https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306886 The High Court partially allowed the appeals, altering some convictions and sentences while upholding others. The court enhanced the sentences under the Explosive Substances Act and altered the conviction under the Arms Act. The acquittal of the 22nd accused was upheld, and the convictions under the UA(P) Act were set aside due to insufficient evidence. The substantive term of imprisonment for the convicted accused was ordered to run concurrently, with entitlement to set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. en-us Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Mar 2023 22:18:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306886 The High Court partially allowed the appeals, altering some convictions and sentences while upholding others. The court enhanced the sentences under the Explosive Substances Act and altered the conviction under the Arms Act. The acquittal of the 22nd accused was upheld, and the convictions under the UA(P) Act were set aside due to insufficient evidence. The substantive term of imprisonment for the convicted accused was ordered to run concurrently, with entitlement to set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306886