2019 Supreme(Kar) 1329

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI MALIMATH, H.P. SANDESH, JJ.
Imran Jalal @ Bilal Ahmed @ Kota @ Saleem @ Hadi, Son of Shamshuddin - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.2066 of 2016
Decided On : 29-11-2019

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 121, 121A and 122 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65B - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25(1-A) and 26(2) - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 20 and 23(1) - Punishment - Claim that he investigated - Whether Court below has committed an error in coming to conclusion that the sanction order is a valid sanction and it requires interference of this Court -Whether the Court below has committed an error in invoking Indian Penal Code that the accused had conspired with other accused to wage war against Government of India being the active member of a banned organization and it requires interference of this Court - Whether the Court below has committed an error in invoking the Explosive Substances Act, that accused was possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances and it requires interference of this Court - Whether the Court below has committed an error in invoking Sections Arms Act that accused had secret contacts in possessing explosive substances and it requires interference of this Court - Whether the Court below has committed an error in coming to conclusion that accused is member of a banned organization which involved in terrorist activities and he being a member of terrorist organization unauthorized possessed hand grenades which are capable of mass destruction and unauthorized possessed AK assault rifle aiding a terrorist organization and committed an error in invoking Sections Unlawful Activities (Prevention) What order –Held, Country since, the accused was also possessing prohibited explosive substances - No doubt other accused persons have not been subjected for trial, however material collected by the prosecution substantiate the fact that accused was possessing arms and ammunitions, grenades and also live bullets and there is no explanation on part of accused with regard to same except general denial prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt accused was possessing the same and the evidence of prosecution witnesses corroborates same and nothing is elicited in cross-examination of these witnesses to disbelieve the case of prosecution and further more there is no material before Court for false implication accused Court also cannot expect any direct evidence with regard to membership banned organization doesn’t make any membership and the same has to be gathered with the totality of the evidence - There ample evidence before Court that he indulged in the illegal activities having nexus with people who are waging the war against the state. Particularly when he was apprehended he possessed banned and prohibited arms and ammunitions one AK assault rifle two plastic packet containing rounds of ammunition one packet containing two magazines of AK assault rifle, one rifle sling, one bed sheet and one - In other bag they found one five hand grenades one travel book City map, one satellite phone and one letter pad book Court has to accept evidence of the prosecution and court do not find any reason to set aside the judgment of conviction - Court below has given anxious consideration to both the oral and documentary evidence and has taken note of the material circumstantial evidence and accepted case of the prosecution contention that there is no material invoke offence of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act cannot be accepted. The Court while invoking offences has considered material on record particularly possession of arms and ammunitions, live grenades live bullets map and magazines and also considered the FSL report and evidence of FSL report and also the evidence of FSL witnesses and has rightly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence - Hence there are no grounds to reverse the findings of Trial Court Assistant Commissioner of Police - A suggestion was made that one cannot see the number plate of the vehicle coming with headlights and the same was denied. Further suggestion was made that one cannot identify the light is of the same bus and same was also denied - It is elicited that he does not know whether the Inspector and other staff enquired the other person who got down from the bus road situates opposite to CAQ and next to Imaging leads to and is a ring road Motors is situated Inspector Assistant Commissioner of Police and Constable were wearing bullet proof jacket - They all went at around he was near vehicle - He states that he was having a bag on his shoulder and another bag in his hand but he cannot tell nature of bag - Assistant Commissioner of Police himself personally searched those bags - He admits that at around number of Lorries and other vehicles makes the movement in the said road - It suggested that he did not accompany the Assistant Commissioner of Police no articles were seized at the instance of the accused and the same was denied – Appeal dismissed