YOG RAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common questions of law and fact arise in these three appeals, this judgment will cover all of them.

(2.) The appellants, namely. Yog Raj, appellant in Cr. A. 166, Davinder Singh @ Bittoo, appellant in Cr. A. 167 and Avtar Singh, appellanrt in Cr. A. 238, were found guilty by a common judgment dated 31st May, 1984, for offences under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and Under Section 27/54/59 of the Indian Arms Act. By order dated 18th August, 1984, each of the appellants was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Sections 27/54/59 of the Indian Arms Act. The sentence were, however, directed to run concurrently, Separate appeals of Yog Raj and Davinder Singh appellants were filed through counsel. Both these appellants were directed to be released on bail on furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 5000.00 with one surety in the like amount by each of them. Avtar Singh, however, submitted his appeal through jail. The learned Judge who admitted the appeals appointed Mr, D. K. Jain, Advocate, as amicus curiae. I may note that these connected appeals have been on my board since last week. The appeals reached for hearing on 16th August, 1985, after lunch. As I was busy in a Division Bench matter, the appeals could not be taken up on that day. On 16th August as well as to-day the counsel who had filed appeals 166 and 167 of 1984 did not put in appearance. Even Mr. D. K. Jain, Advocate, amicus curiae, is absent. The State is also not represented.

(3.) I have gone through the judgment under appeal and also the state" ments of the witnesses.