J U D G M E N TCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 728 OF 2007ARISING OUT OFSpecial Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4570 of 2006Hon.C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.It is not necessary to set out facts in detail since we have stated all the facts in Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 2006 (Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan) and a cognate matter which we have decided today.Suffice it to state that a complaint being First Information Report (FIR) No. 84 of 1995 was registered at Malviya Nagar Police Station, Jaipur on February 26, 1995 against Daya Singh, appellant herein, Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur (accused No.2) and one Harnek Singh @ Surender Verma (absconding) for offences punishable under Sections 353, 420, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474 read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), for offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 7 and 25 of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 18 of TADA etc.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 conspiracy 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.It was also alleged that the appellant was found to be in possession of prohibited arms and ammunition allegedly recovered from House No. B-117, Model Town, Ashok Nagar during police raid where the appellant was staying.Initially, prosecution was launched in the Designated Court at Ajmer since the provisions of TADA were also invoked.The appellant herein, however, challenged his prosecution under TADA.In Daya Singh Lahoria v. Union of India & Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 516, this Court upheld the challenge since the prosecution of the accused could 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.The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, convicted 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.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.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 no case had been made out to grant leave.Leave was accordingly refused.He, therefore, did not press the appeal.The High Court disposed of the appeal and observed;"At the very outset, the learned counsel Mr. G.S. Fauzdar for the accused appellant Daya Singh contended that maximum sentence in the present case was seven years and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and appellant has already completed his sentence of imprisonment of seven years, therefore, in these circumstances, he does not press the appeal filed on behalf of Daya Singh, challenging his order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as mentioned above.In view of the above statement of the learned counsel for the appellant Daya Singh @ Vinay Kumar, the SB Cr.Appeal No. 332/05 filed by Daya Singh is hereby dismissed as not pressed".Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, appearing for the appellant, challenged the order of conviction and sentence.When her attention was invited by the Court to the above paragraph, she submitted that she did not dispute that such a statement was made on behalf of the accused in the High Court, but submitted that, she be permitted to argue the appeal, particularly when in other Special Leave Petitions, leave was granted and appeals were heard on merits.On merits also, no case had been made out by the prosecution.The other accused (Suman Sood) was acquitted on the same evidence and leave to appeal against an order of acquittal was refused by the High Court.The conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellant on the same evidence is also vitiated and deserves to be set aside.In the light of the finding recorded by us in the cognate matter, this appeal is, more or less, academic and has become infructuous in view of the following circumstances;(i) the appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 364A, IPC and has been ordered to undergo sentence of imprisonment for life and we have upheld the said order; and

Cited provisions: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code