Babu Lal And Others vs State on 28 March, 2026

Allahabad High Court

Babu Lal And Others vs State on 28 March, 2026

Author: Siddharth

Bench: Siddharth

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

(Delivered by Jai Krishna Upadhyay, J)

SPONSORED

1. Heard Mr. Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Prem Shankar Prasad, learned AGA for the State, perused the material available on record and the judgment of the trial Court.

2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 25.08.1988 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in Sessions Trial No. 106 of 1987 (State vs. Babulal and others) u/s 302, 302/34 IPC, Police Station Khanpur, District – Ghazipur convicting and sentencing the appellant Babulal to undergo for Life Imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, and appellants Harilal, Shyam Bali @ Dukkhi and Shiv Adhar @ Amarnath to undergo for life imprisonment under section 302/34 IPC.

3. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant no. 1 Babulal died on 14.11.2011 and, therefore, appeal against him was abated on 6.11.2025.

4. The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 01.04.1986, the informant Vishram (R/o Sandal, P.S. Khanpur, District Ghazipur) went to the shop of Rajendra @ Chhedi carrying gram (chana) to exchange for tobacco. At the shop, Shayam Bali @ Dukkhi was already present. Vishram handed over 250 grams of gram (Chana) to Rajendras wife, who in turn provided him with 200 grams of tobacco.

When Vishram inquired about the prevailing price of gram (Chana), Shayam Bali @ Dukkhi intervened sharply, telling him not to ask about the rate and to simply go home. This led to a verbal altercation and a subsequent scuffle between them. Following the dispute, Shayam Bali left the scene, threatening Vishram that he would “teach him a lesson” later.

Approximately half an hour later, while Vishram was on the western side of the Kaliji Mandir talking to some villagers namely, Suddhu, Baijnath, and Gariban, the accused persons arrived at about 4:30 PM. The group of accused persons consisted of Shayam Bali @ Dukkhi, Harilal, Amarnath @ Shiv Adhar, Babulal, and Ballam. The accused were armed with weapons; Gadasa was in the hand of Babulal; Ballam was held by Harilal; Amarnath @ Shiv Adhar was carrying gun and Shyam Bali @ Dukkhi was armed with lathi. They began shouting abuses with the intent to kill Vishram. In the interim, Vishram’s brother, Sangram, arrived and requested the accused to leave; however, Babulal, challenged by Sangram’s presence, attacked him with the Gadasa, delivering a fatal blow to the back of Sangram’s head. As Sangram fell unconscious in the field of Manna, the other accused persons attempted to apprehend Vishram. Amarnath @ Shiv Adhar fired a shot into the air from his gun; out of fear, the witnesses did not intervene further. The accused persons then fled the place of occurrence while hurling abuses. The incident was witnessed by Baijnath and Gariban, as well as the informant. Following the assault, Vishram transported his injured and unconscious brother, Sangram, on a cot to the police station.

5. On the basis of his written report, on 01.04.1985 at about 04:30 pm, First Information Report bearing case crime no. 52/1986, under Section 307 IPC, was registered against the accused Babulal, Shayam Bali @ Dukkhi, Harilal and Shiv Adhar @ Amarnath at police station Khanpur, District Ghazipur.

6. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet which is Ex-Ka-10.

7. After taking cognizance, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge. The charge was framed under Section 302/34 IPC. All the accused denied the charges and claimed for trial.

8. So as to hold accused persons guilty, prosecution has examined seven witnesses. The incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the appellants while recording their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellants denied the incriminating circumstances that appeared in the prosecution evidence and claimed that they have been falsely implicated.

9. PW-1, Vishram, stated that about one and a half years ago, at around 4:30 p.m., he went to Rajendra Baniyas shop with gram (Chana) to buy tobacco. His gram (Chana) weighed 250 grams, and in exchange he was given 200 grams of tobacco. When he asked about the rate, Dukkhi (also called Shyambali), who was present there, told him not to question the rate and to leave. On his refusal, Dukkhi became angry, slapped him repeatedly, and threatened to kill him within half an hour. Thereafter, Dukkhi left for his village, and he also returned home.

He stated that on the same day, he went to the Kali temple situated east of his village, where he was sitting with Suddhu, Gariban, and Baijnath. At that time, the accused Babulal, Harilal, Shivdhar (also called Amarnath), and Dukkhi arrived there armed with weapons (gadasa, ballam, lathi, and gun) and abusing them. They shouted to kill him. Meanwhile, his brother Sangram reached the spot and requested the accused to go back, but they refused. Babulal then struck Sangram with a gadasa, giving two blows one on his head and one on his back due to which Sangram fell down at the spot. When they tried to chase the accused, Shivdhar fired a shot, due to which they stopped out of fear, and the accused escaped.

He stated that Sangram became unconscious at the spot. Laggan wrote a report on his dictation, which was read over to him and signed by him (Ext. Ka-1). Thereafter, he and others took Sangram to the police station and then to Saidpur Hospital. On the doctors advice, they took him to Sadar Hospital, Ghazipur, where the doctor declared Sangram dead at about 10 p.m.

He further stated that the post-mortem of Sangram was conducted the next morning, and the inquest report was prepared before that, bearing his signature (Ext. Ka-2). After the post-mortem, the dead body was handed over to him. He also stated that the police recorded his statement.

In his cross examination, he stated that he did not mention in the police report that Dukkhi had slapped him or that he had also struck Dukkhi, and instead only described the incident as a physical scuffle. He further stated that although Dukkhi had threatened to kill him within half an hour and he felt frightened, he still went alone to inspect his field. He stated that after the alleged threat, he first went to his field, stayed there for some time, and only thereafter reached the temple. He also stated that he was not sure whether the family members of Amardev and others were present at their respective houses at the relevant time. He further stated that he did not raise any alarm when Dukkhi allegedly assaulted him at the shop, even though other persons were present there.

10. PW-2, Suddhu, S/O veer, stated that the incident occurred about 1.5 years ago around 4:30 pm while he was at the Kali temple discussing agriculture with Gariban and Baijnath. He stated that the accused Harilal, Dukkhi, Babu Lal, and Amarnathapproached from the east carrying weapons, including a gun, Gadasa, Ballam, and Lathi. He stated that the accused were shouting abuses at Vishram, who fled, but when Sangram intervened to plead for peace, Harilal and Babu Lal attacked him. He stated that Babu Lal struck Sangram twice with a Gadasa, hitting him on the head and back, which caused Sangram to lose consciousness and fall in Mannas field. He stated that although he and his companions chased the accused, they stopped and returned to the temple after Shivdhar fired a gunshot. He further stated that he went straight home from the place of occurrence rather than to the police station, and he clarified that he holds no personal enmity against the accused. Finally, he stated that he later narrated the entire incident to the Sub-Inspector, who recorded his statement.

In his cross examination, regarding his relationship with the victims, he stated that while Vishram and Sangram are not his maternal cousins, they belong to his “clan” and he regards them as brothers. He further stated that he had been sitting at the temple since 3:00 PM on a summer day with no wind blowing, yet later corrected himself to say wind was blowing. He also stated that the Sub-Inspector took his statement at his home about 6 days after the incident. Furthermore, he stated that Vishram fled when the accused were still 4-5 latthas away and hidden behind a wall, yet afterwards, he claimed they chased the accused for 10-20 poles, a distance that seems improbable to maintain while also claiming that no one from his side hit the accused.He further stated that Sangram was hit with a Gadasa twice and about two logs (drops) of blood were shed.

11. PW-3, Lalchand is constable, who has stated that he was posted at PS Khanpur on 01-04-1986. On that day, on the basis of the written report of the informant, Vishram, he prepared Chick FIR No. 52/86 under Section 307 of the IPC in his own handwriting and signature which is Ex-ka-2.

He further stated that the formal case was registered in G.D. Report No. 25 at 17:50 hrs. on 01-04-1986. He brought the original G.D. with the carbon copy, which is Ex-Ka-3. Both the original and the carbon copy were prepared in his handwriting and signature.

He added that the amendment of the case was made on 02-04-86 at 19.00 hrs in report no. 19 under the supervision and signature of Vanshnarayan, Head Constable, The amendment converted the case to one under Section 302 IPC. He confirmed that he recognizes the handwriting and signature of H.C. Vanshnarayan Mishra, having seen him read and write.

In cross-examination, he denied that the FIR was registered with his advice. He also denied that when Mulaji Hari Lal and Shyamwati went to the police station to report, where they were detained and their report was not registered.

12. PW-4, Dr. R.C. Vishwakarma, Senior Paediatrician, District Hospital, Ghazipur stated that he was the Medical Officer of Sadar Hospital, Ghazipur. On that day, he conducted the post-mortem of the body of deceased Sangram Singh, son of Bunty Bind, resident of Janib Sadak, PS-Khanpur, District Ghazipur, at 3:00 PM. He mentioned that the body was brought and identified by Ramdev Yadav and Ram Bahadur Singh. The body was in a mutilated condition. He deposed that the following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased:

1. Incised wound 17cm x 2 cm, bone cavity at the back of the skull from left ear to 2.00 cm above right ear.

2. Incised wound 8 cm x 25 cm, skin deep, on the right side near wing bone, 6.00 cm below neck.

3. Contusion 2×1.00 cm on the right side of the back shoulder, 7.00 cm above injury no. 2.

The doctor explained that on internal examination, the skull bone was cut into two pieces and blood was coagulated from the brain membrane. A copy of the post-mortem report was sent to SP Ghazipur with 10 documents, and another to SO Kotwali along with a sealed bundle of cloth items, which was handed to a constable. He opined that the deceased died due to excessive bleeding and shock from ante-mortem injuries, likely inflicted around 4:00 PM on 01-04-1986. The report, marked as Ex. Ka-5, was prepared in his handwriting and signature. He added that injuries no. 1 and 2 could not result from the same blow, while injury 3 could be caused by a blunt object. He noted that there can be a difference of 4-5 hours in the duration of the injuries.

13. PW-6, Mathura Prasad Tiwari stated that he was posted as Sub-Inspector at Kotwali Police Station. On that day, he received a memo from Sadar Hospital, Ghazipur, informing him that Sangram had died and action should be taken. He mentioned that he arrived at Sadar Hospital on 02-04-1986 and took possession of body of Sangram, son of Bunty Bind, resident of Sandal, PS Khanpur, District Ghazipur. He assembled the Panches and then compiled the Panchayatnama. He prepared the Panchayatnama, map destruction, and challan destruction certificates as CMO. He confirmed that these documents are in his handwriting and signature, marked as Ex. Ka-2, Ex. Ka-3, Ex. Ka-4, and Ex. Ka-5 respectively. He further stated that the deceased’s blood-stained clothes were seized and stamped. Thereafter, the letter was sent to the RI, is also in his handwriting and signature, marked as Ex. Ka-6. He added that he stamped the body and sent it for postmortem through Constables Ramdev and Ram Bahadur Singh. He explained that the Panchanama was started at 9:15 AM. During the Panchanama, the corpse was examined thoroughly from side to side, and all visible injuries were recorded. The Panchayatnama was completed at 11:15 AM.

14. PW-7, M.P. Maurya stated that he was posted as Sub-Inspector at PS Baresar, District Ghazipur, and was in Khanpur on duty. At 17:50 hrs, the informant, Vishram Bind gave a written report, on the basis of which an FIR was lodged against Babulal and others. In the presence of Constable Lalchand, the FIR was prepared in his handwriting and signature, and its carbon copy marked as Ex. Ka-7 was produced.He stated that after lodging the FIR, investigation was carried out. The FIR and GD were copied, statements of Vishram and Gariban were recorded, Sangram was sent for medical examination, and statement of Mrs. Kesar Devi was recorded. The accused was not found, so he stayed overnight.

On 02-04-1986 at 6:30 AM, he resumed investigation, recorded Sureshs statement, inspected the spot, and prepared a site map marked Ex. Ka-8. Plain and blood-stained soil and other articles were seized, with Fard marked Ex. Ka-9. On the same day, accused Dukhi and Harilal were arrested.He stated that on 03-04-1985, S.O. Rajendra Pandey took over investigation. On 02-04-1986, the case was converted from Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC based on the post-mortem report. Proceedings under Sections 82/83 were conducted against Amarnath and Babulal, statements recorded, and post-mortem report and Panchayatnama copied. Later, charge sheet was filed by S.O. R.V. Singh, marked Ex. Ka-10.

In cross-examination, he stated that he left the police station at 7:00 PM and reached the spot at 8:00-8:30 PM, though time was not noted in the case diary. He confirmed recording Kesar Devis statement and returning the next evening. He admitted not noting distances of landmarks but observed Rajarams shed and Kalijis temple. He denied taking statements of Amardev or Rajaram. He confirmed blood was found in Manas field, about 25 paces west of Kalijis temple, and denied errors in the site map. He stated Vishram mentioned a scuffle with Dukkhi and threats, but not assault; Amarnath fired in the air. He clarified Garibans statement was taken at the police station. He denied that no incident occurred at point A in Manas field, denied siding with Vishram, and denied flawed investigation.

15. The defence has examined two witnesses namely Dr. R.K. Singh, Surgeon, PHC, Saidpur, district Ghazipur (DW-1), and Dr. U.R. Sharma, Medical Officer, District Jail, Ghazipur (DW-2).

16. DW-1, in his cross examination stated that he has examined Sumer, aged about 65 years on 05.04.1986 at 7:00 pm, Hiraman, aged about 70 at 7:10 pm, Bhaggal, aged about 68 years at 7:20 pm at PHC, Saidpur, Ghazipur, Smt. Sunari, W/o Bhaggal and Smt. Mewati, W/o Shym Bali aged about 18 years.

17. DW-2, in his cross examination stated that he examined accused Hari Lal on 04.04.1986 at 10:15 am and also Shyam Bali @ Dukkhi on the same date at 10:45 am. He opined that all the injuries caused on their body are in simple in nature.

18. By the impugned judgment, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants, hence this appeal.

19. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted as under:

1. that the prosecution has failed to prove the exact place of occurrence, as the affidavits from witnesses Baijnath, Gariban, and Smt. Kesar which were never challenged clearly makes it doubtful as to whether incident took place near the Kaliji Mandir or Rajendras shop.

2. that following the ruling in Sakhawat & Anr vs. State of UP (2025), these uncontroverted affidavits must be accepted as evidence, proving that the alleged verbal altercation was likely fabricated.

3. that the testimony of PW-1 (Vishram) is unreliable because he introduced new details in court, like an attack with a spade, which were never mentioned in the FIR or his Section 161 statement. Additionally, his presence is doubtful since he underwent no medical examination.

4. that PW-2 is an interested witness whose statement was recorded after an unexplained six-day delay, making his version of the events highly suspicious.

5. that the prosecution has offered no explanation for the serious injuries sustained by the accused persons, including Harilal and Shyam Bali, which were medically confirmed by DW-2 (Dr. U.R. Sharma).

6. that he fact that six people on the side of the accused were injured, yet the prosecution remains silent on how those injuries occurred, makes the entire prosecution story untrustworthy.

7. that there was no proven motive for the murder of the deceased, Sangram.

8. that even though the prosecution claims the accused were armed with a Gadasa, Lathi, and Gun, it is admitted that these weapons were never used against the deceased or the witnesses, which is inconsistent with an intent to kill

9. that as per prosecution case, appellant no. 1 Babulal inflicted injuries on the deceased. Although the other appellants were armed with weapons, they neither used them against PW1 nor against Sangram. Hence, it cannot be inferred that appellants no. 2, 3, and 4 shared a common intention with appellant no.1.

20. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State supporting the impugned judgment, has submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The trial court has rightly convicted the accused persons. It was further submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, this appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

21. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, we find that Smt. Kesar, at whose shop verbal altercation took place between Vishram (PW-1) and Shyam Bali @ Dukkhi has filed her affidavit denying the prosecution case, and Baijnath and Gariban, who are claimed to be witnesses of the incident, have also filed their affidavits to the effect that no such incident ever happened near Kali ji Mandir. All these three affidavits were not controverted by the prosecution. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellants has placed reliance upon a decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sakhawat & Anr vs. State of U.P. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1205 specially paragraph nos.- 21,22 and 23 which is being reproduced hereinunder-

21. Thus, the scenario which emerges is that three out of four eyewitnesses had admittedly filed the affidavits during the bail hearing of the accused, stating that the accused were not involved. For whatever reason, the investigating officer did not controvert the affidavits, though time was granted to him. In fact, the stand taken by the affidavit of PW-7 is that PW-4 and Akbar are the assailants who killed the deceased and who injured her.

22. Thus, by failing to carry out further investigation on the basis of the said affidavits, the prosecution has failed to carry out a fair investigation. Moreover, the prosecution tried to suppress the affidavits.

23. Therefore, there is a serious doubt created about the truthfulness of the versions of PW-5 to PW-7 before the Court. It is pertinent to note that PW-5 was detained at the police station for 24 hours before his statement was recorded. A serious doubt is created whether these witnesses are telling the truth. Then, what survives is the evidence of PW-4. PW-7 in the affidavit has stated that, in fact, PW-4 was the assailant. As the prosecution has not conducted a fair investigation and has suppressed important material in the form of affidavits of PW-5 to PW-7, it is unsafe to convict the appellants only on the basis of the testimony of PW-4. The failure to conduct further investigation based on the affidavits goes to the root of the matter. The failure to recover the weapons of offence also becomes relevant in the background of these circumstances.

We find substantial merit in the reliance placed on the judgment in case of Sakhawat (Supra) that when the prosecution fails to controvert contradictory affidavits despite having the opportunity to do so, it represents a serious failure in conducting a fair investigation. The suppression of such material evidence by the prosecution creates a reasonable doubt regarding the truthfulness of the witnesses. Consequently, it is legally unsafe to rely on a version of events where the investigation has not been transparent.

22.Further, the deposition of PW-1, Vishram that when Shyam Bali @ Dukkhi attacked on him, he also gave 2 or 3 blows to the accused Shyam Bali @ Dukkhi by spade, has not been mentioned in the FIR nor in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. This create suspicion about presence of PW-1, Vishram at the place of occurrence and it also feels like a lie as his medical examination was not done. The whole incident appears to be false and fabricated. The accused persons have no motive to commit murder of deceased Sangram. Also, the statement of PW2 Suddhu, cannot be believed as he is interested witness and his statement was recorded with the delay of six days from the incident.

23. With regard to another contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant, it is urged that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused persons. The Honble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar (1976) 4 SCC 394 (para 12) has categorically held that:

“12…. It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the court can draw the following inferences:

(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version;

(2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable:

(3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.

The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. In the instant case, when it is held, as it must be, that the appellant Dashrath Singh received serious injuries which have not been explained by the prosecution, then it will be difficult for the court to rely on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and 6, more particularly, when some of these witnesses have lied by stating that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused. Thus, neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court appears to have given due consideration to this important lacuna or infirmity appearing in the prosecution case. We must hasten to add that as held by this Court in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima there may be cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear. and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. The present, however, is certainly not such a case, and the High Court was, therefore, in error in brushing aside g this serious infirmity in the prosecution case on unconvincing premises.”

24. A similar view with regard to non-explanation of injuries has been taken by Honble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Madho, State of M.P.1 v. Mishrilal, Nagurathinam2 v. State and recently in Nand Lal3 and Parshuram v. State of M.P.4 .

25. Undisputedly, non-explanation of injuries on the persons of the accused creates a doubt, as to, whether, the prosecution has brought on record the real genesis of the incident or not. It is not a mere procedural lapse, but a substantive infirmity which weakens the prosecutions narrative.

26. It is also pertinent to consider another submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, namely, that the other three accused persons cannot be said to have shared a common intention with accused Babulal. As per the prosecution version, all the accused were armed with weapons such as gadasa, ballam, lathi and gun. However, it is significant to note that none of them made use of their weapons during the occurrence, except accused Babulal. The mere fact of their presence at the scene, without any overt act or participation, is insufficient in law to attract the provisions of Section 34 IPC relating to common intention. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Jasdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2022) 2 SCC 545: (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 526 held that:

20.Section 34 IPC creates a deeming fiction by infusing and importing a criminal act constituting an offence committed by one, into others, in pursuance to a common intention. Onus is on the prosecution to prove the common intention to the satisfaction of the court. The quality of evidence will have to be substantial, concrete, definite and clear. When a part of evidence produced by the prosecution to bring the accused within the fold of Section 34 IPC is disbelieved, the remaining part will have to be examined with adequate care and caution, as we are dealing with a case of vicarious liability fastened on the accused by treating him on a par with the one who actually committed the offence.

21.What is required is the proof of common intention. Thus, there may be an offence without common intention, in which case Section 34 IPC does not get attracted.

26.There may be cases where all acts, in general, would not come under the purview of Section 34 IPC, but only those done in furtherance of the common intention having adequate connectivity. When we speak of intention it has to be one of criminality with adequacy of knowledge of any existing fact necessary for the proposed offence. Such an intention is meant to assist, encourage, promote and facilitate the commission of a crime with the requisite knowledge as aforesaid.

27.The existence of common intention is obviously the duty of the prosecution to prove. However, a court has to analyse and assess the evidence before implicating a person under Section 34 IPC. A mere common intention per se may not attract Section 34 IPC, sans an action in furtherance. There may also be cases where a person despite being an active participant in forming a common intention to commit a crime, may actually withdraw from it later. Of course, this is also one of the facts for the consideration of the court. Further, the fact that all accused charged with an offence read with Section 34 IPC are present at the commission of the crime, without dissuading themselves or others might well be a relevant circumstance, provided a prior common intention is duly proved. Once again, this is an aspect which is required to be looked into by the court on the evidence placed before it. It may not be required on the part of the defence to specifically raise such a plea in a case where adequate evidence is available before the court.

Thus, the prosecutions case under Section 34 IPC fails as mere presence of the accused at the scene, without any overt act, cannot establish common intention. Except Babulal, none of the others used their weapons, which weakens the inference of shared intent.

27. In the view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, we are of the opinion that prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond the reasonable doubt. Hence, the benefit of doubt would have to be extended to the accused-appellants. Consequently, the instant Criminal Appeal deserves to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the trial court is set aside. The appellants namely Babulal, Hari Lal, Shyam, Bali @ Dukkhi and Shiv Adhar @ Amarnath are acquitted of all the charges for which they have been tried.

28. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and securities are cancelled. They need not to surrender.

29. Let a certified copy of the judgment and order along with trial court record be sent to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court for compliance.