Thu. Dec 3rd, 2020

Mumtaz vs State on 13 June, 2018

2 min read

2. Arguments have been addressed on behalf of the appellant by
the learned counsel for the appellant and on behalf of the State by the
learned APP for the State.
3. The appellant in response to a specific Court query submits that
he does not seek to contest the appeal on merits any more having
undergone the impugned sentence awarded on 30.10.2004 in the
instant case whereby he having been convicted vide the impugned

CRL.A. 684/2005 1 of 12
judgment dated 25.10.2004 qua the commission of the offences
punishable under Section 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the
Arms Act, 1959, was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
for a period of 5 years, to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of the
payment of the fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a
period of 6 months qua the offence punishable under Section 392/34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was ordered to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of 7 years, to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and
in default of the payment of the fine to further undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of 6 months qua the offence punishable
under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was further
ordered to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year, to
pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of the payment of the fine to
further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months
qua the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959
with all the sentences having been directed to run concurrently with
the benefit of provision of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., 1973.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply