1981 (3) TMI 265 - SC - Indian Laws

Convictions Modified in Conspiracy Case: Sentences Reduced for Appellants

Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar & Anr. Versus State Of Maharashtra

The appellants were convicted under various sections including criminal conspiracy, possession of explosive substances, and violations of arms and poisons ... - Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Section 120B of the Penal Code.2. Conviction under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.3. Conviction under Section 5(3)(b) of the Explosives Act.4. Conviction under Section 3 read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.5. Conviction under Section 30 of the Arms Act.6. Conviction under Section 6(1)(a) of the Poisons Act read with Rule 2 of the Rules framed under the said Act.Summary:1. Conviction under Section 120B of the Penal Code:The appellants were convicted u/s 120B of the Penal Code for being part of a criminal conspiracy to commit illegal acts, including the unauthorized acquisition, possession, and sale of explosives, sulphur, gun-powder, cartridges, potassium chlorate, percussion caps, and poison. The court noted that although there was no direct evidence of an express agreement, the prolonged possession and sale of these substances without a valid license implied an agreement to commit the illegal acts. The court held that the appellants' actions constituted a criminal conspiracy as defined u/s 120A of the Penal Code.2. Conviction under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act:The appellants were convicted u/s 5 of the Explosive Substances Act for making or possessing explosive substances under circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that they were not for a lawful object. The court found that the substances in question were indeed explosive substances as defined in the Act. The appellants were in conscious possession of these substances, and their possession was without any authority as required by the government notification dated 1st April 1966. The court upheld the conviction under this section.3. Conviction under Section 5(3)(b) of the Explosives Act:The appellants were convicted u/s 5(3)(b) of the Explosives Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months each, along with a fine of Rs. 500 each. The appellants did not challenge this conviction and sentence.4. Conviction under Section 3 read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act:The appellants were convicted u/s 3 read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months each. This conviction and sentence were not challenged by the appellants.5. Conviction under Section 30 of the Arms Act:The appellants were convicted u/s 30 of the Arms Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two weeks each. This conviction and sentence were not challenged by the appellants.6. Conviction under Section 6(1)(a) of the Poisons Act read with Rule 2 of the Rules framed under the said Act:The appellants were convicted u/s 6(1)(a) of the Poisons Act read with Rule 2 of the Rules framed under the said Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month each, along with a fine of Rs. 50 each. This conviction and sentence were not challenged by the appellants.Sentence Modification:The court noted that the primary person involved in the clandestine trade was appellant no. 1, who had since died. The remaining appellants, being his sons, were merely assisting him. Considering the time already served by the appellants, the court reduced their sentences of imprisonment to the periods already undergone. The fine u/s 5 of the Explosive Substances Act was remitted for all appellants, including the deceased appellant no. 1. With these modifications, the appeals were dismissed.