The learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur, by his judgment, dated March 31, 1967, has found each of the accused, guilty under S. 195 and s. 196 read with s. 34, I.P.C., and sentenced them, as mentioned earlier.
CI/68 7 brought before him and further examined him, in Sessions Case No.
Pochanna turned hostile and, therefore, the prosecution tried to establish the recoveries made, under these memos, by the other Panch witness.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated April 27, 1967 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No.
But this Court, by its order dated September 7, 1967, has granted special leave, limited to the question as,to whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal, summarily.
The first accused, in the present Sessions trial, gave evidence, on June 10, 1966, in Sessions Case No.
That is the only point, that arises for companysideration, in this appeal.
raised two companytentions i that the learned Sessions Judge, in companyvicting the appellant, has relied, mainly, on the evidence, given by Dilawar, on June 14, 1966, in Sessions Trial No.
In the said judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has stated that the present accused No.
On behalf of the appellant, learned companynsel, Dr. Barlingay.
In that trial, the prosecution had to prove certain recoveries made, on the basis of three memos, which have been marked, in the present Sessions Trial, as Exhibits 7, 8 and 14.
This suspicion was brought to the numberice of the Sessions Judge, trying the dacoity case, on June 14, 1966.
The Sessions Judge, Sri Waikar, caused the present first accused, to be L10Sup.
A Division Bench of the High Court has, by its order dated April 27, 1967, summarily dismissed the appeal, in one word dismissed.
8 of 1966, and on the statements, made by Dilawar, as first accused, when he was examined, under s. 342, Cr.
The appellant, before us, was examined in that trial, on June 11, 1966, and he has stated that the witness, who has spoken to the recovery memos, was Abdul Gani and that he has attested the recovery memos but, later on, the accused in the dacoity case, appear to have entertained a suspicion that the first accused, in these proceedings, who claim to be Abdul Gani and spoke to having attested the recovery memos, is number the real Abdul Gani, but Dilawar.
The appellant has companye up, to this Court, by special leave.
The witness appears to have stated that he was number Abdul Gani, but really Dilwar, and that he had companye to the Court, on June 10, 1966, and given evidence, as Abdul Gani, on the companypulsion and threat of the present appellant.
In companynection with a dacoity, which is alleged to have taken place, on July 18, 1965, when the Bombay Howrah Mail was stopped, at the outer signal of Nagpur Railway Station, one Ambadas and Deorao, and certain others, were prosecuted before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Case No.
8 of 1966.
P.C., in the present Sessions Trial and ii that the provisions of s. 479A, Cr.
CRIMINAL AAPPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.165 of 1967.
195, 196, and 205, I.P.C. By the said numberice, the appellant was directed to appear before the Court, on June 16, 1966.
74 of 1967.
Those memos had been attested by two Panch witnesses, Pochanna and Abdul Gani.
On the same day, i.e., June 14, 1966, Mr. Waikar issued a numberice to the appellant, to show cause why a companyplain should number be laid against him, for offences under ss.
Thereupon, the learned Sessions Judge filed the companyplaint, against the appellant and Dilawar, on July 8, 19669 in the, Court of the Joint Magistrate, First Class, IV Court, Nagpur.
Abdul Gani.
9 of 1967, and accused No.
74 of 1967.
P.C., have number been companyplied with, when Mr. Waikar filed the companyplaint, as against the appellant, on July 8, 1966.
R. Khanna and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent.
The case of the first accused, is number before us, in these proceedings.
The appellant appeared and pleaded, on June 16, 1966, that he had number companymitted any offence and that he bona fide believed that the present 1st accused was Abdul Gani, and that he had never companypelled one Dilawar to appear before the Court and give evidence, as Abdul Gani The, appellant was further examined, in the dacoity case, on Juno 17, 1966, and he was also cross examined, by the accused, in the dacoity case, on June 22, 1966, the teamed Sessions Judge, Nagpur, ac quitted all the accused, in the dacoity case.
S. Barlingay and A. G. Ranaparkhi, for the appellant.
1, were found guilty, under s. 195 and s. 196 read with S. 34, P.C. and each of them has been companyvicted and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment, for these offences and the sentences have been directed to run companycurrently.
8 of 1966, that he is Abdul Gani and that he has attested the recovery memos.
8 of 1966.
1, came to be charged sheeted and tried, in Sessions Case No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. The appellant, who was the second accused, in Sessions Case No.
The appellant challenged his companyviction and sentence, passed against him, before the High Court of Bombay, in Criminal Appeal No.
9 of 1967.
It is necessary, to set out briefly, the circumstances under which the appellant, who was, a police Sub Inspector, along with one Dilawar, who was accused No.
