Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

Both these appeals having arisen out of the same judgment dated 21.1.2004 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, so are being adjudicated together herein below.

2. Five accused persons, namely, Devi Prasad Bhatt (A1), Aditya Pandit (A2), Janardan (A3), Ritesh Sharma (A4) and Sushil Kumar Sharma (A5) were tried for the offences of Section 120B, 397, 394 IPC by the learned Trial Court and after the trial, the learned Judge found the crime proved only against Ritesh Sharma for the offence of Section 394, 411 and 120B IPC. He has appropriately been sentenced, while rest of the accused persons were let free by the impugned judgment. So, the convict Ritesh Sharma has challenged the impugned judgment by way of filing the Criminal Appeal No. 25/2004, while State has preferred Government Appeal No. 244/2008 challenging the acquittal of A1 and A2.

3. I have heard the arguments for and against and have gone through the merits of the impugned judgment.

4. The genesis of the prosecution case is that a huge cash amount to the tune of rupees 3.5 lakhs, which was of the Ganga Yamuna Gramin Bank, was plundered allegedly by these accused