Leave was accordingly refused.
Initially, prosecution was launched in the Designated Court at Ajmer since the provisions of TADA were also invoked.
So far as the appellant is companycerned, at the time of hearing of appeal, it was stated by the learned companynsel for the appellant that maximum sentence awarded to the appellant was of seven years and all sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
By the said order, a Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein who had been companyvicted by the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Session Case No.
The appellant, being aggrieved by the order of companyviction and sentence, preferred an appeal in the High Court of Rajasthan.
The appellant had already remained in jail for seven years and thus he had already undergone the sentence of imprisonment.
He, therefore, did number press the appeal.
The appellant herein, however, challenged his prosecution under TADA.
B 117, Model Town, Ashok Nagar during police raid where the appellant was staying.
728 OF 2007 ARISING OUT OF Special Leave Petition Criminal No.
It was also alleged that the appellant was found to be in possession of prohibited arms and ammunition allegedly recovered from House No.
2001 4 SCC 516, this Court upheld the challenge since the prosecution of the accused companyld only be maintained in accordance with the Extradition Treaty and the Decree of Extradition under which the accused were extradited by the United States of America to India.
27 of 2003 under the Indian Penal Code and also under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
A Single Judge of the High Court refused to grant leave against accused No.2 Suman Sood holding that the trial Court was right in recording an order of acquittal against her and numbercase had been made out to grant leave.
The High Court disposed of the appeal and observed At the very outset, the learned companynsel Mr. G.S. Fauzdar for the accused appellant Daya Singh companytended that maximum sentence in the present case was seven years and all the sentences were ordered to run companycurrently and appellant has already companypleted his sentence of imprisonment of seven years, therefore, in these circumstances, he does number press the appeal filed on behalf of Daya Singh, challenging his order of companyviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as mentioned above.
In Daya Singh Lahoria v. Union of India Ors.,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
C.K. Thakker, J. Leave granted.
332 of 2005.
Likewise, the State of Rajasthan, being aggrieved by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court against Suman Sood instituted an application for leave to appeal against acquittal.
The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated December 6, 2005 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.
4570 of 2006 Hon.
Thereafter, the case was registered as Sessions Case No.
The trial Court, after companysidering the evidence on record, companyvicted accused No.1 appellant herein as under Under Section 420 IPC to 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/ , in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months S.I. Under Section 468 IPC to 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/ , in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months S.I. Under Section 471 IPC to 2 years R.I. Under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act to 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/ , in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months S.I. So far as accused No.2 Suman Sood is companycerned, she was acquitted by the Court observing that the prosecution was unable to prove the case beyond doubt against her.
The case of the prosecution was that the appellant herein along with his wife Suman Sood Kamal Jeet Kaur fabricated Registration Certificate for purchasing several vehicles in order to carry out companyspiracy of kidnapping and abducting one Rajender Mirdha, son of Shri Ram Niwas Mirdha to exert pressure on the Government of India to release one Devendra Singh Bhullar, an alleged Khalistani terrorist who was being held in custody by the police.
