MUSHTAQ AHMED WANI @ NAZEER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant- Mushtaq Ahmed Wani @ Nazeer challenges judgment dated 12.04.2010 in Sessions Case No.09/2007 arising out of FIR No.91/2006 registered at PS Special Cell by which he was held guilty and convicted for offences punishable under Section 20/21 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine Rs. 25,000/- and RI for eight years with fine Rs. 25,000/- under both the Sections respectively. Benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. was extended.

(2.) Allegations against the appellant were that on 25.11.2006 at about 06.15 P.M. at bus stop near Ramlila Ground, Netaji Subhash Marg, opposite Lal Quila, he was found in possession of a black colour shoulder bag. On search of the bag Indian currency in the denomination of Rs. 500 in 12 wads amounting to Rs. 6 lacs was recovered. During investigation, it revealed that the appellant was a Constable bearing No.Exe 021778778 in Jammu & Kashmir Police. The appellant was not able to account for the money recovered from his possession. It was discovered that he was an active member of banned militant outfit LeT and the cash was collected through Hawal operative at Kabootar Market opposite Lal Quila. He was also found in possession of mobile bearing No.9999239734, ID card and one matrix. He was charged under Sections 7/18/20/21 of the Act. The prosecution examined twenty nine witnesses to substantiate the charges. In his 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused pleaded false implication. He examined one witness in defence. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, convicted the appellant under Section 20/21 of the Act only. Being aggrieved the appellant has preferred the appeal.

(3.) During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant on instructions from the appellant- Mushtaq Ahmed Wani @ Nazeer stated that the appellant has opted not to challenge the conviction under Section 20/21 of the Act. He however, prayed for reduction of the sentence from eight years to seven years as the appellant is not a previous convict and is not involved in any other criminal case. Learned APP has opposed reduction in sentence.