N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) (N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.) when the Criminal Appeal No. 66/96 was taken up for arguments, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants therein and the learned Public prosecutor submitted that Criminal Appeal No. 65/96 which is pending before the learned single Judge is almost connected to Criminal Appeal No. 66/96 filed against the judgment and order in S. C. No. 222/92. S. C. No. 222/92 and S. C. No. 50/92 are the case and the counter case. Time, place and the alleged offence are same. Some of the witnesses in S. C. No. 222/92 are the accused in S. C. No. 50/92 and vice versa. To avoid confusion, both the learned counsel requested that the said appeal, viz. , Criminal Appeal No. 65/96 pending before the learned single Judge may also be directed to be posted before this Bench to be heard simultaneously with Criminal Appeal No. 66 / 96. Sri C. Poornaiah, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 65/66 submitted that he has no objection to hear the appeal simultaneously along with criminal Appeal No. 65/96. That is how these two appeals are heard one after the other in order to understand the facts properly and of course,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document