Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. After the above encounter accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was brought back to his flat where in the meantime search had been conducted by the policemen who had remained there and during that search one ration card (Ex.PW-164/A)(which was on enquiry found to be forged), driving license in the name of Ashfaq (Ex. PW-13/1), one cheque book of HDFC Bank in the name of Ashfaq , one ATM Card, one cheque book of State Bank of India in the name of Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui, who is the wife of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and who was also arrested in this case and now stands convicted under Sections 216/118 IPC, and one pay-in-slip of Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank (Ex. PW-173/K) showing deposit of five lacs of rupees in the account of Nazir & Sons (which firm, as per the prosecution, was of other convicted accused Nazir Ahmad Qasid and the amount deposited in that account by Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was received through hawala from the high-ups of Lashkar-e-Toiba for being distributed amongst the terrorists operating in India) and some other articles were seized. When accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was brought back there PW-194 SI Harender Singh, who had also reached there when the police team Along with Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was leaving for G-73, Batla House and who had been entrusted the case regarding recovery of pistol from this accused which had also been in the meantime registred vide FIR No. 419/2000 under Section 25 of the Arms Act at Kalyan Puri police station within whose jurisdiction Gazipur area fell, arrested Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq. Then PW-194 also formally searched Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and at that time one Motorola mobile handset was recovered from his possession. The number of that phone was found to be 9811278510, which number, as has been noticed already, was found written on the piece of paper which had been recovered from the backside of Lal Quila on 23/12/2000. The IMEI No.(which is the identification number of the handset engraved on the instrument by the manufacturer) of that Motorola handset Ex.PW-194/A was found to be 445199440940240 and the same was taken into police possession.

(B) Appellants-accused Nazir Ahmed Qasid and Farooq Ahmed Qasid were convicted under Section 120-B IPC, 121 IPC and 121-A IPC.
(C) Appellants-accused Rehmana Yusuf Farooqi and Babar Mohsin were convicted under Sections 118/216 IPC.
(D) Appellant-accused Sadakat Ali was convicted under Sections 118/216/188 IPC.
(E) Appellant-accused Matloob Alam was convicted under Sections 420/468 IPC.

21. Accused Mool Chand Sharma, Rajeev Malhotra, Shahanshah Alam and Devender Singh were, however, acquitted of all the charges.

(B) Accused Nazir Ahmed Qasid and Farooq Ahmed Qasid were both awarded life imprisonment, on each count for their convictions under Section 121 IPC and under Section 120-B IPC and in addition fines were also imposed on them with a default stipulation. They were also awarded rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 121-A IPC along with fine for their conviction under Section 121-A IPC. Substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.
(C) Accused Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui and Babar Mohsin Bhagwala were awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default stipulation, on each count for their convictions under Sections 118/216 IPC. Substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.
(D) Accused Matloob Alam was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years on each count for his convictions under Sections 468/420 IPC and in addition fine of Rs. 10,000/- on each count was also imposed. Substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.
(E) Accused Sadakat Ali was awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years on each count for his convictions under Sections 118/216 IPC. Under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years and for his conviction under Section 188 IPC he was awarded six months' rigorous imprisonment. Different amounts of fines were also imposed on him in addition to the said sentences of imprisonment. Substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.