Harish Tandon, J
The husband, being unsuccessful in the Trial Court, has filed an instant appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 7th September, 2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Re-designated) Court, Bankura in matrimonial suit no. 127 of 2014.
The aforementioned matrimonial suit was registered on the basis of an application filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 by the husband/appellant inter alia on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The said application proceeds that the parties were married according to Hindu rituals and rites on 3rd July, 2004 and continued to live together till the year 2012. The parties after the solemnization of marriage lived together and upon consummation a son is born on 3rd January, 2007 and the daughter is born on 6th November, 2009. It is alleged in the said application that since the beginning of the marriage the respondent was raising an issue relating to the lifestyle, food habits and the family affairs of the husband on the pretext that she has been brought up in an affluent family and the standard of the husband family is not commensurate with her family. It is further alleged that the husband communicated his intention to take her to the place of the posting as he is working in the Central Reserve Police Force but she never accepted the same. The plaint further proceeds that as an when the husband used to come in his house, the wife/respondent misbehaved and treated him as well as his old parents so badly which is unbecoming of a wife. It is disclosed in the said petition that on 27.05.2012 at around 1:30 hours, the parents, uncles and the other peoples including the brother of the wife forcibly entered into the parental house of the petitioner and assaulted the parents and took away all the gold ornaments as well as the cash from the almirah. It is further alleged that in course of the aforesaid action the father of the husband was attacked by the Lathi and Tangi (blunt side) which causes severe injuries to him resulting into a loss of his right eye. Immediately thereafter an FIR is lodged by the wife under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code including Section 498A and 307 by the father of the wife and the family members of the husband was arrested by the police and later on released on bail. The husband has further pleaded that he was not in the village at the time of the alleged incident which is out and out false yet he was impleaded in the case so registered under the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code which tantamount to mental stress and agony amounting to a cruelty within the provisions of Section 13 (1)(ia) of the said Act.
On the other hand, the wife contends that they were married after negotiation amongst the parents and the family members on 3.7.2005 and a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs with 35 bhories of gold ornament, a Bajaj motorcycle and other household articles were given in dowry but there was a further demand of dowry from the in-laws. She further contended that despite such torture being perpetuated on account of dowry she continued to live in her in-laws’ house and a male child was born on 03.01.2007 in her father’s house. She further stated she was compelled to sign on a blank paper that in the event any casualty happened, they will not be responsible for the same. The defence case further proceeds that even after the birth of a male child there was a constant pressure from the in-laws to bear all the expenditure including the medical expenses. She further alleged that she was compelled to do all domestic work since 4 a.m. till 11 p.m. in the night even during the aforesaid pregnancy and in the midst of such miseries another female child was born on 06.11.2009. It is further stated that custody of the son was taken from her and sent to the house of the sister of the husband so that the son who has grown up and acquired the sense of the reality may not be able to know about the same. The serious allegation that she was administered poison on 27.1.2012 is also disclosed in the written statement and the aforesaid criminal case having registered is also disclosed. On the conspectus of the aforesaid facts pleaded by the respective parties, the trial was commenced after framing 5 issues. In the Examination-in-Chief the husband reiterated the pleadings made in the said application under Section 13 of the said Act and mainly highlighted the incident allegedly happened on 27.5.2012. The father of the husband/appellant was cited as a second witness mainly for the purpose of proving the incident allegedly happened on 27.5.2012 and certain disclosure in the cross-examination shall be dealt with by us in the later portion of the judgment. The wife deposed in-chief vividly narrating the facts pleaded in her written statement and denied the suggestion that any incident happened on 27.5.2012 even the brother of the wife who was cited as a second witness in support of the defence also denied any such event but corroborated the stand of the wife that she was subjected to torture on account of dowry and was also administered poison with an intent to kill her.
It would be pertinent to record that though the parties adduced oral evidence but there was no documentary evidence produced by their respective parties. Even the complaint or the FIR alleged to have been lodged were not tendered to be received in evidence. In the backdrop of the above, the Trial Court proceeded to decide the said case on the basis of an oral evidence and ultimately did not find that the husband has been able to prove the ground of cruelty and dismissed the said matrimonial suit. During the pendency of the appeal, the criminal case registered at the behest of the father of the wife primarily under Section 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code is decided by the Sessions Judge, acquitting all the accused. An application in the form of an expeditious disposal of the appeal with the copy of the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge came to be filed by the husband which was treated by the Co-ordinate Bench to be an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the leave was granted to file a supplementary affidavit to incorporate such prayer which in fact, has been done. The wife filed an affidavit-in-opposition of the said application and a reply thereto is also filed by the husband which is taken on record. Since the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adducing an additional evidence is required to be heard along with the appeal, an order was passed to that effect and the counsels for the respective parties were invited to address the Court on all issues including the application for seeking additional evidence.
The Counsel for the appellant/husband mainly concentrated his argument on an application under order XLI Rule 27 of CPC for production of the additional evidence and vociferously submits that the dismissal of a criminal proceedings under Section 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code on the premise that the false allegation was made would constitute a cruelty. It is further submitted that the Court is not denuded of its power to take note of a subsequent event by way of additional evidence as a cruelty contemplated under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the said Act should not be determined on the incident prior to the institution of the matrimonial proceeding but being the continuing one, the Court can pass a decree taking note of a subsequent event if such event comes within the purview of the cruelty under the aforesaid provision. The counsel for the appellant relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in case of K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226 in support of his contention that incarceration of the husband and/or his family members on the basis of a false complaint tantamount to cruelty as postulated in the said Act and therefore, the Court should proceed to dissolve the marriage on such ground. It is arduously submitted that there is no fetter on the part of the High Court to take note of the fact that the emotional bond has shattered between the parties and the marriage has irretrievably broken down and therefore it would not be appropriate to compel the parties to remain in matrimonial tie and Court taking into account the aforesaid fact may grant a decree for divorce and placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in case of Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511.
The judgment of the Apex Court in Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 558 is relied upon by the counsel for the appellant for the proposition that adjudicating and/or determining the case of the divorce even if the grounds mentioned in the relevant statute may not be proved to the whole yet the Court cannot ignore the breakdown theory when the parties have lost all their bonding for a pretty long time and it would be a mere futile exercise to compel the parties to continue in such relationship. Lastly, unreported judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Jharna Mandal vs. Prashant Kumar Mandal (FA 25 of 2010 decided on 31st March, 2023) is cited on the proposition that if the parties have been living separately for a considerable period of time and it appears that such relation is beyond the scope of repair, the High Court can pass a decree for divorce on such ground. On the other hand, the Counsel for the wife/respondent contends that she had showed her intention to live together despite having suffered ill-treatment, misbehaviour and torture and does not want to wriggle out of such matrimonial tie. It is further submitted that the husband miserably failed to prove the allegation of cruelty pleaded in the application which would further be reflected from the findings returned by the Trial Court while dismissing the said matrimonial suit. On the question of dismissal of the criminal session’s case registered primarily under Section 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, it is submitted that mere acquittal cannot be construed as a complaint to be false and therefore, the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the appellant has no manner of applicability in the instant case. It is further submitted that the proceeding of a criminal trial is in the hand of the prosecution and therefore, any failure on their part should not adversely affect the wife on the score that such complaint was false. It is fairly submitted that till date his client that is the wife has not challenged the said order passed by the Sessions Court before the Court of appeal. It is arduously submitted that the son of the parties have been taken from the custody of the wife and in fact is residing in the house of the sister of the husband which itself shows that the husband has committed an act of cruelty. Lastly it is submitted that there is no financial support given to his client nor to the daughter who is admittedly residing with her. Undeniably, there is no documentary evidence produced by the parties either in relation to a proceeding under Section 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code nor any complaint having lodged alleging the perpetration of a cruelty nor commission of an alleged offence on the basis of a complaint lodged on 25.07.2012.
Before we proceed to deal with the respective pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties as well as the additional evidence sought to be produced in the instant appeal, we feel to recapitulate the concept of cruelty in the perspective of a matrimonial dispute for the purpose of granting decree for dissolution of marriage. Admittedly, the cruelty is not defined under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, though is one of the grounds on which the decree for dissolution of marriage may be granted by the Court. In the absence of any definite definition of cruelty under the said Act, it is a consistent view that because of the complexity having a varied form, it would not be safe to either define it or bring it within a straight-jacket formula. Consistent attempt have been made in the judicial parlance to evaluate the concept of cruelty through a judicial process which largely depends on the various factors to be applied on a case to case basis. The concept of cruelty is an evolving process and brings radical changes on the changing of behavioural pattern of the society due to advancement of education, standard of living and adaptation of the various notions influenced by the society. All the judgments are uniform in understanding the concept of cruelty both on the basis of an Indian and European concept in the perspective of a matrimonial disputes that an act of cruelty can be perceived from the wilful and the unjustifiable conduct or the character of the person in matrimonial institution causing danger to the life limb or health, bodily or mentally giving rise to a reasonable apprehension in their mind that living under the same roof may cause danger and be harmful.
Lord Denning in Kaslefsky vs. Kaslefsky, reported in (1950) 2 All England Report 398 made a critical analysis on the concept of cruelty and an attempt of the Judges in advancing the same giving a wider meaning to it in the following:
“If the door of cruelty were opened too wide, we should soon find ourselves granting divorce for incompatibility of temperament. This is an easy path to tread, especially in undefended cases. The temptation must be resisted lest we slip into a state of affairs where the institution of marriage itself is imperilled.”
In Naveen Kohli (supra) the Apex Court extensively elaborated the concept of cruelty in the Indian perspective and held that it is to be understood in the ordinary sense in the matrimonial affairs. It is further held that the intention to harm, harass or hurt the other spouse could be inferred by nature of conduct or brutal act complained of with the rider that the absence of intention should not make any difference in the case . The unintentional act which may be construed as an incident of cruelty may still come within its ambit if it is inexcusable. The cruelty which is of varied form has an element of human behaviour or touched mindset of the society or the family more particularly, in case of a mental cruelty. There is a possibility of a direct evidence when a physical cruelty is alleged but the complexities are based in relation to a mental cruelty. It is largely a statement and the feeling of one spouse towards the other on the behaviour or the treatment causing an agony or stress inculcating the sense of torture of limb, life and/or body to remain in the matrimonial institution. It is an ardent duty of the Court to draw an inference on the basis of the facts pleaded and the safeguard should be taken when a single instance of cruelty is pleaded and/or proved on the parameter of the questions whether such instance itself causes a mental cruelty percolating a sense of danger and harm to remain in such institution. The safest course is to take a stock of the facts and the circumstances and the evidence adduced by the parties in order to draw a fair inference whether the same constitutes cruelty. The intention of the legislation vividly reflects that an attempt or encouragement should be made to save the family and reunite the parties who have fallen apart on a trivial issue. It admits more importance when the children are born of the union of the parties and the separation would immensely affect them. By passage of time an advancement of the mindset of the people of the society, the concept of break down theory where the parties have lost all the emotional bonding and the relation remained a deadwood incapable of being repaired or resuscitated. In Naveen Kohli (supra) the Apex Court after taking stock of the attempt having made in the different countries expressed on the basis of the Law Commission Report in the following:
“78. The other majority view, which is shared by most jurists, according to the Law Commission Report, is that human life has a short span and situations causing misery cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. A halt has to be called at some stage. Law cannot turn a blind eye to such situations, nor can it decline to give adequate response to the necessities arising thereform.”
We cannot lose sight of the fact that despite the recommendation of the Law Commission, the irretrievable breakdown in the matrimonial relationship has not been incorporated as a ground for divorce. There are catena of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in accepting the break down theory to grant a divorce in exercise of the power enshrined under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid power is conferred upon the Supreme Court; and the High court being a Constitutional Court was not bestowed with such power and the question often comes for consideration whether those can be taken into account while considering a case of such nature by the High Court. Though it is sought to be contended by the Counsel for the appellant that the judgment rendered in Naveen Kohli (supra) is a declaration of law within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution but we do not find the same as the granting of divorce on a break down theory is an exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution. Even if we are unison we concur with the concept of a break down theory as there is no provision in any of the matrimonial laws which compel the party to consummate the marriage. The divorce can only be granted by the Civil Court as well as the High Court only on the grounds envisaged in the statute the said break down theory can be taken into account conjointly with the element of cruelty the moment the Court found the relationship has reached to beyond repair. The relationship has wrecked beyond the hope of any respite or salvage but the same has to be considered in juxtaposition with the instances of cruelty pleaded and proved by the parties. In support of the aforesaid contention the enlightening observation of the Supreme Court in case of V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat can be gainfully applied in the following:
“21. Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to append a clarification. Merely because there are allegations and counter-allegations, a decree of divorce cannot follow. Nor is mere delay in disposal of the divorce proceedings by itself a ground. There must be really some extraordinary features to warrant grant of divorce on the basis of pleadings (and other admitted material) without a full trial. Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is not a ground by itself. But while scrutinising the evidence on record to determine whether the ground(s) alleged is/are made out and in determining the relief to be granted, the said circumstance can certainly be resorted to only to clear up an insoluble mess, when the court finds it in the interest of both the parties.”
In Samar Ghosh (supra), the Apex Court has attempted to give certain instances which may constitute mental cruelty in the matrimonial cases in the following:
“101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty". The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive:
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and d neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment e calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(vii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.”
In an unreported judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jharna Mandal (supra) the Co-ordinate Bench has highlighted the instances of long separation and unwillingness of the parties to live together as one of the ingredients to ascertain the cruelty to have been perpetrated in the following:
“Long separation, mental and physical torture, unwillingness of party to live together, has left no scope to repair their marital bond. In such condition the marriage has become a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties which may lead to mental cruelty. So the denial to grant a decree of divorce would be disastrous for the parties. In our opinion, wisdom lies in accepting the pragmatic reality of life and takes a decision which would ultimately be conducive in the interest of both the parties.”
On the enunciation of law as above let us see whether husband/appellant has been able to a case which may constitute cruelty for the purpose of granting decree for divorce against the wife/respondent. As indicted above, the parties adduced oral evidence in support of their respective pleadings and did not produce any other documentary evidence and, therefore, the Trial Court proceeded to decide the case based on oath versus oath and to find out whose evidence is most trustworthy. The Trial Court held that there is no evidence forthcoming from the husband/appellant that the wife voluntarily left the home without any reasonable cause and refused to come back which may be terms as a desertion. We also do not find any evidence with regard to the desertion nor we find that any of the Counsels before us has argued on such ground. The Trial Court did not found the husband/appellant to be a trustworthy witness as he was consistent in his pleading and the deposition that the wife refuses to go with him at the place of his posting rather it is found from the evidence that after the solemnisation of the marriage the wife/respondent went to Delhi at the place of his service and remained there for few months and during such period the conjugal life was normal. The Trial Court held that the allegation of the husband that since after the solemnisation of the marriage the wife treated him indifferently and projected the rude and rough behaviour does not instil the confidence in view of the conflicting stand in the evidence. So far as the allegation as to physical assault on the members of the family on 27.5.2012 is concerned there was no document produced in support of the same though it has been argued that an FIR is lodged and the case is pending. Probably the Counsel for the appellant relies such lacunae and, therefore, did not argue on the above aspect and mainly restricted his argument on an additional evidence to be adduced on a subsequent event that during the pendency of an appeal the criminal case registered primarily under Section 498A and 307 of the IPC has been decided acquitting all the family members of the husband and the same can be treated as a cruelty. It admits no ambiguity that making a false allegation and lodging an FIR and acquittal before the Session Trial may constitute a cruelty as held by the Apex Court in K. Srinivas and K. Sunita, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 34 in the following:
“5. The respondent wife has admitted in her cross-examination that she did not mention all the incidents on which her complaint is predicated in her statement under Section 161 CrPC. It is not her case that she had actually narrated all these facts to the investigating officer, but that he had neglected to mention them. This, it seems to us, is clearly indicative of the fact that the criminal complaint was a contrived afterthought. We affirm the view of the High Court that the criminal complaint was “ill advised”. Adding thereto is the factor that the High Court had been informed of the acquittal of the appellant husband and members of his family. In these circumstances, the High Court ought to have concluded that the respondent wife knowingly and intentionally filed a false complaint, calculated to embarrass and incarcerate the appellant and seven members of his family and that such conduct unquestionably constitutes cruelty as postulated in Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
In the said judgment the Apex Court has held that there is no obstacle in taking into account the subsequent event at the time of deciding the case and the support to this regard can be taken to the observations made in paragraph 6 of the above noted report which runs thus:
“6. Another argument which has been articulated on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the filing of the criminal complaint has not been pleaded in the petition itself. As we see it, the criminal complaint was filed by the wife after filing of the husband”s divorce petition, and being subsequent events could have been looked into by the court. In any event, both the parties were fully aware of this facet of cruelty which was allegedly suffered by the husband. When evidence was led, as also when arguments were addressed, objection had not been raised on behalf of the respondent wife that this aspect of cruelty was beyond the pleadings. We are, therefore, not impressed by this argument raised on her behalf.”
There is no denial on the part of the wife/respondent in affidavit-in-opposition filed to an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code that the Session case primarily instituted under Section 498A and 307 of the IPC has been finally decided acquitting the accused therein. The Court may permit the parties to adduced additional evidence necessitated by the subsequent event in order to set at rest the disputes finally. Admittedly the Session case was pending at the time the matrimonial suit was decided finally and, therefore, there was no occasion on the part of the Trial Court to decide the said issued as the matter was sub judice. In absence of any denial nor a plea has been taken that the photocopy of the certified copy of the judgement rendered in the Session case to be in germained and/or incorrect, we do not find any difficulty in taking note of the same being a subsequent event. Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code contained the exhaustive instances relating to a permission to be granted to adduce an additional evidence. The said provision further postulates that the Court can take into account the additional evidence if the Court finds it necessary for pronouncement for complete and effective judgment on the issues involved in the said proceedings. The Court must encourage the litigation to be decided on all facts and parameters discerned in course of the proceedings and if the incidents are necessitated with the subsequent event the Court should take into account the same to set at rest the disputes finally. This Court does not find any impediment in taking the additional evidence itself when the document so relied upon is undisputed and uncontroverted. Both the Counsels have advanced the argument on the plea of false allegation in a Session Trial case. According to the Counsel for the wife mere acquittal does not ipso facto lead to an inescapable conclusion that the allegation being the foundation of the registration of the criminal case is false. A plea is sought to be taken the criminal trials are conducted by the State as a prosecutor and there is hardly any role of the complainant in the carriage of the proceedings. Even if we accept the aforesaid stand so taken it does not absolve the complainant to challenge the order of Session Judge before the Court of Appeal it is a specific stand of the wife/respondent that she has chosen not to assail the said order before the Court of Appeal and we further find that the judgement of the Session Trial passed on 5th October, 2021 though capable of being challenged before the Court of Appeal has not been so challenged and the limitation has also intervened in the meantime. We are conscious of the proposition of law that the findings made in the criminal trial may not bind upon the Civil Court because of the difference in the decision making process. The criminal cases are decided on the parameter of the proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas the civil proceedings are decided on the preponderance of probabilities. We also do not find any difficulty in taking into account the findings for a limited purpose of ascertaining whether it is a false complaint. It appears that the wife/respondent could not prove the incident happened on 25.7.2017 and there is a disparity in her evidence with regard to alleged commission of offence on a particular date. We cannot overlook the fact that pursuant to the said complaint lodged by the father of the respondent/wife the family of the husband/appellant was taken into custody and incarcerated for a considerable period of time until they were released on bail. Such an act constitutes a cruelty as the wife was unable to substantiate such allegation. Any unsubstantiated allegation which resulted into setting the criminal law in motion and which was ultimately found to have not proved not only causes the mental agony or stress but have also impact the matrimonial relationship causing a danger of life, health or body which is one of the facets of the cruelty. In the instant case the family members of the husband/appellants was taken into custody on the basis of such unsubstantiated allegation and remained incarcerated for a considerable period of time until released on bail which itself constitute a cruelty. In such view of the matter we allow the application for additional evidence and taken the judgment of the Criminal Court as an additional evidence being the undisputed document.
On the basis of the findings made hereinabove the judgment of the Trial Court cannot be sustained. The same is hereby set aside.
The Matrimonial suit no. 127 of 2014 is hereby allowed.
The appellant is entitled to a decree of divorced on the ground of cruelty. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent is dissolved by a decree of dissolution under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Indian Penal Code.
The appeal and applications are thus disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be made available to the parties subject to compliance with the requisites formalities.
