- (1.) Tersely, the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant appeal and emanating from the record, are that, in the wake of complaint of complainant Sat Pal, Liquor Contractor, a criminal case was registered against the appellant-convict Bhan Singh son of Chand Singh and his other co-accused Leela Singh (since proclaimed offender), vide FIR No. 53 dated 15.12.1996 for the commission of offences punishable under sections 458 and 459 read with section 34 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act by the police of Police Station Balianwali, District Bathinda.
(2.) As Leela Singh, co-accused of the appellant-convict absconded, therefore, he was declared proclaimed offender. However, having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant-convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years, to pay a fine of Rs 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of two months, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 458 & 459 each IPC. He was also convicted & sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years, to pay a fine of Rs 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of two months under section 326 IPC. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 5.11.2001.
(3.) Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-convict preferred the present appeal to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence. That is how I am seized of the matter.;