SYED TURBUDDIN Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE II Additional Metropolitan Sessions judge, Hyderabad, tried the appellants in criminal Appeal No. 826 of 2000 and three others (A-3 to A-5) for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal code, 1860 (IPC) and first appellant for the offence punishable Section 25 (1) (B) (b) of the indian Arms Act in Sessions Case No. 551 of 1995. Initially, case was registered against a-1 to A-5 and others, but as the other persons, were not apprehended as on the date of filing of the charge sheet, the appellants and A-3 to A-5 were only tried. The trial Court, on an analysis of both ocularand documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that A-3 to A-5 are not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC, and A-1 is not guilty of the offence punishable under section 25 (1) (B) (b) of the Indian Arms Act, however, A-1 and A-2 are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC and accordingly by judgment dated 29. 06. 2000, convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Questioning the said conviction, A-1 and A-2 preferred Criminal appeal No. 826 of 2000 and challenging the acquittal of A-1 to A-5 of the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC and A-1 of the offence punishable under Section 25 (1) (B) (b) of the indian Arms Act, the State preferred Criminal appeal No. 96 of 2005.

(2.) AS these two appeals arise against the same judgment these two appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) FOR the sake of convenience, the appellants in Crime No. 826 of 2000 and the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2005 are hereinafter referred to as 'the accused'.