Mohd. Yamin, J. - (1.)Since the accused-petitioners were not served with the notice, nor arrested in pursuance of the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, they had no knowledge of the proceedings. Therefore, the delay is condoned.
(2.)Learned PR was directed to accept notice. She accepts it. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal was transferred to the learned Addl Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar by the learned Sessions Judge, about which the petitioners had no notice. He submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar could not have decided the appeal without hearing the petitioners in view of Supreme Court Cases 1996(4) Bani Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. Page 720 and Kishan Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1996 SCC Page 1010 .
(3.)From the record of Addl. Sessions Judge I find that he ordered to issue notice to petitioners on 1.5.95 but those notices were never served. However, on 11.9.95 he ordered that the petitioners may be summoned by non-bailable warrants. Unfortunately, the clerk working in his court did not obey his order and did not issue the warrants of arrest. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge inspite of the fact that the petitioners were not present heard the appeal on 11.9.96 and decided the it without giving any opportunity to the petitioners of being heard. Therefore, learned PP also agrees that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge should be set aside.