SALIM SHAMSUDDIN SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals are preferred under the provisions of Section 374 read with Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the legality and validity of the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Ahmedabad City disposing two Sessions Case No. 46 of 1999 and Sessions Case No. 190 of 2000, on 23rd April, 2004 whereby the learned trial Judge has held the accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty of the charge of offence punishable under Section 25 (1) (a) read with Section 35 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default thereof to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 have been held guilty of the charge of offence punishable under Section 25 (1aa) read with Section 35 of the Arms Act and sentenced them to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of making payment of fine to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The leaned trial Judge has ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently with benefit under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2004 is original accused No. 2, appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 885 of 2004 is original accused No. 1 and the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 912 of 2004 is original accused No. 4.

(2.) TOTAL nine accused persons were arrested and charge-sheeted by the Police for the offences punishable under Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal code and under Section 25 (1) (a) and / or 25 (1aa) read with Section 35 of the Arms Act. On account of piecemeal arrest, the Police filed different charge-sheets against the accused persons and obviously therefore they were committed to the Court of Sessions accordingly. AS such five Sessions Cases were registered for one said offence. However, accused of Sessions Case No. 309 of 1999, Sessions Case No. 34 of 1999 and Sessions Case No. 8 of 2000 came to be discharged by the learned City Sessions Judge. Out of nine accused persons, five accused persons were discharged and remaining four accused persons have been tried by both these Sessions Case being Sessions Case No. 46 of 1999 and Sessions Case No. 190 of 2000. Whereas, the original accused No. 3-Abdul Mazid Baloch has been acquitted by the impugned judgment and order and the Court is informed by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties that the State has not preferred any appeal in respect of acquittal of original accused No. 3. So, the judgment and order under challenge obviously shall have to be evaluated in the background of the evidence led by prosecution and submissions made in reference to the charge leveled against the three accused-appellants. All the three appeals challenging the common judgment and order of conviction and sentence are dealt with jointly and are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake convenience the appellants have been referred as original accused No. 1, 2 and 4 respectively hereinafter.

(3.) THE legality and validity of the judgment and order is assailed on various grounds in all the three appeals and Mr. S. V. Raju, learned Counsel appearing for the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. J. M. Panchal, learned Counsel appearing for the original accused No. 4 have taken me through the grounds mentioned in the memo of respective appeals and have made their detailed submissions. In the same way, the learned A. P. P. , Ms. Pandit, has attempted to show that ultimate finding recorded by the learned trial Judge is based on sound reasons and no illegality or perversity is found in the finding arrived at by the learned trial Judge. According to her the evidence led by prosecution has been correctly appreciated keeping in mind the well established principles of law regarding appreciation of evidence.