14/18.9.2010 PASSED BY THE SPL.JUDGE XXXV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND S.J. BENGALURU, IN S.C.NO.643 OF 2003 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 259, 256 R/W 120(B) OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5 IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR FIVE YEARS AND PAY A FINE OF RS.10,000/- IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE HE SHALL UNDER FURTHER R.I. FOR THREE MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 256 R/W 120(B) OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5 IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR FIVE YEARS AND PAY A FINE FOR RS.10,000/- IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE HE SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER R.I. FOR THREE MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
259 R/W 120(B) OF IPC. THE ABOVE SENTENCE IMPOSED TO EACH OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS FOR DIFFERENT OFFENCES ARE ORDERED TO RUN CONCURRENTLY EXCEPT THE SENTENCE IMPOSED FOR DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF FINE. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED. THIS CRL.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal is by the accused No.5 in S.C.No.643 of 2003. By the order dated 14.09.2010, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, for the offences punishable under Section-259 and 256 of IPC read with Section 120(B) of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
2. The appellant was arrested on 06.10.2002 in this case. The present appeal was filed on 11.10.2010. By the order dated 11.01.2011, he was granted bail. Hence, he has been in custody for almost a period of 8 years, 3 months, 11 days. The trial court granted him a set-off for a period 3 years, 11 months, 12 days, since he was required in other cases at Hyderabad. He was also granted setoff in the said case at Hyderabad.
3. However, so far as the present case is concerned, the facts would indicate that the appellant having been arrested on 06.10.2002, was granted bail only on 11.01.2011. Therefore, he has already undergone the sentence imposed and even undergone the sentence including the default sentence in this case.
4. The figures and facts are not disputed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent CBI.
5. Under these circumstances, nothing further survives for consideration in this appeal. The appellant / accused No.5 is set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Since he is already on bail in terms of the order of this court, the bail bond stands cancelled and the sureties are discharged. Appeal is disposed off accordingly. Corrections carried out in terms of the order dated 29.11.2017. Consequently, this page is replaced and retyped.
I.A.1 of 2013 does not survive for consideration and stands dismissed. SD/- SD/- JUDGE JUDGE
Comments