AVINASH SHOBHASING Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant accused is from State of Uttar Pradesh. It is the prosecution case against the appellant that with the intention to loot, he entered N.T.P.C. Adityanagar Post Office on 27.4.1995 at 4.00 PM with a Tamancha and pointing that Tamancha at the complainant Bhagubhai Devabhai Patel and other employees of the Post Office, threatened them to hand over whatever cash lying there in the Post Office. However, the complainant raised shout and the accused was over-powered and caught red-handed there and then and handed over to the Police. Accordingly, he was charged for the offences under Sections 393, 398, 506(2) IPC and Section 25A of Arms Act. Charge at Ex.8 was framed against the appellant accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat on 18.1.1996. To prove its case, the prosecution examined complainant and other witnesses before the trial Court. At the end of trial, after recording the evidence of the accused under Section 313, the appellant accused was found guilty for the offences under Section 398 read with Section 393 IPC. Accordingly, the appellant accused was sentenced to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 398 IPC. However, no separate order of sentence was passed for the offence under Section 506(2) IPC. He was given set-off for the period during which he remained as under-trial prisoner. Muddamal article Desi Tamancha with two cartridges were forfeited to the State.

(2.) The appellant has challenged the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge, by way of the present appeal through jail. The same was admitted on 23.9.1997 and on 19.6.1998, another learned Judge of this Court directed the office to get prepared the paper book from the lower court expeditiously and as soon as the paper book is received alongwith R&P, it was ordered to be listed for final hearing. This matter was accordingly listed on the running Board of Final Hearing of 12th July, 2001 at serial No.6. When the matter was called out, no one was present for the appellant accused. It appears that Shri G. Ramakrishnan was appointed to defend the case of the appellant accused in this appeal as amicus-curiae, but unfortunately he is not present.

(3.) V Having regard to the fact that the appellant accused was in jail since 17.4.1995 and he was sentenced to suffer 7 years RI which is going to be over soon, in absence of the learned Counsel for the appellant accused, this appeal is decided with the aid and assistance of learned APP Shri Mankad.