(1.) THERE are a host of lawyers whose names appear in the cause list as Advocates holding powers on behalf of the appellants of the three appeals. In spite of sending words no one appears. When we resumedout seat today Sri Manish Kumar, Advocate, appeared andcommunicated to us that Shri Pushkar Narain Shahi, whose name alsoappears in the array of the advocates for the appellants, does not holdbrief on behalf of any of the appellants. We requested Sri Kumar toinform Sri Shahi to personally inform us and, accordingly, Sri Shahiappeared before us and submitted that at the time of being initiated intolaw- practice as a member of one of the Bar Associations of the Court,Senior counsel late S.B.N.Singh could have obtained his signature onthe power. The fact was that Shri Shahi was neither the custodian of thebrief nor has any knowledge about it. Under such circumstances we areforced to look for an amicus curiae. Sri Anil Kumar Singh was presentin Court and he offered to assist us and, accordingly, we appoint him asan amicus curiae, on behalf of appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 216 of 1988and Sri Niraj Kumar, Advocate, in remaining two appeals.
(2.) WE may appoint amicus curiae for the appellants but theproblem remains before us is that who should be appointed as anamicus curiae for the State as well, as none of its counsel is present inCourt to render assistance to us. WE believe that hearing the parties,especially the State would be a prerogative of its counsel, if he appears,as it appears from section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. WE,as such, have proceeded to hear and dispose of the batch of threecriminal appeals.
(3.) THE defence of the appellants was of false implication onaccount of the land dispute and, further, that no occurrence in themanner as alleged had taken place at the place of occurrence.