Ehsan Mohammad Tufel Qureshi Vs. State of Maharashtra
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1393 of 2007
Petitioner: Ehsan Mohammad Tufel Qureshi
Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1393 of 2007
Judges: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 21, 2013
Head Note:
Criminal Laws
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
Section 5 – Arms Act, 1959, Sections 3 and 7 read with Section 25(1-A)(1-B)(a) – General charge of conspiracy – Conviction under Section 5, TADA – Charge of conspiracy and illegal possession of one Mauser pistol and 16 live cartridges – Said weapons given to appellant by A39 – After arrest of appellant, during course of interrogation, A39 in presence of two panch witnesses made a disclosure statement and stated that he had given the appellant one pistol and 16 cartridges – Said panchnama duly signed by investigating officer, panchas and A-39 – Recovery of pistol and cartridges effected pursuant to disclosure statement made by appellant, in presence of PW39, panch witness – Said witness identified pistol and cartridges as also his signature appearing on their labels – His evidence corroborated by Police Inspector, (PW- 513) who interrogated the appellant – Material sent to FSL – Forwarding letter stood proved by PW-615 – FSL report showed pistol to be in working condition and all 16 cartridges to be live. Held, it is clear that a pistol was sold by A-39 to appellant, and A-39, taught appellant how to use the cartridges. However, Designated Court’s finding that appellant’s unauthorized possession of arms does not show his complicity in the conspiracy relating to Bombay blast on 12.3.1993, calls for no interference.
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
Section 5 – Arms Act, 1959, Sections 3 and 7 read with Section 25(1-A)(1-B)(a) – General charge of conspiracy – Conviction under Section 5, TADA – Charge of conspiracy and illegal possession of one Mauser pistol and 16 live cartridges – Said weapons given to appellant by A39 – After arrest of appellant, during course of interrogation, A39 in presence of two panch witnesses made a disclosure statement and stated that he had given the appellant one pistol and 16 cartridges – Said panchnama duly signed by investigating officer, panchas and A-39 – Recovery of pistol and cartridges effected pursuant to disclosure statement made by appellant, in presence of PW39, panch witness – Said witness identified pistol and cartridges as also his signature appearing on their labels – His evidence corroborated by Police Inspector, (PW- 513) who interrogated the appellant – Material sent to FSL – Forwarding letter stood proved by PW-615 – FSL report showed pistol to be in working condition and all 16 cartridges to be live. Held, it is clear that a pistol was sold by A-39 to appellant, and A-39, taught appellant how to use the cartridges. However, Designated Court’s finding that appellant’s unauthorized possession of arms does not show his complicity in the conspiracy relating to Bombay blast on 12.3.1993, calls for no interference.
Held:
It is evident that a pistol had been sold by Firoz (A-39) to the appellant (A-122), and that it had been the accused (A-39), who had taught the appellant how to use the cartridges. It is also evident that the recovery had been effected from Mahim Creek, on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the appellant, as has been deposed by the panch witness (PW-39). (Para 213)
The learned Designated Court, after appreciation of the evidence, has held that though the appellant had been in possession of arms and ammunition in an unauthorized manner, the same does not in any way, show the complicity of the accused in the conspiracy relating to the blast of 12.3.1993. (Para 214)
We find no cogent reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Designated Court. (Para 215)
JUDGEMENT:
203. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.5.2007, passed by a Special Judge of the Designated Court under the TADA for Bombay Blasts, Greater Bombay, in the Bombay Blast Case No. 1/1993. The appellant has been charged under various heads, including for the general charge of conspiracy. The appellant has been convicted under Section 5 TADA, and has been awarded a sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.25,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further R.I. for six months, and also under Sections 3 and 7 r/w Section 25(1-A)(1- B)(a) of the Arms Act. However, no separate sentence has been awarded separately for this offence.
204. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that :
A. In addition to the main charge of conspiracy, the appellant (A- 122) was charged as he had agreed to keep in his possession, one Mauser pistol and 16 live cartridges that had been given to him by Firoz @ Akram Amani Malik (A-39), and also that there had been certain other acts that were committed by him in pursuance of the general charge of conspiracy.
B. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him as referred to hereinabove.
Hence, this appeal.
205. Shri Mushtaq Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had been dragged in trial only being relative of Fazal, though he was not involved in the offence. The arms and ammunition alleged to have been recovered from his possession might have been that of Fazal sisters husband. He was sold the weapons by Firoz @ Akram Amani Malik (A-39), and he was not aware of the fact that it was one of arms which had been smuggled into the country to commit terrorist acts. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
206. Per contra, Shri Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the State has submitted that he was found in conscious possession of the arms and ammunition in the notified area and therefore, the learned Designated Court has rightly convicted the appellant under the provisions of TADA. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
207. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
208. Evidence against the appellant (A-122):
(a) Confessional statement of Firoz @ Akram Amani Malik (A-39)
(b) Deposition of Rohitkumar Ramsaran Chourisa (PW-39)
(c) Deposition of Prakash Dhanaji Khanvilkar (PW-513)
(d) Deposition of Vishnu Ravalu Shinde (PW-615)
209. Confessional Statement of Firoz @ Akram Amani Malik (A- 39) :
His confessional statement was recorded on 23.4.1993, wherein he has revealed his participation in the conspiracy, and his inclusion thereof, in the Bombay blast. He has further stated that Zakir had given him 4 handgrenades, one pistol and 16 cartridges. He had kept the said weapons with his brother-in-law (sisters husband), Fazal. He had taken back the pistol from Fazal on 29.3.1993, and had thereafter, sold the same to Ehsan (A-122) for Rs. 15,000/-, but Ehsan had given him only Rs.5,000/-. Ehsan had also been given the cartridges and had been showed how to use them. After the arrest of the appellant, he had been interrogated on 5.4.1993, and it was in the course of this, that he had expressed his willingness to make a disclosure statement. Therefore, two panch witnesses had been called, and in their presence, he had made his disclosure statement, wherein he has stated that he had given the appellant (A-122), one pistol and 16 cartridges. The said panchnama was duly signed by the investigating officer, the panchas and the accused (A-39) himself.
210. Deposition of Rohitkumar Ramsaran Chourisa (PW-39):
The panch witness has deposed that he had been running a pan shop that was situated by the side of the Irani Restaurant which was located within the Cadell Court building, situated on Cadell Road, Mahim. One police constable had approached him and had asked him to accompany him to the Mahim Police Station, as he had been called by the station incharge. The constable had stated that he could not disclose the reason/purpose for which he had been called there, and had only told him that the Inspector would explain the same to him. His friend Ramesh Govalkar had also accompanied him. They had then gone to the Mahim Police Station with the constable. They had been taken to the Detection Room, and upon reaching the same, he had found therein, 7/8 police constables, alongwith one other person who was sitting on a chair. Two persons had also been standing by his side in civilian clothes. He had been introduced by the police constable to the inspector i.e. to P.I. Hadap and A.P.I. Khanvilkar. The police officers had informed him that the person who was sitting on the chair, was an accused in the Bombay blast case, and that therefore, he (PW-39) may act as a panch witness. He had immediately agreed to the same. He had then been told, that the accused had wanted to make a disclosure statement, and therefore, he must pay close attention to it. The person sitting there had then stated that he was Ehsan Mohmed Tufel Mohmed (A-122). He had further said that one pistol and some cartridges had been kept by him and his associate Salim Shaikh, at a particular place. If the officers would come with him, he would also show them where such material had been kept. A memorandum panchnama to this effect had been prepared and explained to the witness in Hindi and Marathi, and then signed. This witness has also identified the panchnama that had been prepared at the police station on 5.4.1993 (Exhibit 119). He has further deposed that the appellant (A-122), the police officials and the panch witnesses had gone together from Fort Road to Mahim Junction and then to Mahim Causeway, Bandra Reclamation. The appellant (A-122) had stopped at the corner, and had told them that they had to go down to the Creek. The appellant (A-122) had then gone down to the Creek with the police constables escorting him, as well as the panch witnesses. The same was a dirty place filled with water. The appellant (A-122) had then put his hand in the water, and in one attempt had taken out the plastic bag. Upon opening the bag, the same was found to contain one pistol and eight cartridges. The eight cartridges were separate from the pistol. P.I. Hadap had picked up the pistol, and taken out its magazine. The magazine had also contained eight cartridges. Thus, in all there were sixteen cartridges. The pistol was black in colour, and its name had been rubbed off. On the cartridges, the digits, 11/83 were inscribed. He has further deposed that A.P.I. Khanvilkar had placed the contraband in a plastic bag, and upon this requisite signatures had been duly taken. When the sealed packet was opened, it was found to contain a 7.62 mm pistol with magazine. It also contained sixteen intact 7.62 bottle necked pistol cartridges, having head stamp markings of, 11/83. The witness has identified the pistol as being the same one, that had been recovered from his person, through a seizure panchnama, as also the cartridges and his signature appearing on their labels. The witness has been cross-examined. A large number of suggestions have been made, and certain contradictions have also been pointed out. However, he has explained everything, and has revealed that he had been able to identify the pistol (Article 48) because the same was black in colour, and on the body of the said pistol, at the front, only metal had been visible.
211. Deposition of Prakash Dhanaji Khanvilkar, Police Inspector, (PW- 513):
He has deposed that on 5.4.1993, he alongwith other officers had interrogated the appellant (A-122. at the Mahim Police Station. He had been arrested earlier on the same day in L.A.C. No. 389/93. During his interrogation, the appellant (A-122) had expressed his desire to make a confessional statement. Thus, he had secured two panch witnesses and in their presence, the appellants (A-122) statement had been recorded in Hindi, and for this purpose, a memorandum panchnama had also been drawn up. He has identified the signatures that had been put on the panchnama by the panchas, and by himself. The appellant (A-122) had also taken them to Mahim Creek to get the recovery effected, and after reaching the Creek, he had gone 3 to 4 feet away from the shore, into the creek water. He had then taken out one plastic bag from the creek water, and had handed over the same to this witness. He had opened the said bag, and found that it contained one foreign made pistol loaded with magazine, containing eight 9 mm rounds in it. The said bag had also contained eight 9 mm loose rounds. He had taken charge of the said articles. All sixteen loose rounds had the digits 11/83 marked on the base of the cap of the said bullets. The said pistol and magazines had then been packed into a white plastic bag, wrapped with brown paper, and tied with a white string and sealed. A label duly signed by the panch witnesses and the witness had also been affixed to the package. Hence, he has corroborated the deposition of Rohitkumar Ramsaran Chourisa (PW-39).
212. Deposition of Vishnu Ravalu Shinde (PW-615):
He has proved the forwarding letter dated 6.5.1993, by which the material so collected had been sent for F.S.L. The other witnesses have also proved the receipt of the said material for F.S.L., and its report has revealed that the pistol had been in working condition, and that all the 16 cartridges were live.
213. In view of the above, it is evident that a pistol had been sold by Firoz (A-39) to the appellant (A-122), and that it had been the accused (A-39), who had taught the appellant how to use the cartridges. It is also evident that the recovery had been effected from Mahim Creek, on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the appellant, as has been deposed by the panch witness (PW-39).
214. The learned Designated Court, after appreciation of the evidence, has held that though the appellant had been in possession of arms and ammunition in an unauthorized manner, the same does not in any way, show the complicity of the accused in the conspiracy relating to the blast of 12.3.1993.
215. We find no cogent reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Designated Court. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
216. Before parting with the case, we will clarify that if the accused-appellant(s) whose appeals have been dismissed and are on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are directed to surrender within four weeks from today, failing which the learned Designated Court, TADA shall take them into custody and send them to jail to serve out the remaining part of their sentences.
Annexure A
S.No. Criminal Accused Name and Number Sentence by Award by
Appeal Designated Court Supreme Court
1. 555 of 2012 Ibrahim Musa Chauhan @ 8 years RI Dismissed Baba Chauhan(A-41) with fine of Rs. 1 lakh; 10 years RI with fine of Rs.50,000/-;10 years RI with fine of Rs.1 lakh; 4 years RI with fine of Rs.25,000/-; and one year RI with fine of Rs.2,000/-
2. 1129-1130 of Altaf Ali Sayed ((A-67) 10 years RI Dismissed 2007 with fine of Rs.50,000/-; and 10 yearswith fine of Rs.2 lakhs
3. 402 of 2008 Mohammed Sayeed 6 years RI Dismissed Mohammed Isaaq (A-95) with fine of Rs.15,000/-
4. 617-618 of Ayub Ibrahim 5 years RI Dismissed 2008 Qureshi(A-123) with fine of 12,500/-; and 5 years RI with fine of Rs.12,500/-
5. 1631 of 2007 Mohd. Yunus Gulam 6 years RI Dismissed Rasool Botomiya(A-47) with fine of Rs.25,000/-; and 6 years RI with fine of Rs.25,000/-
6. 1419 of 2007 Mohamed Dawood Mohamed 6 years RI Dismissed Yusuf Khan (A-91) with fine of Rs.25,000/-; and 6 years RI with fine of Rs.25,000/-
7. 1226 of 2007 Ramesh Dattatray Mali 6 years RI Dismissed (A-101) with fine of Rs.25,000/-
8. 1422 of 2007 Shaikh Asif Yusuf 5 years RI Dismissed
(A-107) with fine of Rs.25,000/-; 8 years RI with fine of Rs.50,000/-; and 8 years RI with fine of Rs.50,000/-
9. 1180 of 2007 Mubina @ Baya Moosa 5 years RI Allowed Bhiwandiwala (A-96) with fine of Conviction Rs.25,000/- and sentence awarded by the Designated Court are set aside.
10. 1225 of 2007 Noor Mohammed Haji 5 years RI Dismissed Mohammed Khan | with fine of (A-50) Rs. 1 lakh; and 5 years RI with fine of Rs.50,000/-
11. 919 of 2008 Mulchand Sampatraj Shah 5 years RI Allowed (A-97) with fine of Conviction Rs.5 lakhs and sentence awarded by the Designated Court are set aside.
12. 1393 of 2007 Ehsan Mohammad Tufel 5 years RI Dismissed Qureshi(A-122) with fine of Rs.25,000/-
All these appeals filed by the accused have been dismissed except Criminal Appeal Nos. 1180 of 2007 (Mubina @ Baby Moosa Bhiwandiwala (A-96) and Criminal Appeal No. 919 of 2008 (Mulchand Sampatraj Shah (A-97). The appeals filed by A-96 and A-97 are allowed. Their conviction and sentence awarded by the Designated Court are set aside and their bail bonds stand discharged.
****************
204. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that :
A. In addition to the main charge of conspiracy, the appellant (A- 122) was charged as he had agreed to keep in his possession, one Mauser pistol and 16 live cartridges that had been given to him by Firoz @ Akram Amani Malik (A-39), and also that there had been certain other acts that were committed by him in pursuance of the general charge of conspiracy.
B. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him as referred to hereinabove.
Hence, this appeal.
205. Shri Mushtaq Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had been dragged in trial only being relative of Fazal, though he was not involved in the offence. The arms and ammunition alleged to have been recovered from his possession might have been that of Fazal sisters husband. He was sold the weapons by Firoz @ Akram Amani Malik (A-39), and he was not aware of the fact that it was one of arms which had been smuggled into the country to commit terrorist acts. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
206. Per contra, Shri Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the State has submitted that he was found in conscious possession of the arms and ammunition in the notified area and therefore, the learned Designated Court has rightly convicted the appellant under the provisions of TADA. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
207. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
208. Evidence against the appellant (A-122):
(a) Confessional statement of Firoz @ Akram Amani Malik (A-39)
(b) Deposition of Rohitkumar Ramsaran Chourisa (PW-39)
(c) Deposition of Prakash Dhanaji Khanvilkar (PW-513)
(d) Deposition of Vishnu Ravalu Shinde (PW-615)
209. Confessional Statement of Firoz @ Akram Amani Malik (A- 39) :
His confessional statement was recorded on 23.4.1993, wherein he has revealed his participation in the conspiracy, and his inclusion thereof, in the Bombay blast. He has further stated that Zakir had given him 4 handgrenades, one pistol and 16 cartridges. He had kept the said weapons with his brother-in-law (sisters husband), Fazal. He had taken back the pistol from Fazal on 29.3.1993, and had thereafter, sold the same to Ehsan (A-122) for Rs. 15,000/-, but Ehsan had given him only Rs.5,000/-. Ehsan had also been given the cartridges and had been showed how to use them. After the arrest of the appellant, he had been interrogated on 5.4.1993, and it was in the course of this, that he had expressed his willingness to make a disclosure statement. Therefore, two panch witnesses had been called, and in their presence, he had made his disclosure statement, wherein he has stated that he had given the appellant (A-122), one pistol and 16 cartridges. The said panchnama was duly signed by the investigating officer, the panchas and the accused (A-39) himself.
210. Deposition of Rohitkumar Ramsaran Chourisa (PW-39):
The panch witness has deposed that he had been running a pan shop that was situated by the side of the Irani Restaurant which was located within the Cadell Court building, situated on Cadell Road, Mahim. One police constable had approached him and had asked him to accompany him to the Mahim Police Station, as he had been called by the station incharge. The constable had stated that he could not disclose the reason/purpose for which he had been called there, and had only told him that the Inspector would explain the same to him. His friend Ramesh Govalkar had also accompanied him. They had then gone to the Mahim Police Station with the constable. They had been taken to the Detection Room, and upon reaching the same, he had found therein, 7/8 police constables, alongwith one other person who was sitting on a chair. Two persons had also been standing by his side in civilian clothes. He had been introduced by the police constable to the inspector i.e. to P.I. Hadap and A.P.I. Khanvilkar. The police officers had informed him that the person who was sitting on the chair, was an accused in the Bombay blast case, and that therefore, he (PW-39) may act as a panch witness. He had immediately agreed to the same. He had then been told, that the accused had wanted to make a disclosure statement, and therefore, he must pay close attention to it. The person sitting there had then stated that he was Ehsan Mohmed Tufel Mohmed (A-122). He had further said that one pistol and some cartridges had been kept by him and his associate Salim Shaikh, at a particular place. If the officers would come with him, he would also show them where such material had been kept. A memorandum panchnama to this effect had been prepared and explained to the witness in Hindi and Marathi, and then signed. This witness has also identified the panchnama that had been prepared at the police station on 5.4.1993 (Exhibit 119). He has further deposed that the appellant (A-122), the police officials and the panch witnesses had gone together from Fort Road to Mahim Junction and then to Mahim Causeway, Bandra Reclamation. The appellant (A-122) had stopped at the corner, and had told them that they had to go down to the Creek. The appellant (A-122) had then gone down to the Creek with the police constables escorting him, as well as the panch witnesses. The same was a dirty place filled with water. The appellant (A-122) had then put his hand in the water, and in one attempt had taken out the plastic bag. Upon opening the bag, the same was found to contain one pistol and eight cartridges. The eight cartridges were separate from the pistol. P.I. Hadap had picked up the pistol, and taken out its magazine. The magazine had also contained eight cartridges. Thus, in all there were sixteen cartridges. The pistol was black in colour, and its name had been rubbed off. On the cartridges, the digits, 11/83 were inscribed. He has further deposed that A.P.I. Khanvilkar had placed the contraband in a plastic bag, and upon this requisite signatures had been duly taken. When the sealed packet was opened, it was found to contain a 7.62 mm pistol with magazine. It also contained sixteen intact 7.62 bottle necked pistol cartridges, having head stamp markings of, 11/83. The witness has identified the pistol as being the same one, that had been recovered from his person, through a seizure panchnama, as also the cartridges and his signature appearing on their labels. The witness has been cross-examined. A large number of suggestions have been made, and certain contradictions have also been pointed out. However, he has explained everything, and has revealed that he had been able to identify the pistol (Article 48) because the same was black in colour, and on the body of the said pistol, at the front, only metal had been visible.
211. Deposition of Prakash Dhanaji Khanvilkar, Police Inspector, (PW- 513):
He has deposed that on 5.4.1993, he alongwith other officers had interrogated the appellant (A-122. at the Mahim Police Station. He had been arrested earlier on the same day in L.A.C. No. 389/93. During his interrogation, the appellant (A-122) had expressed his desire to make a confessional statement. Thus, he had secured two panch witnesses and in their presence, the appellants (A-122) statement had been recorded in Hindi, and for this purpose, a memorandum panchnama had also been drawn up. He has identified the signatures that had been put on the panchnama by the panchas, and by himself. The appellant (A-122) had also taken them to Mahim Creek to get the recovery effected, and after reaching the Creek, he had gone 3 to 4 feet away from the shore, into the creek water. He had then taken out one plastic bag from the creek water, and had handed over the same to this witness. He had opened the said bag, and found that it contained one foreign made pistol loaded with magazine, containing eight 9 mm rounds in it. The said bag had also contained eight 9 mm loose rounds. He had taken charge of the said articles. All sixteen loose rounds had the digits 11/83 marked on the base of the cap of the said bullets. The said pistol and magazines had then been packed into a white plastic bag, wrapped with brown paper, and tied with a white string and sealed. A label duly signed by the panch witnesses and the witness had also been affixed to the package. Hence, he has corroborated the deposition of Rohitkumar Ramsaran Chourisa (PW-39).
212. Deposition of Vishnu Ravalu Shinde (PW-615):
He has proved the forwarding letter dated 6.5.1993, by which the material so collected had been sent for F.S.L. The other witnesses have also proved the receipt of the said material for F.S.L., and its report has revealed that the pistol had been in working condition, and that all the 16 cartridges were live.
213. In view of the above, it is evident that a pistol had been sold by Firoz (A-39) to the appellant (A-122), and that it had been the accused (A-39), who had taught the appellant how to use the cartridges. It is also evident that the recovery had been effected from Mahim Creek, on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the appellant, as has been deposed by the panch witness (PW-39).
214. The learned Designated Court, after appreciation of the evidence, has held that though the appellant had been in possession of arms and ammunition in an unauthorized manner, the same does not in any way, show the complicity of the accused in the conspiracy relating to the blast of 12.3.1993.
215. We find no cogent reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Designated Court. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
216. Before parting with the case, we will clarify that if the accused-appellant(s) whose appeals have been dismissed and are on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are directed to surrender within four weeks from today, failing which the learned Designated Court, TADA shall take them into custody and send them to jail to serve out the remaining part of their sentences.
Annexure A
S.No. Criminal Accused Name and Number Sentence by Award by
Appeal Designated Court Supreme Court
1. 555 of 2012 Ibrahim Musa Chauhan @ 8 years RI Dismissed Baba Chauhan(A-41) with fine of Rs. 1 lakh; 10 years RI with fine of Rs.50,000/-;10 years RI with fine of Rs.1 lakh; 4 years RI with fine of Rs.25,000/-; and one year RI with fine of Rs.2,000/-
2. 1129-1130 of Altaf Ali Sayed ((A-67) 10 years RI Dismissed 2007 with fine of Rs.50,000/-; and 10 yearswith fine of Rs.2 lakhs
3. 402 of 2008 Mohammed Sayeed 6 years RI Dismissed Mohammed Isaaq (A-95) with fine of Rs.15,000/-
4. 617-618 of Ayub Ibrahim 5 years RI Dismissed 2008 Qureshi(A-123) with fine of 12,500/-; and 5 years RI with fine of Rs.12,500/-
5. 1631 of 2007 Mohd. Yunus Gulam 6 years RI Dismissed Rasool Botomiya(A-47) with fine of Rs.25,000/-; and 6 years RI with fine of Rs.25,000/-
6. 1419 of 2007 Mohamed Dawood Mohamed 6 years RI Dismissed Yusuf Khan (A-91) with fine of Rs.25,000/-; and 6 years RI with fine of Rs.25,000/-
7. 1226 of 2007 Ramesh Dattatray Mali 6 years RI Dismissed (A-101) with fine of Rs.25,000/-
8. 1422 of 2007 Shaikh Asif Yusuf 5 years RI Dismissed
(A-107) with fine of Rs.25,000/-; 8 years RI with fine of Rs.50,000/-; and 8 years RI with fine of Rs.50,000/-
9. 1180 of 2007 Mubina @ Baya Moosa 5 years RI Allowed Bhiwandiwala (A-96) with fine of Conviction Rs.25,000/- and sentence awarded by the Designated Court are set aside.
10. 1225 of 2007 Noor Mohammed Haji 5 years RI Dismissed Mohammed Khan | with fine of (A-50) Rs. 1 lakh; and 5 years RI with fine of Rs.50,000/-
11. 919 of 2008 Mulchand Sampatraj Shah 5 years RI Allowed (A-97) with fine of Conviction Rs.5 lakhs and sentence awarded by the Designated Court are set aside.
12. 1393 of 2007 Ehsan Mohammad Tufel 5 years RI Dismissed Qureshi(A-122) with fine of Rs.25,000/-
All these appeals filed by the accused have been dismissed except Criminal Appeal Nos. 1180 of 2007 (Mubina @ Baby Moosa Bhiwandiwala (A-96) and Criminal Appeal No. 919 of 2008 (Mulchand Sampatraj Shah (A-97). The appeals filed by A-96 and A-97 are allowed. Their conviction and sentence awarded by the Designated Court are set aside and their bail bonds stand discharged.
****************
