IMPORTANT POINT
Seizure list - whether accused is requitred to sign.
Conspircy under TADA.

Headnote:(a) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 5 - Criminal Appeal no. 1438 of 2007 - A-20 - Having knowledge of contraband kept in premises owned by appellant as partner - Not reporting the same to police - He was in conscious possession of the contraband - Panch witness - Working near the Police office - Residing opposite Police Commissioner’s office - Having acted as Panch in TI parade - Cannot discredit his evidence - Conviction and sentence justified. (Para 18, 19, 23, 24 and 25)
        (b) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 5, and Sections 3 and 7 r/w Section 25(1-A)(1-B)(a), Arms Act - Criminal Appeal no. 912 of 2007 - A-21 - Charges held proved - No infirmity in conviction and sentence. (Paras 39 and 40)
        (c) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal no. 1030 of 2012 - A-20 and A-21 - Designated court acquitting the appellants of charge of conspiracy - Confessional statements discarded being not in conformity with section 15, TADA and rule 15, TADA Rules - No infirmity in order of the Designated court. (Paras 46 to 48)
        (d) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal no. 1311 of 2007 - A- 31 - Appellant’s involvement in Shekhadi landing and transportation operations established - Conviction and sentence justified. (Para 61)
        (e) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal no. 417 of 2011 - A- 31 - Designated court acquitting the appellant of charge of conspiracy - Appellant transporting contraband - Without knowing the nature or kind thereof - No infirmity in acquitting him of charge of conspiracy. (Paras 69 and 70)
        (f) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) and 6 - Criminal Appeal no. 1610 of 2011 with Criminal Appeal no. 398 of 2011 - A-30 - Appellant not only close associate of Tiger Memon as landing agent but also a go-between Tiger Memon and the Police - He was fully aware of the nature of the contraband and despite that continued to help smugglers - Designated court acquitting him of conspiracy charge - Not sustainable - Held liable for the same and sentenced accordingly. (Paras 98 and 99)
        (g) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) and 6 - Criminal Appeal no. 1420 of 2007 with Criminal Appeal no. 1031 of 2012 - A-46 - Appellant’s active participation in Shekhadi landing and transportation operation of contraband goods established - His presence at the place of exchange and concealing of contraband goods in vehicles also established - His assistance in helping co-accused persons to go to Pakistan for arms training also established - Designated court committed no error in convicting and sentencing him u/ss 3(3) and 6. (Para 116)
        (h) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal no. 1031 of 2012 - A-46 - Conspiracy - Designated court, with cogent reasons, acquitting appellant of conspiracy charge - No infirmity. (Paras 118 and 120)
        (i) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3), section 202, IPC - Criminal Appeal nos. 675-681 of 2008 - A-18 - Close associate of Tiger Memon - Involved in smuggling and transporting of contraband for long time - Plea of being unaware of nature of contraband being smuggled and transported not acceptable - A-28 - His awareness of the nature of contraband and involvement in Shekhadi landing as also in transportation and other overt acts established - A-61 - A key person in Shekhadi landing - A-62 - Appellant watchman of government premises allowing the same to be used for the purpose of facilitating smuggling and landing of arms, ammunition, handgrenades and explosives - Involved in concealing 59 bags of RDX - Intentionally suppressing information from authorities - A-73 - Involved in landing and transportation of contraband goods - Involvement even prior to Tiger Memon deciding use of the goods - Cannot be held guilty of involvement in larger conspiracy - No infirmity in conviction and sentence (Paras 142, 159, 175, 186, 199)
        (j) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal no. 600 of 2011 - A-28 - His case being similar as that of Suleman Mohd. Kasam Ghavate (A-18), he deserves same treatment - No infirmity in conviction and sentence. (Para 209)
        (k) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal no. 406 of 2011 - A-73 - Designated court convicting for offences but acquitting of conspiracy charge - Nothing to establish appellant’s participation in conspiratorial meetings - No involvement in operations after the landing - Designated court rightly acquitting appellant of conspiracy charge. (Paras 215 and 217)
        (l) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal no. 408 of 2011 - A-18 - Appellant involved in Shekhadi landing - His further conduct as driver of Tiger Memon furthering the larger conspiracy also established - No infirmity in conviction and sentence. (Paras 221 and 223)
        (m) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) and section 202, IPC - Criminal Appeal no. 1034 of 2012 - A-62 - Appellant involved in Shekhadi landing and transportation activities established - His omission of giving information about contraband despite having knowledge of the same and being a government servant also established - Conviction and sentence by Designated court justified. (Paras 232 and 234)
        (n) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal no. 416 of 2011 - A-61 - Designated court convicting and sentencing appellant u/s 3(3) but acquitting him of conspiracy charge - Appellant involved in Shekhadi landing but had no knowledge about use of the weapons - His rickshaw used for transportation but he was not involved in loading and unloading - Rightly acquitted of conspiracy charge. (Paras 244 to 247 and 249)
        (o) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) and 6; section 111 and 135(b), Customs Act, 1962 - Criminal Appeal no. 512 of 2008 -A-66 - Designated court convicting and sentencing appellant u/ss 3(3) and 6 but acquitting him of charge of conspiracy - No infirmity - A-74 - Recovery of weapon pursuant to disclosure statement of appellant - Involved in movement of contraband goods - Held guilty of concealing and disposal of contraband goods - Conviction and sentence justified - A-81 - Involved in Dighi landing of contraband though knowing the nature thereof - Subsequently involved in concealing and disposing contraband arms and ammunition - Rightly convicted u/s 3(3), TADA and 111, Customs Act and acquitted of charge of conspiracy - A-104 - His possession of contraband goods established - Rightly convicted and sentenced u/s 3(3), TADA - A-110 - Involved in Dighy landing - Failed to report about conduct of A-116 to authorities - Conviction and sentence justified (Para 264 and 265; 280 and 281; 293 and 316)
        (p) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal no. 401 of 2011 and 595 of 201 - A-66, A-74 and A-81 - Designated court acquitting the appellants of the larger conspiracy charge - Merely because two views can be possible appellate court should not interfere unless the impugned order is perverse - Designated court order acquitting the appellants of conspiracy charge needs no interference. (Para 321)
        AIR 2012 SC 1973 - Relied upon
        (q) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal nos. 171 and 172 of 2008 - A-30 and A-82 - Appellants not reporting behaviour of their superior, head of the police party to authorities - Further large amount of money recovered from them - Connivance established - No infirmity in conviction and sentence. (Para 338)
        (r) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 2011 - Appellants guilty of connivance in landing of contraband - Designated court’s order acquitting them of conspiracy charge - Not perverse - No interference warranted. (Paras 345 and 346)
        AIR 2012 SC 1973 - Relied upon
        (s) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) and Section 5 r/w Section 6, Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Criminal Appeal No. 1630 of 2007 - A-85 - Initially not aware of nature of goods kept in his godown - However even after having known nature of contraband continuing to possess the same - Conviction and sentence sustained. (Paras358 and 359)
        (t) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Conspiracy - Criminal Appeal No. 1029 of 2012 - A-85 - Designated court acquitting respondent of conspiracy charge - No infirmity. (Paras 364 and 366)
        (u) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2008 - A-131 - Indulged in smuggling activities by participating and facilitating in the landing and transportation of contraband - Also participated in purchasing the gunny bags as well as in transportation despite being fully aware of the contents therein - Conviction justified. (Paras 379 and 380)
        (v) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal no. 415 of 2011 - Respondent A-131 - Convicted by Designated court u/s 3(3) but acquitted of conspiracy charge - Respondent not categorically identified by witnesses - Evidence of PW 2 not corroborated - Respondent entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 386 and 388)
        (2011) 9 SCC 479 - Relied upon
        (w) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal no. 2173 of 2010 - A-90 - Appellant participating in meeting concerning landing - Accepting bribe money - Had knowledge of contraband goods - No interference warranted. (Paras 405 and 406)
        (x) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal no. 1632 of 2007 - A-102 - Appellant acquainted to Mohd. Dossa, Tiger Memon and their landing agents - Had been allowing them to smuggle contraband goods into India, in return for hefty bribes - Had knowledge of Shekhadi landing - No evidence of participating in larger conspiracy - Designated court convicting u/s 3(3), acquitting of charge of conspiracy - No infirmity. (Paras 426 and 427)
        (y) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal no. 271 of 2008 - A-113 - Designated court convicting u/s 3(3) but acquitting of charge of larger conspiracy - Involvement in Shekhadi landing established - He was duty bound to stop smugling, yet he facilitated the same for illegal gratification - No infirmity. (Para 448)
        (z) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal no. 598 of 2011 - Conspiracy - Respobndents A-82, A-90, A-102, A-113 - Respondents acquitted of charge of conspiracy by Designated court - A-82 and A-90 - Despite being involved in abetting the landing and transportation of contraband, no evidence to hold him guilty of larger conspiracy - A-102 and A-113 - Participated in meeting at Hotel Persian Darbar only to finalise bribe amount - No evidence of involvement in larger conspiracy -- No perversity. (Paras 455, 458, 461, 463 and 465)
        AIR 2012 SC 1973 - Relied upon
        (aa) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 162(1) r/w section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Recovery and seizure - Signature of accused on seizure memo not required. (Paras 481 and 483)
        (2004) 12 SCC 29; (1999) 3 SCC 507 - Relied upon
        (ab) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) and 6 - Criminal Appeal no. 1439 of 2007 - A-42 - Appellant man of confidence of prime accused - Involved in Shekhadi landing - His acts much before the landing - Subsequently not participating in any meeting - Rightly acquitted of conspiracy charge. (Para 484)
        (ac) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal No. 1035 of 2012 - A-42 - Held guilty of Shekhadi landing and transportation of contraband and man of confidence of prime accused - However acquitted of larger conspiracy - No infirmity. (Para 491)
        (ad) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) and 7, section 3 and 7 r/w sections 25(1-A) (1-B)(a), Arms Act and section 201, IPC - Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2008 - A-106 and A-111 convicted u/s 3(3) - A-79 in addition convicted u/s 3(3) as also partly for conspiracy and u/s 7, TADA; u/s 3 and 7 r/w sections 25(1-A) (1-B)(a), Arms Act and section 201, IPC - A-79 posessing and retaining contraband material for long without any explanation - Participating in arms training - No infirmity in impugned order. (Paras 504 and 505)
        (ae) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2011 - A-106 & A-111 - Conspiracy - Appellants acquitted of conspiracy charge - Appellants facilitating Tiger Memon in other aspects - But merely sitting at the hillock at the time of arms training cannot make them liable to charge of conspiracy - No infirmity in impugned order. (Paras 311 and 413)
        (af) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Conspiracy - Criminal Appeal No. 414 of 2011 - A-79 - Appellant participated in training in handling handgrenades - Designated court erred in acquitting him of conspiracy charge - Appeal allowed. (Para 520)
        (ag) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal appeal No. 1423 of 2007 - A-128 - Involved in Shekhadi landing - Continuing with the operations even after acquiring knowledge of contraband material - Not reporting any information to any authority - However all thses acts dating much back to actual blasts - Later no involvement - Cannot be held liable for larger conspiracy. (Paras 538 and 539)
        (ah) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal No. 1032 of 2012 - A-128 - Respiondent involved in landing and transportation of arms and ammunitions - Also went to Dubai for arms training in Pakistan - Not involved in any terrorist act on return from Dubai on 1.3.1993 - No infirmity. (Paras 543 and 545)
       Facts of the case:
        These appeals assail the orders of the TADA designated court in Mumbai bomb blast case no. No. 1/1993.
       Finding of the court:
        The judgment and order of the Designated court are generally justified.
       Result : Criminal Appeal nos. 1438 of 2007; 912 of 2007; 1030 of 2012; 1311 of 2007; 417 of 2011; 1610 of 2011; 1420 of 2007; 1031 of 2012; 675-681 of 2008; 600 of 2011; 406 of 2011; 408 of 2011; 1034 of 2012; 416 of 2011; 512 of 2008; 401 of 2011; 595 of 2011; 171 and 172 of 2008; 403 of 2011; 1630 of 2007; 1029 of 2012; 207 of 2008; 415 of 2011; 2173 of 2010; 1632 of 2007; 271 of 2008; 598 of 2011; 1439 of 2007; 1035 of 2012; 203 of 2008; 396 of 2011; 1423 of 2007 dismissed.
        Criminal Appeal nos. 398 of 2011; 414 of 2011 allowed.

Judgment :-

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.5.2007, passed by Special Judge of the Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘TADA’) for the Bombay Blast, Greater Bombay, in the Bombay Blast Case No. 1/1993, convicting the appellant under Section 5 TADA, and awarding the punishment of 5 years RI, alongwith a fine of Rs.25,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 6 months.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. As the facts of this case and all legal issues involved herein have been elaborately dealt with in the connected appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 1728 of 2007 [Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra thr. CBI], it may be pertinent to mention only the relevant facts and charges against the appellant (A-20). B. Bombay Blast took place on 12.3.1993 in which 257 persons lost their lives and 713 were injured. In addition thereto there had been loss of property worth several crores. The Bombay police investigated the matter at initial stage but subsequently it was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as ‘CBI’) and on conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against a large number of accused persons. Out of the accused persons against whom chargesheet was filed, 40 accused could not be put to trial as they have been absconding. Thus, the Designated Court under TADA framed charges against 138 accused persons. During the trial, 11 accused died and 2 accused turned hostile. Further the Designated Court discharged 2 accused during trial and the remaining persons including appellant (A-20) stood convicted.

C. The appellant had been charged for general conspiracy which is framed against all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 3(3) TADA and Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) read with Sections 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3), (4), 5 and 6 TADA and read with Sections 302, 307,326,324,427,435,436, 201 and 212 IPC and offences under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25 (I-A), (l-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Arms Act’), Sections 9-B(1)(a)(b)© of the Explosives Act, 1884. Sections 3, 4(a)(b), 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

D. In addition to the general charge of conspiracy, he had also been charged under Section 3(3) TADA, under Section 5 TADA for keeping one AK-56 rifle plus two empty magazines and committed an offence in respect of the same under Section 6 TADA, and under Section 3(4) TADA read with Section 212 IPC, for harbouring criminals.

3. After conclusion of the trial, the appellant (A-20) had been convicted under Section 5 TADA, and awarded the sentence as mentioned hereinabove.

Hence, this appeal.

4. Shri Sunil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant (A-20), has submitted that conviction of the appellant (A- 20) under Section 5 TADA, was not warranted in view of the fact that the recovery had not been proved in accordance with law. The disclosure statement alleged to have been made under the provision of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called ‘Evidence Act’) has not been strictly followed. The said alleged disclosure statement did not bear the signature of the appellant (A- 20). There were two panch witnesses, only one has been examined. The panch witness examined in the case had been a stock witness in the police as he had appeared as a panch witness in other cases. He was the resident of an area in close vicinity of the office of the Crime Branch of the police department. The watchman of the Ghanshyam building from which the recovery had been made, has not been examined. None of the neighbours of that building have been examined as witnesses. There are material con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

gpt-4

2013 Supreme(SC) 269

IMPORTANT POINT Seizure list - whether accused is requitred to sign. Conspircy under TADA.

Cases Referred (4)

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
Seizure list - whether accused is requitred to sign.
Conspircy under TADA.