TEJPAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 26.11.1980 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut in S.T. No.230 of 1979 convicting and sentencing the appellant seven years R.I for offence u/s 393/398 IPC for and one year R.I for offence u/s 25(1)(a) Arms Act.

(2.) It is apparent from the record that the sole appellant was granted bail by this Court on 10.11980 and he was released on bail but when the present appeal came up for hearing before this Court on 23.1.2004 on which date no one appeared on his behalf and his bail was cancelled and he was directed to be arrested for which necessary direction was given by this Court to the C.J.M., Meerut for execution of the said order. The appellant could not be traced out in spite of the repeated orders passed by this Court. Moreover notices were issued to the sureties also and it was found that one of the surety of the appellant namely Sukhan has expired on 16.3.2016 and other surety namely Braham Singh was directed to produce the appellant but he could not do the same. It was stated by him through his counsel that he is ready to deposit the surety amount on which he had deposited the surety amount as is evident from the report of the C.J.M dated 11.8.2017 and in the said report it has been reported that Rs.2,000/- has been deposited by his surety Braham Singh.

(3.) As no one appeared on behalf of the appellant, hence Sri Amit Saxena was appointed as Amicus-curiae to argue the present appeal. As the present appeal is too old, hence Court proceeds to hear the matter on merits by Sri Amit Saxena, Amicus-curiae on behalf of the appellant as the appeal can not be kept pending further more being an old one in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of U.P, (2014) 14 SCC 222.