DUDNIK VALENTYN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,QBRANCH CID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Appeals are directed against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.262 of 2015, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, dated 11.01.2016, holding that the appellants / accused A1 to A35 are guilty for the offences under Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for three months each, for the offence under Section 25(1-B) of The Arms Act, 1959 and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for three months each, for the offence under Section 25(1-B)(f) of the Arms Act.

(2.) The brief facts, which leading to filing the present appeals, are as follows:-

(3.) However, two accused A1 and A2 are still not apprehended despite issuance of non-bailable warrants against them, which remain un-executed. So far as the other accused A3 to A45 are concerned, though they were arrested on different dates, some were enlarged on bail by the trial court and remaining by the High Court on different dates on terms imposed on them. The accused persons filed a Revision before this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.204 of 2014, u/s 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 challenging the cognizance taken by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi of the charge sheet seeking to prosecute A38 for commission of several offences detailed therein. Sofar as A3 to A37 are concerned, they filed Crl.O.P. (MD) No.6719/2014, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code wherein, they also sought quashing of the charge sheet filed seeking to prosecute them for commission of various offences, detailed above.