Holding

The appeal is dismissed as academic; the convictions and sentences, including the life term under Section 364A IPC, are upheld.

Summary

The appellant, Daya Singh Lahoria (also known as Rajeev Sudan and Vinay Kumar), was convicted of offences under IPC sections 420, 468, 471 and 364A, as well as the Explosive Substances Act, and sentenced to seven years of imprisonment (concurrent) and life imprisonment for a kidnapping‑related offence. He had already served the full seven‑year term when the appeal was filed, and the Supreme Court noted that the High Court had dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was not pressed. The appellant also challenged the jurisdiction of his prosecution on the basis of an extradition treaty, but the Court held that the extradition was valid for trial under the Explosive Substances Act. The Court further upheld the conviction and life sentence under Section 364A IPC. Since the appellant had completed the seven‑year sentence and no useful purpose would be served, the Court dismissed the appeal as academic without examining the merits.

Issues considered

The appeal is infructuous when the appellant has already served the imposed sentence.
Whether the conviction under the Explosive Substances Act is invalid due to alleged improper extradition.
Whether the conviction and life sentence under Section 364A IPC should be upheld.
The propriety of dismissing an appeal on the ground that it was not pressed.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959s. 25, s. 7
Explosive Substances Act, 1908s. 4, s. 5
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 364A, s. 420, s. 468, s. 471
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Acts. 18

Subjects

criminal justiceappealacademic appealconvictionsentencelife imprisonmentextraditionExplosive Substances ActIPCTADAconcurrent sentences

Judgment

A DAYA SINGH LAHORIYA @RAJEEV SUDAN@ VINA Y KUMAR ~·

v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN

MAY 14, 2007

B [C.K. THAKKER AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.]

Administration of criminal justice-Cognate matter decided against f
)..
th¢ accused-In the present matter since the accused has already undergone
imprisonment for the period sentenced, no useful purpose would be served
c by entering into the merits of the matter.

In the present appeal, the appellant has challenged his conviction and
sentence whereby he has been ordered to undergo imprisonment for seven
years. It was contended that the appellant has already remained in jail for
D seven years.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court
~

HELD : In the light of the finding recorded by this Court in the cognate
matter, this appeal is, more or less, academic and has become infructuous in
E view of the circumstances that the appellant has been convicted for an offence
punishable under section 364 A IPC and has been ordered to undergo sentence
of imprisonment for life and said order has been upheld; and that in the present
appeal, the appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence whereby he
has been ordered to undergo imprisonment for seven years. The appellant
has l'.emained in jail for seven years and the said period is over.
F [Para 15] (498-D-E]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 728 of
2007.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2005 of the High Court
G of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.
332 of20G5. ...._
/

Sushi! Kumar, Kamini Jaiswal, Dasvir Singh Dalee, Shomila Bakshi, Sunita ,.,.
Dwivedi, Vinay Arora and Sudarshan Singh Ravat for the Appellant. --...,

H 494
DAYA SINGHLAHORIYA@RAJEE\ SUDAN@VINAYKUMAR.v. STATEOFRAJASTHAN [C.K. THAKKER,J.J 495

Milind Kumar (for Aruneshwar Gupta), Addi. Adv. General for the A
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C.K. THAKKER, J. I. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated
B
December 6, 2005 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature
for Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 332 of2005. By the
said order, a Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the
appellant herein who had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge
(Fast Track Court) No.I, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Session Case No. 27 of2003. C

3. It is not necessary to set out facts in detail since we have stated all
_the facts in Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 2006 (Suman Sood@ Kamal Jeet
Kaur v. State of Rajasthan) and a cognate matter which we have decided
today. Suffice it to state that a complaint being First Information Report (FIR)
No. 84 of 1995 was registered at Malviya Nagar Police Station, Jaipur on D
February 26, 1995 against Daya Singh, appellant herein, Suman Sood@Kamal
Jeet Kaur (accused No.2) and one Hamek Singh @ Surender Verma
T
(absconding) for offences punishable under Sections 353, 420, 468, 471, 472,
)
473, 474 read with Section 1208 Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), for
offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act; E
1908, Sections 7 and 25 of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 18 of TADA etc.

4. The case of the prosecution was that the appellant herein along with
his wife Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur fabricated Registration Certificate
for purchasing several vehicles in order to carry out conspiracy of kidnapping
and abducting one Rajender Mirdha, son of Shri Ram Niwas Mirdha to exert p
pressure on the Government of India to release one Devendra Singh Bhullar,
an alleged Khalistani terrorist who was being held in custody by the police.
It was also alleged that the appellant was found to be in possession of
prohibited arms and ammunition allegedly recovered from House No. B-117,
Model Town, Ashok Nagar during police raid where the appellant was staying.
G
5. Initially, prosecution was launched in the Designated Court at Ajmer
) since the provisions of TADA were also invoked. The appellant herein,
however, challenged his prosecution under TADA. In Daya Singh Lahoria
v. Union of India & Ors., [200 I] 4 SCC 516, this Court upheld the challenge
since the prosecution of the accused could only be maintained in accordance
H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A with the Extradition Treaty and the Decree of Extradition under which the
accused were extradited by the United States of America to India.

6. Thereafter, the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 27 of 2003
under the Indian Penal Code and also under the Explosive Substances Act,
1908. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, convicted
B accused No. I (appellant herein) as under: ·

Under Section 420 /PC: to 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/, in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months S.l.
Under Section 468 !PC : to 7 years R.l. and a fine of
c Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6
months S.l.
Under Section 471 !PC : to 2 years R.l.

Under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act: to 7 years R.I.
and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further
D undergo 6 months S.I.
7. So far as accused No.2 (Suman Sood) is concerned, she was acquitted
by the Court observing that the prosecution was unable to prove the case 'T
beyond doubt against her.

E 8. The appellant, being aggrieved by the order of conviction and
sentence, preferred an appeal in the High Court of Rajasthan. Likewise, the
State of Rajasthan, being aggrieved by an order of acquittal passed by the
trial Court against Suman Sood instituted an application for leave to appeal
against acquittal.

F 9. A Single Judge of the High Court refused to grant leave against
accused No.2 (Suman Sood) holding that the trial Court was right in recording
an order of acquittal against her and no case had been made out to grant
leave. Leave was accordingly refused.

10. So far as the appellant is concerned, at the time of hearing of appeal,
G it was stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that maximum sentence
awarded to the appellant was of seven years and all sentences were ordered .
to tun concurrently. The appellant had already remained in jail for seven years · (
and thus he had already undergone the sentence of imprisonment. He,
therefore, did not press the appeal. The High Court disposed of the appeal <
H and observed;
DAYA SINGH LAHORIYA@ RAJEEV SUDAN@ \1NAY KUMAR v. STATE OF RAIASTHAN (C.K. THAKKER, J.] 497

"At the very outset, the learned counsel Mr. G.S. Fauzdar for the A
>- accused appellant Daya Singh contended that maximum sentence in
the present case was seven years and all the sentences were ordered
to run conc11rrently and appellant has already completed his sentence
of imprisonment of seven years, therefore, in these chumstances, he
does not press the appeal filed on behalf of Daya Singh, challenging
his order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as B
mentioned above. In view of the above statement of the learned
counsel for the appellant Daya Singh @ Vinay Kumar, the SB Cr.
Appeal No. 332/05 filed by Daya Singh is hereby dismissed as not
"'
-..(
pressed".

11. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, appearing for the appellant, challenged the
c
order of conviction and sentence. When her attention was invited by the
Court to the above paragraph, she submitted that she did not dispute that
such a statement was made on behalf of the accused in the High Court, but
submitted that, she be permitted to argue the appeal, particularly when in
. other Special Leave Petitions, leave was granted and appeals were heard on D
merits. She also submitted that the impugned judgment and order of conviction
,. and sentence are ex facie, illegal, unlawful and liable to be set aside. She also
submitted that considering the Extradition Treaty of 1931 between United
States of America and Great Britain and the Extradition Order passed by the
American Court on June 11, 1997, the appellant could not have been prosecuted
in Indian Court and the trial of the appellant was without authority of law. On
E
merits also, no case had been made out by the prosecution. The other
accused (Suman Sood) was acquitted on the same evidence and leave to
appeal against an order of acquittal was refused by the High Court. The
conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellant on the same
evidence is also vitillted and deserves to be set aside. F
12. We would have considered the prayer of the learned counsel
particularly when the case relates to administration of criminal justice and
other matters were pending. In the facts and circumstances, however, we are
of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served in entering
into the merits of the matter. G

13. So far as extradition of the appellant is concerned, we have already
dealt with all contentions relating to Extradition Treaty as well as Extradition
~ Order exhaustively in the other matter. There we have noted that extradition
of the appellant was also allowed for trial of offences punishable under the
H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (2007] 6 S.C.R.

A Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
14. In our opinion, therefore, prosecution, conviction and sentence of
the appellant for offences punishable under Explosive Substances Act, 1908
cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or in excess of authority of law. The
said contention, therefore, has no force and must be negatived.
B
15. So far as the other contention is concerned, we have dismissed the
~ppeal filed by the appellant against his conviction for an offence punishable
under Section 364A IPC wherein the appellant-accused has been ordered to
undergo imprisonment for life. No useful purpose, therefore, will be served by
C entering into the merits of the matter as the maximum punishment awarded by
the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court in the present appeal was of
seven years for the offences said to have been committed by the appellant
and the appellant had already undergone the said sentence. The counsel
appearing for the appellant in the High Court appears to have kept in view
1the above position and did not press the appeal. Jn the light of the finding
D recorded by us in the cognate matter, this appeal is, more or less, academic
and has become infructuous in view of the following circumstances;

(0 the appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under 'T'
Section 364A, !PC and has been ordered to undergo sentence of
imprisonment for life and we have upheld the said order; and
E (ii) in the present appeal, the appellant has challenged his conviction
and sentence whereby he has been ordered to undergo
imprisonment for seven years. The appellant has remained in jail
for seven years and the said period is over.

F 16. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be disposed of
and is accordingly disposed of without entering into merits of the case.

N.J. Appeal disposed of.