Fazal Ali, J. - (1.) These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court by which the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Ss. 120B, 477A and 409 of the Indian Penal Code were upheld or modified to some extent. So far as appellant No. 1 is concerned, who was also accused No. 1 at the trial, his appeal is limited to the question of sentence as also the nature of the offence. The special leave granted to A. 24 is open. Since all these appeals were decided by the High Court by one judgment we also propose to dispose of the appeals by one common judgment. The facts of the case have been detailed in the judgment of the courts below and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same over and again.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and have also gone through the judgment of the High Court and that of the Sessions Judge and have also gone through the record of the case. On a perusal of the record and judgment of the High Court we are clearly of the opinion that these appeals are concluded by findings of facts. It is well settled that this Court in special leave will not interfere with concurrent findings of facts unless the findings are vitiated by a grave error of law or by an error which leads to serious and substantial miscarriage of justice. After a perusal of the judgment of the courts below we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court and are unable to find any special circumstances which require our interference with the order passed by the High Court.
(3.) A number of contentions were raised by the counsel for the various accused and after considering those contentions we find that they have been fully met by the High Court in its very well reasoned judgment which has considered various shades, aspects and points in controversy.;