PARKASH Vs. STATE (DELHI ADMN )

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, along with two others, was sent up for trial to the court of Sessions on the basis of reports (charge-sheets) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted upon conclusion of investigation into first information report (FIR) nos. 812/1997 and 42/1998, both of police station Okhla Industrial Area (the police station). Besides the appellant Parkash (A-2), the other persons who were, thus, prosecuted included Ram Bilas (A-1) and Tek Chand (A-3). The charges brought against the said persons were of commission of dacoity armed with deadly weapon on the premises of two factories, they being factory no. B-6/3, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II and premises no. F-89/9, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase- I, New Delhi. The incident of dacoity alleged to have been committed vis- -vis the first premises relates to the night of 11th and 12th December, 1997, this being the subject matter of FIR no. 812/1997, and the dacoity at the second premises relates to the incident of 18th and 19th January, 1998, this being the subject matter of FIR no. 42/1998. Ram Bilas (A-1) was released on bail but he thereafter absconded and was eventually declared a proclaimed offender. The trial was concluded against the appellant Prakash (A-2) and co-accused Tek Chand (A-3), it culminating in judgment dated 08.03.2002 whereby both of them were held guilty and convicted under Section 398 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Sessions Judge, by subsequent order dated 08.03.2002, awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years to each of the two convicted persons, extending benefit of set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. for the period of detention already undergone.

(2.) It may be mentioned here that co-convict Tek Chand (A-3) had preferred separate appeal (Crl. Appeal no. 208/2002). The report of the registry indicates that the said appeal of Tek Chand was dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 25.10.2007, he having been directed to be taken in custody and committed to jail to undergo the remaining sentence.

(3.) The appellant Parkash (A-2) had preferred the present appeal. He was released on bail, the substantive sentence having been suspended by order dated 24.07.2003. He too would not appear when the appeal was called out, this eventually resulting in non-bailable warrant being issued against him which was executed and he was taken in custody on 13.05.2019.