HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAM-i‘ BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.441 of 2005 APPELLANT: HeeralaL S/o Manheran, aged about (In the Custody) 21 years, R/o ViHage Takdeori, RS. Jaijaipur, Distt‘ Janjgir-Champa-(C.G.) Versus RES PONDENT: State of Chhattisgarh,, {Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} v Present: ‘ Wk. Vivek Shrivastava, counsel for the appeilant: Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the statefrespondent. £ n-.. SiErqre Bench: Hon’ble Mr. 129. Shanna, J ORALJUDGMENT (Derivered on 9*“ September‘ 2008) 1. This appeaHs directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30‘“ October, 2004 passed by the 3'“ Aciditiona! Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir, in SessionsTriai No.231i2004, whereby learned Additional sessions Judge has convicted, the appeilant aiong with other, co-accused persons Gabbar Patel, Santosh Kumar & Lakhaniai for commission of offence under Sections 399, 402 of the i.P.C. and 25 (1- B) (a) & 25 (1-8) (b) of the Arms Act andssentenced each of them to undergo RJ. for seven years & pay a fine of Rs.100l-, in defauit of payment of fine to further undergo R.i. for one month under Sections 399, 8: 402 of the l.P.C. and to undergo R.i. for three years & pay a fine of Rs.100l-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RJ. for one month under Sections25 (1 -B) (a) & 25 (1 -B) (b) of the Arms Act. 2. Record of the triai Court reveals that Cr.A.No.954/2004 has already been preferred by Gabbar Patel, Lakhan Lal &the present appellant Heeralal g against the same judgment and the same was decided on 13-1-2006 by this Court. Another co-accused Santosh Kumar has also preferred SLA. No.967/2004 which was also decided by this Court on 13-1-2606. CLA. Nos.954/2004’& 967/2004 have been disposed, of by this Court by a 2 @ common judgment dated 13-1—2006 in which ali the aceused persons have been acquitted of the charges. 3. After decision of the above appeals (Cr.A.Nos.954/2004 & 967/2064), this appeai is unnecessary and the Registry ought to have taken the notice of the fact that the appeai filed on behaif of the present appellant has already been decided by'this Court. 4. ln view of the above, this appeal is dismissed as unnecessary. ~ y r/Sw’ Soma gexx J“dge 1 a /T" \ T v. Shar‘girl‘y’ \ AKAK