- (1.)Criminal Appeal No. 450/2002 has been filed by Sunder and Criminal Appeal No. 602/2002 by Satbir Singh under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ('TADA' in short) against the judgment and order dated 5th and 6th May, 1998 passed by the Designated Court, Delhi. By the said judgment the appellants have been convicted for offences under Sections 399 and 402, I.P.C. as also Section 25 of the Arms Act. Besides these two appellants, the three other accused who were convicted by the Designated Court by common judgment were Suleman, Chiman and Sadhu Ram. Suleman and Sadhu Ram were also convicted under Section 5 of the TADA Act. We are, however, not concerned with their cases since the appeals filed by the said three were decided by this Court in case reported in (1999) 4 SCC 146, Suleman and others vs. State of Delhi, and their conviction under Sections 399 and 402, I.P.C. was set aside. The conviction and sentence under TADA Act was, however, maintained and also the conviction and sentence for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. For offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, the Designated Court has imposed on each of the appellants sentence of one year and fine of Rs. 400/_
(2.)It is not in question that for reasons stated in Suleman's case (supra) the conviction and sentence of the appellants as well for offences under Sections 399 and 402, IPC deserves to be set aside.
(3.)That leaves the question in respect of conviction and sentence of the two appellants before us for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.