JUDGMENT - D.K. TRIVEDI, J.:---The appellants in these three appeals were placed for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 473 of 1991 and Session Case No. 1052 of 1994 and while disposing of these two sessions cases by common judgment and order recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai dated 7th December, 1994 convicted all the three accused for the offence under sections 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and no separate sentence was imposed for the offence under section 392 of the I.P.C. and granted the set off as provided as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the period which they have undergone the custody in jail and also passed order regarding the disposal of muddemal property. Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1995 is filed by the original accused No. 2 while Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 1995 is filed by original accused No. 1 and Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1995 is filed by the original accused No. 3. So far as the Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 1995 was filed by the accused Suresh alias Ashok alias Salem through Jail while Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1995 filed by original accused No. 2 and Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1995 file by original accused No. 3 are filed through respective advocate Shri Dahiwalka and Smt. Sunita Balwani and Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 1995 is filed through jail and advocate Shri. Toraskar was appointed to represent the case of original accused No. 1. 2. Mr. Dahiwalkar the learned Counsel appearing for the accused No. 3 took us through the evidence and the judgment under challenge. While Ms. Sunita Balwani the learned advocate appearing for the accused No. 2 had submitted that looking to the evidence found during the trial, the learned Judge was not right in accepting the prosecution case and accordingly, prayed that the order of conviction and sentence recorded, deserves to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. Sunita Balwani the learned advocate appearing for the accused No. 2 had submitted that looking to the evidence found during the trial, the learned Judge was not right in accepting the prosecution case and accordingly, prayed that the order of conviction and sentence recorded, deserves to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. Singhal while taking us through the evidence, has vehemently submitted that as per the evidence led by the prosecution, the prosecution has proved that the accused are the persons who had committed the offence as according to him that as found evidence of the prosecution witnesses viz. the persons who have been robbed, had identified the accused in an identification parade arranged after the arrest of the accused and further that the muddemal robbed from the complainant which were seized from the accused were also identified by the complainant and accordingly, the learned trial Judge was right in accepting the prosecution case and prayed that the order of conviction and sentence recorded be confirmed by dismissing the appeals of the accused. 4. During the hearing, Mr. Singhal has also furnished letter of Senior Inspector of Police, Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai dated 22nd October, 1999 addressed to the Government Pleader, High Court. The said letter is taken on record. 5. On examining the evidence, it is found that all the three accused were arrested on 5th July, 1990. So far as the original accused No. 3 and original accused No. 1, considering the date of their arrest and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge and the fact that even during the trial, the accused were not released on bail and even during the pendency of these appeals till date have undergone sentence imposed which is under challenge and when we are hearing these appeals, the original accused No. 1 and accused No. 3 appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 228 of 1995 and 143 of 1995 have undergone the entire sentence even on default clauses. 6. Considering the evidence and the contentions raised in respect of original accused No. 2 said accused was arrested on 25th July, 1990 and as found from the record that the trial Court has granted the bail however, he could not avail of the during the pendency of the trial and the order of conviction and sentence was recorded on 7th December, 1994. The original accused No. 2 had remained in jail. Thereafter the original accused No. 2 had preferred the present appeal and as per order dated 16-2-1995 the High Court has released the said accused on bail by imposing certain conditions and we are told that as per the order of bail granted, the accused was subsequently released on 27th July, 1995. As found from the prosecution case, a complaint was filed before the police on 31-8-1990 in respect of the offence committed on 14th June, 1990 and the offence was registered on 31-8-1990 then the jurisdiction of Gamdevi Police Station and the accused were apprehended in respect of some other offence by Santacruz Police Station. The complaint was transferred and registered at Gamdevi Police Station. As found from the complaint, the complaint was filed by Munnidevi and in the said complaint she has narrated about the manner in which the accused had robbed when she had gone with her husband for morning walk on 14th June, 1990 at 5.50 a.m. in Hanging Garden. While giving narration about the incident, she has stated that a fiat car bearing No. MAF-83 came from the opposite direction viz. from Teen Batti Chowk and the persons came from the car had got down from the said car and surrounded her and her husband and opened the knife and pointed at the complainant and her husband and the complainant was robbed by taking ornaments and wrist watch and then accused ran away. It is true that in respect of the said incident, no complaint was filed immediately to the police station on 14th June, 1990. However, as transpired from the news published in Nav-Bharat Times on 15th August, 1990 in respect of disclosing the fact that Santacruz Police Station had arrested some persons those who have robbed the people in Bombay including area of Hanging Garden and accordingly, the complainant went to the Santacruz Police Station and robbed articles seized from the persons, were shown to her and those articles were identified by her and accordingly, the complaint was lodged as aforesaid. In the complaint, the complaint has furnished the details about the persons who came in car and robbed the complainant and accordingly, the complaint was registered. In the complaint, the complaint has furnished the details about the persons who came in car and robbed the complainant and accordingly, the complaint was registered. After the completion of investigation, the police has filed the charge sheet and after committal order, all the accused were placed for trial as aforesaid before the learned City Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in the above Sessions case. 7. During the trial, the prosecution has examined the complainant and her husband who had identified the accused and even the complainant and her husband also identified the accused when the identification parade was arranged by the investigating agency and the said evidence of identification was also proved through the evidence of Executive Magistrate and other evidence is also led by the prosecution. The witnesses have also identified the accused in the Court and part played by each of the accused has found support from the evidence. The learned trial Judge, on considering this evidence and considering the defence of the accused of total denial has held that the prosecution has proved that the accused have robbed the complainant and his wife on the day of incident and accordingly held that the accused have committed the offence under sections 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge has also while giving reasons accepted the evidence of P.W. 1 Rajendraprasad Choudhari and P.W. 2 Smt. Munnidevi Rajendraprasad Choudhari coupled with the evidence of the identification parade of the accused held by the Special Executive Magistrate and it is further held that the police had taken all the safeguards while taking the identification parade of the accused. 8. In light of the above evidence and the contentions raised before us on behalf of the accused No. 2 it is found that the prosecution has proved through the evidence of complainant and her husband in respect of the incident which occurred on 14th June, 1990 at 5.50 a.m. when the accused had robbed the complainant. It is further found that even the witnesses had also identified the accused and deposed about the part played by the accused in the commission of the offence. Accordingly, we are of the view that the learned trial Judge was right in accepting the prosecution case and that the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judge deserves to be confirmed. 9. Accordingly, all the three appeals are dismissed. Accordingly, we are of the view that the learned trial Judge was right in accepting the prosecution case and that the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judge deserves to be confirmed. 9. Accordingly, all the three appeals are dismissed. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1995 original accused No. 2 is directed to surrender to the jail authority within four weeks from today. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. Appeals dismissed. -----`