J ll£L££ooosullJ W é AEPEAP A m OF I,PRI§H0NER)(9 w “Name fV Father's Name 7 A7’g/j': i. V ., QWC4%$§e . -? ' § {/gf‘ :4.’ Sentenced ’ H , " to » 9 .‘f / ‘ Aw n §__§ . é/Lg V. 24 / _ Under section v ggg‘ifE'bYW' Wé“ " , f‘ It is explaine d gur'x-Nt/og/gg t the prisoner that if he states ”F 0r ¢ 73% @wumm “iii Nthg g" 3g . wishes Court wi to 11 be not represent proce ed ed with by a the legal base practiticner f the Appelqte legal l practitioner appears. If the legal ior p' geven ctitioner dqys‘ unless does not the appear states that with he in does seven not days wish he may to be be repnesented heard ‘ all by if legalwpractin the prisoner tione‘r the court may proceed at once with the case and will not be should ob;liged appear. to give a hearing x to any legal Er» practitioner who 1. Date of application for copy of Judgement 2. Date of which copy received : I 2§///go 3. Hate on which Appeal sent : 24///9~d 1+. Whether the prisoner’ wished tobe r§epresented or not No , Yesifble/ No . n €2§ , 3"? a Name ”é? /~%J(i o . Si*/o az _€~ " Contihue& in/y Q‘a/{Zrégga/ygeil J Q (mgg; Q“ Ag No. g3 I (”Q/G / (34a a dated 23 é: ga: ‘ ( ! V k W Forwarded to the (HI-EB“ JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE T)? a; 2 g L‘ (Oakm 4 q for to gather favour with of transmission a copy of judgement to the proper or order Appil passed in the case / § Sup erinteW‘Q g) , Date o:f receipt in C.J.M.'s office Date of receipt of record to accompany Memo of Appeal of the Appeliate Court '* >20. \Jqn sated \S’PVW Sorwarided to the h \QPVW’ t Q; : @e' C.J.Magi straw. gm: i i i i Datae ojf receipt in Applféte court ¢ l f i“ “ 3 ‘ r ‘ 3, l' XI—HC-22 Division Bench : Hon’ble Shri Fakhruddin, J & Hon’bie Shri Dilig Deshmukh,. 28-06-2005 Sr. Advocate with Shri Avinash Mishra, counsel for the appellant. Pane! Lawyer for the State. Shri V.D. Bajpai, ‘ ‘ Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Heard Shri Rajput learned coun el for the State Informs tha the appellant Dhanar has bee released from bentrai Jali Jagdalpur on 18-1 2-2000 upon c mpletlon of sentence. Learned counsel for both the accused had already undergr has become infructuous. In view‘ of the above st counsel for the parties, the infructuous Sdl- Fakhruddin Jude g he parties submit that since >ne the sentence, the appeal bmission made by learned appeal is dismissed as Sdl- I; Dillp Raosaheb Deshmukh i Judge n;a (@W) t