JUDGMENT (1) Although this judgment is being passed in Criminal Appeal No. 155/ 04 filed by appellant Babloo but the same shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 133/04, filed by other convieted co-accused Mohan. (2) Aforesaid both the appeals have been directed by the respective appellants under Section 374 (2) of Cr. P. C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13-2-2004 passed by 12th Additional District Judge, (FTC), Gwalior in S. T. No. 310/02 whereby the appellant of Cr. A. No. 155/04 namely Babloo has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 307, 452 of IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act with a direction to undergo four years RI with fine of Rs. 2000/ -, in default of depositing the fine further six months impisonment in the first count while three years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of deposing the fine further three months SI in the second count and three years RI with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of depositing the fine further three months SI in last count. While the appellant of Cr. A. No. 133/04 namely Mohanlal has been convicted and sentenced under Section 452 of IPC for RI three years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of depositing the fine further three months RI. The facts giving rise to these appeals in short are that on dated 21-7-2002 at about 2.40 in noon the complainant Suresh Kumar Koli accompanied with his brother Ramesh and Promod Kumar came to the police station Gwalior and lodged the report contending that he is running the shop in the name of Rajendra Bandin front of Patali Hanuman, today he along with his artists Satish, Ramkumar and Manoj was sitting in such shop, at the same time the above mentioned appellant Babloo, his brother Munendra and Mohan entered in his shop and on giving a blow of iron rod by Mohanlal on his head he saved him by catching hold the same by his hands. At the same time Babloo Koli took out a country made pistol the Kattna from his pocket and with intention to kill him made fire on him from the distance of five feet. The bullet of such fire came on his mouth, which caused the injury with bleeding on his lower lip and also broken his two teeth. At the same time Babloo Koli took out a country made pistol the Kattna from his pocket and with intention to kill him made fire on him from the distance of five feet. The bullet of such fire came on his mouth, which caused the injury with bleeding on his lower lip and also broken his two teeth. Subsequent to it the brother of complainant Ramesh, Mahesh and one Pramod also came to such place and took the complainant/victim to Police Station Gwalior where on lodging the report a crime was registered against the appellant and one Munendra Koli for the offence of Sections 452 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC and 25/27of the Arms Act. Thereafter he was sent to hospital where his MLC report was prepared, in which the alleged injury found on his face was said to be caused by fire arm. After holding the investigation the appellant namely Babloo and Mohanlal were charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 452, 307/34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act. (3) After committing the case to the Sessions Court, considering the papers of the charge-sheet and the police report the charge of Sections 452, 307 of IPC and Section 25/ 27 of Arms Act were framed against the appellant Babloo while the charge of Section 452, 307/34 of IPC were framed against other appellant Mohanlal. They abjured the guilt on which the trial was held. AFTER recording the evidence, on appreciation of the same by holding the guilty to the appellant Babloo under the above mentioned Section he was convicted and sentenced as stated above while the appellant Mohanlal by extending the acquittal from the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC was convicted and sentenced only for the offence under Section 452 of IPC with the punishment stated above. Being dissatisfied with such conviction and sentence the appellants have come to this Court with their separate appeals for setting aside the impugned judgment and awarded sentence by extending the benefit of acquittal to them. (4) Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned appearing counsel of the appellant of Cr. Being dissatisfied with such conviction and sentence the appellants have come to this Court with their separate appeals for setting aside the impugned judgment and awarded sentence by extending the benefit of acquittal to them. (4) Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned appearing counsel of the appellant of Cr. A. No. 155/ 04, namely Babloo, after taking me through the evidence led by the prosecution, exhibited papers available in the record, argued that in view of material inconsistency in the deposition of complainant Suresh Bamoriya (PW3) between his in-chief and cross examination also with the interrogatory statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P. C. and the averments of FIR, mere on his deposition the appellant could not have been convicted unless the same is proved by any independent evidence. By referring some paras of the deposition of Suresh, he said that at one stage he stated that the alleged incident took place on the platform i.e. out of the shop where he was sitting while at some other place he deposed that the incident took place inside the shop in presence of the named witnesses. In continuation by referring the deposition of Pramod Kumar (PW9), Satish Verma (PW10), Ramkumar (PW11), he said that they were cited as eyewitnesses of the incident in police report filed under Section 173 of Cr. P. C. but on perusing their deposition it is apparent that any of them has not stated any incriminating thing against any of the appellants, even they could not explain the circumstance in which the victim Suresh sustained the alleged injury. By referring the deposition of Ramesh Bamoria (PW4), the real brother of the victim he said that in view of the contradiction and omission in the deposition of this witness with his case diary statement (Ex. D1) and also in view of inconsistency between his deposition and the deposition of victim Suresh, the version of this witness could not be a foundation for holding the conviction against the appellant. In any case looking to the factum of earlier enmity between Suresh Bamoria and Babloo, unless the story put forth by the complainant Suresh and his real brother Ramesh is supported by some other independent source of evidence their depositions are not safe to hold the conviction and maintain the same against the appellant. In continuation by switching over another aspect of the case and referring the deposition of Dr. In continuation by switching over another aspect of the case and referring the deposition of Dr. M. S. Rana (PW1), who examined the victim Suresh Kumar (PW1) and prepared his MLC report (Ex. P.1), he said that although this witness while proving the MLC report (Ex. P.1), has stated that on examination of Suresh he found Laceration images inverted black mark over margin with bleeding at the right side of lower lip measuring 2 cm x 11/2 cm x bone deep and also found two teeth, one incisor and one canine absent and as per his opinion such injury was caused by some fire arm object. He also advised for x-ray of mandible AP and Lat. In such MLC the doctor has not described or stated the nature of such injury, for which it is stated that nature of injury will be given on receiving the x-ray report. The duration of such injury was shown to be within 12 hours. In continuation he said that looking to the averments of said MLC the alleged injury could not be treated to be an injury of firearm mere on the basis of some black mark over the margin of the same. He further said that in the absence of any out side substance and the sign of tutting, in such injury, the same could not be treated to be the injury of firearm. He further said that when the nature of injury was not stated by the doctor at the initial stage of preparing the MLC report and thereafter he did not give any opinion by perusing any x-ray report, which is not available on record, then the oral testimony of such doctor in this regard is not sufficient to draw any inference to hold victim Suresh sustained such injury with some firearm object. According to his submission on excluding the possibility of sustaining or causing the alleged injury with some firearm, the same appears to be simple in nature. He further said that in the lack of any statement of any Dentist proving the alleged teeth of the victim were broken within the period in which the alleged incident was happened, it could not be deemed that alleged teeth were broken due to any act of the appellant. He further said that in the lack of any statement of any Dentist proving the alleged teeth of the victim were broken within the period in which the alleged incident was happened, it could not be deemed that alleged teeth were broken due to any act of the appellant. He also said that if any fire is made only from the distance of five feet by the Katta as stated in the FIR then the sign of burning with tutting must be found with some particles of the palate around and/or in side of the alleged injury. Mere on some black margin of such injury it could not be inferred that the same was caused by firearm. In such premises, the alleged injury could be deemed to be caused by some hard and blunt object and consequently, the impugned case could not be treated to be the case of more than Section 325 of IPC and prayed for setting aside the impugned conviction of the appellant Babloo under Section 307 and 452 of IPC. He also said that in any case if the alleged offence is converted from Section 307 to Section 325 or 326 of IPC, then by adopting some lenient view he be punished only with the jail sentence which he has already suffered as undergone during trial by imposition of reasonable fine under the discretion of the Court. So for the conviction under Section 25/ 27 of Arms Act is concerned,he said that in the available circumstances, the same is not sustainable. Firestly he argued that the custody of the alleged firearm with the appellant and recovery of the same from his possession has not been proved by cogent and reliable evidence. One of the witness of memorandum and seizure memo namely Inder Singh, (PW7), on recording his deposition turned hostile while one Kailash (PW8) has supported the same. In continuation, he also said that in every case the investigating agency and the prosecution is bound to prove that from the place of seizure of alleged article like Katta till sending the same to the expert in which manner it's custody was dealt with by such agency. In the lack of any evidence in this regard, the conviction of the appellant could not be sustained. He fairly said that ballistic report (Ex. In the lack of any evidence in this regard, the conviction of the appellant could not be sustained. He fairly said that ballistic report (Ex. P.2) prepared by Santosh Kumar (PW-2) is placed on record but unless it is proved that after seizing such article Katta was kept in safe custody and same was sent to the expert, the appellant could not be convicted for the offence under Section 25/27 of Arms Act. In the lack of any such document showing such article was kept in the safe custody, the possibility of changing such implement could not be ruled out. In such premises such implement or instrument could not be connected with the appellant on the basis of said ballistic report. In such circumstances, even on proving the sanction for prosecution (Ex. P.14) obtained from Shri B. M. Sharma (PW13), the then Additional District Magistrate Gwalior, the same along with the implement on which the same was given, could not be connected with the appellant and prayed for extending the acquittal to the appellant from the charge of Section 25/27 of Arms Act also. With these submission he prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and extending the acquittal to the appellant from the alleged charges by allowing this appeal. (5) Shri Praveen Mishra, learned counsel of the appellant (Mohan) of Cr. A. No. 133/ 04 by adopting the arguments advanced by said counsel for extending the acquittal to the appellant Babloo from the charge of the offence of Section 452 of IPC, in addition, said that the prosecution has failed to prove the presence of appellant Mohan at the scenario or any act attributed by him in the alleged incident, in the lack of it and in view of the inconsistency between the averments of FIR, interrogatory statement of victim Suresh and his deposition and also with the testimony of his brother Ramesh Bamoriya (PW-4), the testimony of victim is neither sufficient nor reliable to maintain the conviction of the appellant under Section 452 of IPC specially when the other alleged eyewitnesses have turned hostile. With this submission he prayed for acquittal of the appellant by allowing this appeal. With this submission he prayed for acquittal of the appellant by allowing this appeal. (6) On the other hand responding the aforesaid arguments advanced by the counsel of aforesaid both the appeals, Shri Vijay Sunderam learned Penal Lawyer by justifying the impugned judgment and conviction of the appellants, said that the same are based on proper appreciation of evidence and also is in conformity with law, it does not require any interference at this stage either for extending the acquittal to the appellants or converting the offence in some minor offence of same category and prayed for dismissal of both the appeals. Having heard the counsel keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the evidence led by the prosecution and also perused the impugned judgment. On recording the deposition of victim Suresh Bamoriya (PW3) he categorically stated that when he was sitting on his alleged Band shop along with his artist namely Manoj, Satish and Promod, at the same time the appellants Babloo, Mohan and one Munendra came there and entered in such shop and out of them Mohan tried to give him a blow of iron rod, the same was caught hold by him with his hands, at the same time he was subjected to gun shot by appellant Babloo, through country made pistol, resultantly he sustained some injury with bleeding on his lower lip and his two teeth were broken. According to his deposition Ramesh, Rajendra and Pramod also came there who took him to police out post Hazira where he lodged the FIR (Ex. P.3). Thereafter on sending him to JA hospital, Gwalior his MLC report was prepared. According to version of the victim, he was subjected to blow of iron rod by Munendra and Mohan while alleged gun shot through country made pistol was made by appellant Babloo. Although such witness has been cross-examined at length, but on going through her entire deposition I have not found anything destroying the aforesaid version stated by the victim in his chief. So for Munendra and appellant Mohan are concerned, it is apparent from his in-chief itself that no injury of iron rod was sustained by the victim. Even on medical examination no such injury of iron rod was found on the person of victim by the concerning doctor. So for Munendra and appellant Mohan are concerned, it is apparent from his in-chief itself that no injury of iron rod was sustained by the victim. Even on medical examination no such injury of iron rod was found on the person of victim by the concerning doctor. (7) Now I have to examine that till what extent the story put forth by the victim in the FIR, interrogatory statements and also in the aforesaid deposition has been proved by other evidence led by the prosecution. (8) Besides the victim, out of alleged eyewitnesses, Satish Verma (PW-10) and Ramkumar (PW-11) have been examined but it is apparent from their deposition that they turned hostile and did not state anything against any of the appellants. Out of them Ramkumar stated that he was told that some gun shot fire was made by some one at the shop of Rajendra situated in front of Patali Hanuman temple but he further stated that he does not know the name of culprit, who made the fire. Both the witnesses have contradicted their case diary statements Ex. P. 12 and Ex. P. 13 respectively. One another named witness in FIR Manoj has neither been examined nor any explanation regarding his non-examination has been put forth by the prosecution on record. Such non-examination gives sufficient circumstance to draw the inference that such witness was not supporting the prosecution, that is why he was not examined. Accordingly the story put forth by the victim has not been supported by any of the alleged eyewitnesses. The story put forth by the victim Suresh (PW-3) has been supported with respect of some circumstances by his real brother Ramesh Kumar Bamoriya (PW-4), who reached on the spot immediately after hearing the noise of quarrel and gun shot, at that time the appellant Babloo, Mohan and Munendra were running away from such place and his brother Suresh was laying there in injured condition as after sustaining the injury on his face the blood was also profused from it. He also supported the version that Suresh sustained the alleged injury on his lower lip and his two teeth were also broken. As per further averments the victim was taken to police station by him accompanied with Pramod, Mahesh and some other person of the locality. He also supported the version that Suresh sustained the alleged injury on his lower lip and his two teeth were also broken. As per further averments the victim was taken to police station by him accompanied with Pramod, Mahesh and some other person of the locality. (9) Pramod Kumar (PW-9) whose name was stated by Ramesh Kumar (PW-4), the brother of the victim was also examined, he deposed that on his reaching to the aforesaid shop of Suresh he found that Suresh was laying injured with bleeding from his face. On asking the name of culprit, the victim told him that Deokant (Babloo), made the gun shot on him, thereafter the victim was taken to police out post Hazira by this witness on his Motorcycle. So till some extent this witness has supported the story put forth by the victim. It is apparent fact that this independent witness PRAMOD Kumar as well as Ramesh Kumar Bamoriya the real brother of vicitim had not stated anything showing the entrance of appellant Mohan and Munendra in the disputed shop of the victim and trying to cause him the blow of iron rod. In the lack of any independent corroboration, the story put forth by the victim against Mohanlal and Munendra causing him the injury by means of iron rod could not be held to be true. Besides this, in the lack of any injury of iron rod either in the hands of the victim or any other part of his person, no inference could be drawn against Mohan, the appellant of Cr. A. No. 133/04. So in such premises the conviction and sentence of said Mohan under Section 452 of IPC could not be sustained. Consequently, by allowing the appeal of Mohan Lal, he is acquitted from the aforesaid charge of Section 45 of IPC and till this extent the findings of the trial Court in the impugned judgment are hereby set aside. (10) But even after extending the benefit of acquittal to the appellant Mohanlal, there is sufficient evidence against Babloo the appellant of Cr. A. 155/04 showing his active involvement in the alleged offence. (10) But even after extending the benefit of acquittal to the appellant Mohanlal, there is sufficient evidence against Babloo the appellant of Cr. A. 155/04 showing his active involvement in the alleged offence. According to the deposition of Suresh Bomoriya (PW-3),as discussed above, the appellant Babloo after entering in his shop made a gun shot on him whereby he sustained the injuries on his lower lip and his two teeth were broken, the blood was also profused and his such version is further supported by Dr. M. S. Rana (PW-1) who after medical examination of victim prepared the MLC report (Ex. P.1), according to which he found the corresponding injury on the lower lip of the victim. He also found that two teeth of the victim were broken, according to his opinion such injury was caused within 12 hours. So the testimony of injured victim has been supported by the medical evidence and the same is further supported by circumstantial evidence deposed by Suresh Bamoriya, the real brother of victim and till some extent by Pramod Kumar (PW-9), who reached the spot immediately after the incident. Although Pramod has turned hostile on some aspect of the incident but whatsoever stated by him in para 1 with respect of the scenario of the place of the incident and regarding injury of the victim, in view of the depositions of victim, aforesaid doctor and brother of the victim could be treated to be as supporting witnesses to the case of prosecution. Therefore, in the aforesaid premises, it is held that on the date of the incident the appellant Babloo along with some country made Katta, with intention to commit the cognizable offence entered in the above mentioned shop of the victim and caused him the alleged injury stated and proved by the doctor. Although this Court has to examine the position whether the injury stated by the Dr. M. S. Rana (PW-1), in the MLC report (Ex. P1) as well as in his deposition, was an injury of fire arm or the same was caused by the hard and blunt part of the country made Katta, which was in the hand of the appellant Babloo. M. S. Rana (PW-1), in the MLC report (Ex. P1) as well as in his deposition, was an injury of fire arm or the same was caused by the hard and blunt part of the country made Katta, which was in the hand of the appellant Babloo. But in any case in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that with intention to commit the offence the appellant Babloo entered in the above mentioned shop of the victim and caused him the alleged injury stated by the victim, the same is also proved by doctor M. S. Rana (PW-1). So in such premises, the conviction of appellant Babloo under Section 452 of IPC is hereby affirmed. (11) Coming to consider the nature of aforesaid injury sustained by the victim. Firstly I would like to reproduce the version stated by the Dr. M. S. Rana (PW-3), in the MLC report (Ex. P1) of victim, the same is as follows : "Laceration images inverted black mark over margin bleeding at the right side of lower lip and also found two teeth absent, one incisor and canine measuring 2cm x 11/2 cm x bone deep with bleeding. As per opinion of such injury was caused by some fire arm. He also advised for x-ray of mandible AP/Lat. As per further averments of the report the Doctor has not given the nature of injuries, for which it is stated that nature will be given on receiving the x-ray while the duration of sustaining injury has been shown within 12 hours." (12) It is apparent that neither any x-ray plate nor its report has been produced by the prosecution on record. In the lack of such x-ray report and non-examination of any radiologist in view of the aforesaid version of MLC report (Ex. P.1), according to which the opinion regarding nature of the injury was to be given after receiving the x-ray report. But it is apparent fact on record that neither the x-ray nor any subsequent opinion of said doctor regarding nature of the injury was neither placed nor proved on record. P.1), according to which the opinion regarding nature of the injury was to be given after receiving the x-ray report. But it is apparent fact on record that neither the x-ray nor any subsequent opinion of said doctor regarding nature of the injury was neither placed nor proved on record. In such premises it could not be inferred that the alleged injury was caused by firearm and was sufficient to cause death of the victim in ordinary course of nature, mere oral testimony of doctor saying that such injury was sustained by the victim by firearm, it could not be held that such injury was caused by the appellant with some firearm. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the victim has sustained some lacerated wound caused by hard and blunt object on his lower lip and teeth. The same may be caused by hard and blunt part of the alleged country made Katta. So looking to the particulars and the nature of aforesaid injury, I am of the considered view that such injury was not sufficient to cause death of the victim in the ordinary course of nature. Hence the case of the appellant being not falling under any of the category defined in earlier part of Section 300 of IPC or even later part of the same, hence the impugned conviction of appellant Babloo for the offence under Section 307 of IPC could not be sustained. Hence, by setting aside the same keeping in view the provision of Section 320 of IPC in which breaking of the teeth is also shown to be a grievous injury, it is held that appellant voluntarily with intention to commit some cognizable offence entered in the shop of victim along with the country made pistol and caused a blow from hard and blunt side of such firearm on the face of the victim, resultantly he sustained some injury with bleeding to his lower lip and his teeth one incisor and one canine were also broken and in such premises, the appellant has committed the offence made punishable under Section 452 and 326 of IPC and not the offence of Section 307 of IPC. Till this extent the findings of the impugned judgment deserves to be and is hereby modified. Till this extent the findings of the impugned judgment deserves to be and is hereby modified. Pursuant to it the appellant Babloo is acquitted from the charge of Section 307 of IPC by holding the appellant guilty for committing the offence under Section 326 and 452 of IPC. (13) So for conviction of the appellant Babloo under Section 25/27 of Arms Act is concerned, I have carefully gone through entire evidence. True it is, that in order to prove the custody and recovery of alleged firearm from the appellant two witnesses of memorandum recorded under Section 27 of Evidence Act and the seizure memo of the same namely Inder Singh (PW-7) and Kailash (PW-8) have been examined. Besides them the same have been proved by investigating officer Smt. Shailja Gupta (PW-14) and sanction for the prosecution of the appellant under the provision of Arms Act was given by B. M. Sharma, the then Additional District Magistrate of such District. But to connect such sanction for prosecution with the present case the prosecution was bound to prove that the firearm which was sent to ballistic expert for examination and also to sanctioning authority, was the same firearm which was seized from the custody of the appellant on the date mentioned in the memorandum (Ex. P.10) of the appellant recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the seizure memo, for this, the prosecution was further bound to prove that from the time of recovery till sending the same to ballistic expert for its examination, the same was kept in the safe custody either in Malkhana of the police station or any other place by mentioning or endorsing its's entry in the Rojnamcha Sanha or any other register maintained in that regard and from such custody the same was sent to the aforesaid ballistic expert by making the entry in the Rojnamcha Sanha or the Register kept in that regard. In the lack of proving the aforesaid Rojnamcha or register, it could not be deemed that Katta which was seized from the appellant was the same which was sent to the ballistic expert or produced before the Sanctioning Authority. It is also apparent on record that such Katta is neither produced nor marked the article either by investigating officer or by any of the witnesses of memorandum and seizure memo or by the ballistic expert on recording their depositions. It is also apparent on record that such Katta is neither produced nor marked the article either by investigating officer or by any of the witnesses of memorandum and seizure memo or by the ballistic expert on recording their depositions. In the lack of such production of the Katta before the Court and marking the article or exhibit on it the available evidence of examined witnesses are not sufficient to connect the alleged Katta with the appellant. Besides this the alleged Katta was never sent to the Doctor for his opinion and was remained sealed at all stages of the case, the same has also not been proved. In such premises, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any operative firearm was recovered from the custody of the appellant. (14) I would like to mention here that prosecution was bound to prove that seizing the alleged firearm from the custody of the appellant the same was dealt with all precautions avoiding the possibility of changing such firearm before sending the same to the ballistic expert or to the sanctioning authority. In the lack of such evidence of the custody of the alleged firearm could not be connected with the case at hand to hold the conviction against the appellant. In the case at hand it is apparent that no such record or papers showing that the alleged Katta was dealt with in accordance with law by keeping the same in proper custody till sending the same to Ballistic expert and the sanctioning authority has been placed. My aforesaid view is based on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of The State of Rajasthan v. Dajulat Ram reported in AIR 1980 SC 1314 : (1980 Cri LJ 929), in which it was held as under : "Where the samples of opium changed several hands before reaching the public analyst and yet none of those in whose custody the samples remained were examined by the prosecution ot prove that while in their custody the seals on the samples were not tampered with, the inevitable effect of the omission was that the prosecution failed to rule out the possibility of the samples being changed or tampered with during the period in question - a fact which which had to be proved affimatively by the prosecution. Consequently, the accused could not be convicted under Section 9-A. In such a case, the prosecution could not be allowed to fill up the gaps in the prosecution story at the appellant or revisional stage." Although the aforesaid case was decided taking into consideration the possession of the contraband substance Opium under the Opium Act 1878, but the principle laid down in this case, directing that in which manner the seized substance should be dealt with under the prescribed procedure, is applicable to the case at hand also. In view of the aforesaid discussion the Cr. A. No. 133/04 is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant Mohanlal under Section 452 of IPC is set aside and he is acquitted from such charge, while by allowing the Cr. A. No. 155/04, filed by Babloo, in part and by setting a side his conviction and sentence under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act, he is held guilty for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and his conviction under Section 452 of IPC held by the trial Court is also affirmed. (15) Considering the circumstance that this appeal is pending since the year 2004 and since then the appellant is facing the mental agony of this litigation, I deem fit to punish him with some lessor punishment, hence he is punished under Section 326 of IPC for RI one year with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of depositing the fine, further six months SI. So for the sentence awarded by the trial Court to this appellant under Section 452 of IPC is concerned on consideration the same is hereby reduced from three years to one year by enhancing the fine from Rs. 1,000/- to 2,000/-, in default of depositing the fine further three months SI. The aforesaid both the sentences shall run concurrently. (16) In view of aforesaid acquittal of Mohanlal the appellant of Cr. A. No. 133/ 04, his bail bonds are hereby discharged. The amount of fine, if any, deposited by Mohanlal in compliance of the impugned judgment then after proper verification, the same be refunded to him. Babloo the appellant of Cr. The aforesaid both the sentences shall run concurrently. (16) In view of aforesaid acquittal of Mohanlal the appellant of Cr. A. No. 133/ 04, his bail bonds are hereby discharged. The amount of fine, if any, deposited by Mohanlal in compliance of the impugned judgment then after proper verification, the same be refunded to him. Babloo the appellant of Cr. A. No. 155/04, is on bail, his bail bonds are hereby cancelled and he is directed to surrender himself in the trial Court on or before 15-6-2011 for facing the remaining jail sentence, as stated above, failing which the trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps within fifteen days from 15-6-2011 to take him in custody and serve the remaining jail sentence. Accordingly the Cr. A. No. 133/04, filed by Mohanlal is allowed while the Cr. A. No. 155/04 filed by Babloo is allowed in part and his conviction and sentence are hereby modified with the terms as indicated above. (17) As this order has been passed in Cr. A. No. 155/04, by disposing of Cr. A. No. 133/04 also, hence the office is directed to keep the copy of this judgment on the record of the Cr. A. No. 133/04. Appeal partly allowed.