- (1.) No one appears on behalf of the petitioner in spite of repeated calls. On earlier occasion also, no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the case was adjourned in order to give a chance to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Today also, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner in spite of repeated calls. Learned counsel for the State is present. Accordingly, I have gone through the record.
(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 13.9.1999 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi, in Cr. Appeal No. 29 of 1998, whereby, the appeal filed against the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.1998 passed by Sri Kumar Dinesh, learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd class, Ranchi, in G.R. No. 782 of 1993/T.R. No. 47 of 1998, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sections 379/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year, has been rejected by the learned Appellate Court below.
(3.) The record shows that the petitioner has been made accused in Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 47 of 1993 corresponding to G.R. No. 782 of 1993, for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was a tempo driver and the informant had alighted from a bus in the bus-stand along-with his daughter and had engaged the tempo of the petitioner for going to his house. There was one another person sitting with the petitioner and a bag containing a purse of the daughter of the informant, in which, there were gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 500/-, were kept by the petitioner and his accomplice near them. Subsequently, the accomplice of the petitioner fled away with the purse of the informant's daughter. The petitioner, was ultimately apprehended and on his disclosure, the other co-accused was also apprehended by the police and the stolen articles were recovered from him and the seizure list was prepared.;