U. T. CHANDIGARH Vs. SATNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the above appeals arise from a common verdict, made by the learned trial Judge concerned, hence both the appeals (supra) are amenable for a common verdict being made thereons.

(2.) Both the appeals (supra) are directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 14/1/2003, upon Sessions Case No.11 of 6/10/1998/ 21/8/1999, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, wherethrough in respect of charges drawn against the accused qua offences punishable under Ss. 419, 420, 225-B, 468, 120-B of the IPC, besides for offences punishable under Ss. 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') thus the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against appellant-convicts Satnam Singh and Balwinder Singh vis-a-vis offences punishable under Ss. 419, 468, 471 of the IPC. However, the other co-accused namely Baljit Singh, Jaswant Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Sheetla Parshad Misha, Daljit Singh Rajput, Jaspal Singh Dhillon, Jagtar Singh Hawara and Jagtar Singh @ Tara, were acquitted from the charges drawn against them. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order of 15/1/2003, the learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced the appellants-convicts in the hereinafter extracted manner.

(3.) All the above imposed sentences of imprisonment, were ordered to run concurrently. The period spent in prison by the convict, thus during the investigation or trial of the case, was, in terms of Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C., ordered to be set off from the above imposed substantive sentence(s) of imprisonment, upon the convicts.