UMA KISHANA Vs. STATE OF AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LOOMB Raj and Uma have been found guilty of offences under Sections 457 and, 380, Penal Code. Under Section 457, Penal Code Loomb Raj has been sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with 6 months' further rigorous imprisonment in default. Under Section 380, Penal Code he has been sentenced to 4 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with 6 months' rigorous imprisonment in default. The substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Uma has been sentenced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with 6 months further rigorous imprisonment in default under Section 457, Penal Code. Under Section 380, Penal Code he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with six months' further rigorous imprisonment in default. Again the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Dhanna has been found guilty of offences under Sections 457 and 381, Penal Code. Under Section 457, Penal Code he has been sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/with 6 months' further rigorous imprisonment in default. Under Section 381, Penal Code he has been sentenced to 4 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with 6 months' rigorous imprisonment in default. In his case also the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Against their conviction and sentence the three accused persons have come up in appeal. Uma has filed Cri. App, No. 6 of 1955. Loomb Raj has filed Cri. App. No. 8 of 1955 and Dhanna has filed Cri. App. No. 10 of 1955. All the appeals arise out of the same case and have been argued together. I, therefore, give one judgment in all the three appeals. The original will be placed on the file of Cri. App. No. 8 of 1955 and copies thereof will be placed on the files of Cri. Appeals Nos. 6 and 10 of 1955. The judgment will govern all the three appeals.

(2.) IN the appeals, I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) THE prosecution case is that Dhanna was employed in the local branch of the Imperial Bank of India (now State Bank of India) as a chowkidar. Loomb Raj was a head constable in the Ajmer State armed police and was occasionally posted to the bank incharge of the armed guard posted there. Uma is a locksmith by profession.