Singh, C.J. -- 1. Through this judgment, we propose to decide this batch of fifteen Letters Patent Appeals [L.P.A. No. 212 of 2001 (Subrato Bachaspati v. State or M.P. and others), L.P.A. No. 224 of 2001 (Shambhu Prasad alias Chhota v. State of M.P.), L.P.A. No. 237 of 2001 (Makhhan v. State of M.P. and another), L.P.A. No. 245 of 2001 (Jawala Prasad v. State or M.P. and others), L.P.A. No. 254 of 2001 (Ram Murti v. State of M.P. and others), L.P.A. No. 255 of 2001 (Anil Kumar v. State of M.P. and others), L.P.A. No. 284 of 2001 (Ram Raj v. State of M.P. and others), L.P.A. No. 304 of 2001 (Manohar v. State or M.P. and others), L.P.A. No.6 of 2002 (Ramesh Kumar v. State of M.P. and others), L.P.A. No. 12 of 2002 (Manohar and others v. State of M.P. and others), L.P.A. No. 59 of 2002 (Hari alias Harish Chand v. State of M.P. and others), L.P.A. No. 121 of 2002 (Ishwar Dayal v. State of M.P. and others), L.P.A. No. 122 of 2002 (Gheese Lal and others v. State of M.P. and others), L.P.A. No. 128 of 2002 (Raj Kumar v. State of M.P. and others) and L.P.A. No. 137 of 2002 (Rajesh and others v. State of M.P. and others) since common question of law arises for consideration in a