) 12 SCC 133].

Fourthly, the recovery of silver bracelets, as claimed by the prosecution, is an unreliable piece of evidence. For, the statement (Ex. P.20) made by Chand Mal under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, has not been made before two independent witnesses, but has been made only before the police. Therefore, this recovery is unreliable. In order to buttress this argument, the learned counsel has relied on the case of Nand Lal v. State of Rajasthan [D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 1150/2006 decided by this court on 25.11.2014]. Furthermore, both Section 100(4) CrPC, and Rule 6.24 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, require that independent persons of the locality should be associated with the search and seizure. However, instead of associating independent witnesses, the recovery of the silver bracelets has been made in front of two witnesses, namely Shivraj (P.W.2) who is the son-in-law of the deceased, and Satya Narayan (P.W.3) who is the brother-in-law of the complainant. Thus, both the witnesses are not independent witnesses but are interested witnesses. Interestingly, the recovery was made --- from a shop in a bazaar, yet no independent witness was associated by the police. Furthermore, according to Shivraj (P.W.2) the recovery memo and other documents proved by him were all drawn up in the police station. Therefore, the recovery stands shattered.

Fifthly, the recovery of the silver bracelets also does not establish the offences of Sections 302 and 394 IPC against Chand Mal. For, the said recovery has not been made from the possession of Chand Mal but has been made from the possession of Bhagchand. Moreover, according to the accounts book (Ex. D.4) maintained by Bhagchand, Chand Mal had sold the silver bracelets to him on 1.9.2007, whereas the alleged murder had occurred on 13.9.2007. Therefore, the said jewellery was sold eleven days prior to the alleged murder.

Furthermore, the identification of the silver bracelets by Mahaveer (P.W.4) is shrouded in mistry. According to Mahaveer (P.W.4), the bracelets were made when he was a small boy. And on the date of his deposition, he was a 20 year old young man. Thus, the bracelets would have been worn out and old. However, the bracelets which have been produced in the court were brightly new. Moreover, according to his testimony, he claims that the bracelets were mixed with four other bracelets, whereas the Judl. Magistrate, Meena Agrawal (P.W.15) claims that three similar looking bracelets were mixed with the bracelets in question.

Sixthly, as far as Bhagchand is concerned, the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that he had any knowledge, or information that the jewellery sold by Chand Mal was a stolen property. Therefore, in absence of such evidence, Bhagchand could not be convicted for offence under Section 411 IPC.

On the other hand, Mr. Aladeen Khan, the learned Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Both, according to Mahaveer (P.W.4) and according to Smt. Phoola (P.W.7), when they had left Barji Devi, Chand Mal was sitting on the boundary wall. According to Smt. Phoola (P.W.7) there was no other person around at that time. Moreover, her dead body was found in the Bajra crop not too far away from where Chand Mal was seen sitting on the boundary wall. Therefore, the element of last seen is clearly proved. Secondly, it is upon his behest that the police had recovered a blood stained sickle, which was said to contain the blood group ''B'' --- the blood group of the deceased. Thirdly, on the information of Chand Mal two silver bracelets were recovered from Bhagchand''s shop. The silver bracelets were identified by Mahaveer (P.W.4) as belonging to his mother. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case.

Heard the learned counsel, perused the impugned judgment, and examined the record.

Undoubtedly, the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The rule governing appreciation of evidence in case based on circumstantial evidence is not only well known, but has also been recently reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Chanda Singh Vs. Ranbir Singh, (2014) AIRSCW 5537 . The Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed as under:--

"(1) ...Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ''may be'' and ''must be'' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

Therefore, these principles would have to be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence in the present case.

It is, indeed, trite to state that the prosecution has to cover the long distance between "may be true" and "must be true". Merely by flashing few pieces of evidence which are incomplete in their nature and scope, the prosecution does not succeed in establishing its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the prosecution succeeds in creating a strong suspicion against the accused, even then the accused cannot be convicted. For, convictions cannot be based on conjunctures or surmises, or on strong suspicion. The prosecution is required to prove its case through cogent and convincing evidence; each linking evidence has to form a chain which leads to the only conclusion that the crime could have been committed only by the accused person, or persons and by none other. [refer to Vijay Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2014) AIRSCW 5625

It is, indeed, trite to state that the evidence of last seen is a weak sort of evidence. In the case of Sahadevan and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2012 SC 2435 : (2012) CriLJ 3014 : (2012) 3 JCC 1756 : (2012) 2 RCR(Criminal) 899 : (2012) 5 SCALE 415 : (2012) 6 SCC 403 : (2012) AIRSCW 3206 the Hon''ble Supreme Court has summed up the principles with regard to the evidence of last seen as under:--

"30. With the development of law, the theory of last seen has become a definite tool in the hands of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. This concept is also accepted in various judgments of this Court. The Court has taken the consistent view that where the only circumstantial evidence taken resort to by the prosecution is that the accused and deceased were last seen together, it may raise suspicion but it is not independently sufficient to lead to a finding of guilt. In Arjun Marik and Others Vs. State of Bihar, (1994) 1 Crimes 777 : (1994) 2 JT 627 : (1994) 1 SCALE 821 : (1994) 2 SCC 372 Supp : (1994) 2 SCR 265 : (1994) 1 UJ 610 , this Court took the view that the where the Appellant was alleged to have gone to the house of one Sitaram in the evening of 19th July, 1985 and had stayed in the night at the house of deceased Sitaram, the evidence was very shaky and inconclusive. Even if it was accepted that they were there, it would, at best, amount to be the evidence of the Appellants having been last seen together with the deceased. The Court further observed that it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record a finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and therefore, no conviction, on that basis alone, can be founded.

Undoubtedly, the last seen theory is an important event in the chain of circumstances that would completely establish and/or could point to the guilt of the accused with some certainty. But this theory should be applied while taking into consideration the case of the prosecution in its entirety and keeping in mind the circumstances that precede and follow the point of being so last seen."

In Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) AIRSCW 1828 : (2014) CriLJ 1950 : (2014) 4 JT 165 : (2014) 2 RCR(Criminal) 180 : (2014) 3 SCALE 598 : (2014) 4 SCC 715 the Apex Court observed as under:--

"The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part of the Appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the Appellant."

According to Mahaveer (P.W.4), Chand Mal''s farm is adjacent to his farm. In the month of September, when the crops are high, it is not unusual for a farmer to look after his crop. In the afternoon when he had gone to his field, Mahaveer had met Chand Mal sitting on the boundary wall. He had not only spoken to him, but had even shared his lunch with his mother at the place where Chand Mal was sitting. According to Smt. Phoola (P.W.7), when she left the field, her elder sister-in-law (Jethani), Barji Devi was working in the field and Chand Mal was also there. However, considering the fact that Chand Mal''s field is next to Barji Devi''s, his presence is not unusual at 2:00 PM in the afternoon. Even his sitting on the boundary wall is not unusual. But, merely because he was seen there at 2:00 PM and the dead body was discovered at 8:30 PM, a conclusive inference cannot be drawn that Chand Mal has killed Barji Devi. Thus, the mere presence of Chand Mal in his field which is right next to the field of the deceased, would not necessarily connect him to the alleged crime.

Even if the recovery of sickle were to be believed, for the sake of argument, even then it does not connect the accused Chand Mal to the alleged offence. Although the prosecution has submitted the FSL report (Ex. P.41), although the FSL report does reveal the existence of blood group ''B'' on the sickle, but the prosecution has not eliminated the distinct possibility that the blood group ''B'' could be that of the accused himself. In the case of Prakash v. State of Karnataka [(2014) 12 SCC 133], the Hon''ble Apex Court has observed as under:--

"41. In any event, the recovery of the blood stained clothes of Prakash do not advance the case of the prosecution. The reason is that all that the prosecution sought to prove thereby is that the blood group of Gangamma was AB and the blood stains on Prakash''s seized clothes also belong to blood group AB. In our opinion, this does not lead to any conclusion that the blood stains on Prakash''s clothes were those of Gangamma''s blood. There are millions of people who have the blood group AB and it is quite possible that even Prakash had the blood group AB. In this context, it is important to mention that a blood sample was taken from Prakash and this was sent for examination. The report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory [Exh.P-27] was to the effect that the blood sample was decomposed and therefore its origin and grouping could not be determined. It is, therefore, quite possible that the blood stains on Prakash''s clothes were his own blood stains and that his blood group was also AB."

Similarly, blood group ''B'' is not so uncommon as not to belong to the accused. A possibility does exist that the accused belongs to blood group ''B''. The prosecution is required to eliminate this possibility. But it has failed to do so.

Section 100 CrPC is as under:--

"100. Persons in charge of closed place to allow search.

(1) Whenever any place liable to search or inspection under this Chapter is closed, any person residing in, or being in charge of, such place, shall, on demand of the officer or other person executing the warrant, and on production of the warrant, allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonable facilities for a search therein.

(2) If ingress into such place cannot be so obtained, the officer or other person executing the warrant may proceed in the manner provided by Sub-section (2) of section 47.

(3) Where any person in or about such place is reasonably suspected of concealing about his person any article for which search should be made, such person may be searched and if such person is a woman, the search shall be made by another woman with strict regard to decency.

(4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

(5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it.

(6) The occupant of the place searched, or some person in his behalf, shall, in every instance, be permitted to attend during the search, and a copy of the list prepared under this section, signed by the said witnesses, shall be delivered to such occupant or person.

(7) When any person is searched under Sub-section (3), a list of all things taken possession of shall be prepared, and a copy thereof shall be delivered to such person.

(8) Any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects to attend and witness a search under this section, when called upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him, shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 187 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

Rule 6.24 of the Police Rules is under:--

"Searches by police officers.--(1) The rules regarding searches by police officers are contained in sections 165 and 156, Code of Criminal Procedure. Notices of search under section 165, Criminal Procedure Code, summons to persons to witness search under section 103(1), Criminal Procedure Code, and search lists under section 103(2), Criminal Procedure Code, shall be prepared in Forms 6.24(1)(a), (b) and (c) respectively.

(2) An officer incharge of a police station receiving a requisition to search, under section 166, Code of Criminal Procedure, or other law applicable, shall comply without unnecessary delay and shall take all necessary precautions to ensure a successful search.

A police officer making such requisition may attend personally and assist in such search or may send one or more of his subordinates for that purpose.

(3) Circle officers supervising investigation and inspecting officers shall take disciplinary action against investigating officer who carry out searches under section 165, Code of Criminal Procedure, without sufficient justification."

A bare perusal of both the provisions clearly reveal that before making a search the police is required to associate two independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality, in which the search is to be made.

The recovery of silver bracelets is the linchpin which connects Chand Mal to Bhagchand. However, when any recovery is to be made on a statement given by the accused, the Investigating Agency is required, by law, to associate independent persons from the locality. However, instead of associating independent persons, the police has associated Shivraj (P.W.2), the son-in-law of the deceased, and Satya Narayan (P.W.3), the brother-in-law of the complainant Mahaveer. Thus, both the persons are interested witnesses and are not independent witnesses. Moreover, Satya Narayan (P.W.3) in his cross-examination clearly admits that Bhagchand''s shop was in the mid of the Bazaar and that there were lots of people in the Bazaar yet, surprisingly no independent witness has been associated with the recovery. However, the police has associated Shivraj (P.W.2) and Satya Narayan (P.W.3), both of whom are related to the deceased. Therefore, the police has circumvented the law and has associated those persons who would be interested in the success of the case. Therefore, the recovery is an unreliable one.

In the case of Nand Lal (supra), relying on the cases of Harjit Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 3040 : (2002) 3 Crimes 158 : (2002) 6 JT 123 : (2002) 5 SCALE 644 : (2002) 6 SCC 739 : (2002) 1 SCR 581 Supp : (2002) AIRSCW 3393 : (2002) 5 Supreme 378 and on the case of Rameshwar and Dinesh @ Pillu v. State of Rajasthan [D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 158/2010 decided on 10.11.2014] wherein one of us (Justice Ahluwalia) was a Member, it was held as under:--

"Having appreciated the evidence of the witness, it is to be noted that disclosure statement Ex-P/22 as made by Munesh is not attested by any witness what to say of any independent witness. Ex. P/22 is recorded on 31st July, 2006 at 11 P.M. It is only signed by SHO Police Station, Bhusawar Distt. Bharatpur. It was held in Harjit Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 3040 : (2002) 3 Crimes 158 : (2002) 6 JT 123 : (2002) 5 SCALE 644 : (2002) 6 SCC 739 : (2002) 1 SCR 581 Supp : (2002) AIRSCW 3393 : (2002) 5 Supreme 378 that disclosure statement should be signed by independent person and Investigating officer should not associate any eye witness with the recovery memos. In the present case, no witness was associated at the time when disclosure statement was made. It is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the disclosure statement was made voluntary without any duress or coercion. To justify voluntary character of disclosure statement, it ought to be recorded in the presence of witnesses, it is to be noted that Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is an exception to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act which says that nothing stated to police is admissible in evidence. Since Section 27 carve out an exception, it is necessary that prosecution must show some material to the Court to be satisfied that same was not fabricated, therefore, it is necessary that it should have been made in presence of some witnesses."

According to Satya Narayan (P.W.3), there was nothing unusual about the silver bracelets recovered from Bhagchand''s shop. There were other similar looking bracelets lying there. Most importantly, according to Shivraj (P.W.2), the recovery memo was made at the Police Station and the silver bracelets were equally sealed at the Police Station. Therefore, the recovery has not been made in accordance with law.

According to Mahaveer (P.W.4), the silver bracelets were made when he was a small child and he had seen his mother wear these bracelets for the last fifteen years. According to him, there were five pairs of silver bracelets, which were mixed together and the special thing about his mother''s bracelets was that it has flower carved upon it. Even if, for the sake of argument, the recovery is accepted, it would not lead to the conclusion that Chand Mal had committed the offence under Section 302 IPC or under Section 394 IPC. At worst, he could be held guilty for offence under Section 411 IPC. The accounts book maintained by Bhagchand creates a serious dent in the prosecution case. For, according to the said accounts book, Chand Mal had sold some jewellery to Bhagchand on 1.9.2007, but there is no accounts of Chand Mal selling any jewellery to Bhagchand on 12.9.2007. Although the learned Trial Court has written that accounts book (Ex. D.4) is a forged document by Bhagchand in order to protect his and Chand Mal''s skin, but such a conjecture, in the absence of any cogent evidence, cannot be drawn. The prosecution has not proven that the accounts book was not kept at seriatim, or that only this page of the accounts book was maintained while the other pages were left blank. Moreover, the logic given by the learned Judge that prior to buying the jewellery from Chand Mal, Bhagchand should have made an inquiry whether the jewellery was stolen or was genuinely belonging to Chand Mal, is too onerous a burden to be placed on a jeweler. Thus, as far as Bhagchand is concerned, there is no evidence to show that he either knew or had reason to believe that the pieces which were sold by Chand Mal on 1.9.2007, were stolen pieces.

Hence the prosecution has not been able to unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellants. Merely by creating a strong suspicion, prosecution does not cover the long distance between "may be true" and "must be true". Therefore, this court has no other option but to give the benefit of doubt to both the appellants.

For the reasons stated above, these appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment dated 22.7.2008 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. Accused appellants Chand Mal and Bhagchand are acquitted of the charges.

Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the appellants, namely Chand Mal and Bhagchand are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the trial court. The bond so furnished shall be effective for a period of six months. The bond shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment, or on grant of the leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon''ble Apex Court.