IMPORTANT POINTS
1. To establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary and the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use.
2. lf on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists.
3. Even after the expiry of TADA, the proceeding initiated under the Act should not come to an end without the final conclusion and determination, which have to be continued in spite of the expiry of the Act.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 120-A and 120-B-Criminal conspiracy-Essential ingredients Intent to use goods for illegitimate purpose-To establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary-Intent of unlawful use being made of goods or services in question may be inferred from knowledge itself-Prosecution not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use-When offence consists of a chain of actions-Prosecution not to prove that each of conspirators had knowledge to what collaborator would do.
       Held: That to establish a charge of, conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use. Finally, when the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had to knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is known that the collaborator would put the goods or ser vice to an unlawful use. (Para 24)
       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 227 & 228-Framing of charge-A prima facie case must be made out-Court to apply its mind to question whether or not there is any ground for presuming commission of offence by accused- Need for proper consideration of material-Meaning of word 'presume'
       Held: That if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence; a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. (Para 32)
       (iii) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-Section 1(4)-Effect of repeal of TADA Proceeding initiated under the Act should not come to an end without final conclusion and determination -Sub-section (4) of Section 1 protects and keeps alive such investigation and trial. (Para 34)
       (iv) TADA-Section 3(3) Abetment of a terrorist act-Bombay Blast case-Appellant A charged for offence under-He had allegedly done the act of booking tickets of persons named in the charge from his own funds-No material to frame individual charge under Section 3(3)Order for his discharge.
       Held: Though it appears intriguing as to why only part of the money was sent through bank and that too by more than one draft, the aforesaid facts brought to our notice by Shri Rajender Singh do show that the only incriminating material, namely, crediting the amount of Rs. 9,939/- in the account of the appellants firm in the books of M/s. Hans Air Services is a weak circumstance to say that the appellant might have abetted the offences in question which is the real charge against him. We may state that as framing of charge affects a person's liberty substantially as pointed out in Muniswamy's case (supra), the materials on record must satisfy the mind of the Court framing the charge that the commission of offence by the accused in question was probable. We do not think if a conclusion can reasonably be drawn only from the above-noted incriminating fact pressed into service by the prosecution that the appellant might have abetted the offences in question. There being no material to frame individual charge under Section 3(3) of TADA, we are of the opinion that the general charge qua this appellant has also to fail, as the only overt act attributed to him is the aforesaid activity of booking tickets. (Para 41)
       (v) TADA-Section 3(3)- Bombay Blast Case-Charge against appellant AM that he permitted co-accused to park motor vehicles laden with arms, ammunition and explosives in his premises and that he was in possession of the same Conduct of appellant was indicative of fact that he was neither in conscious possession of arms, ammunition etc. nor had he aided co-accused in terrorist act-Order for discharge of appellant. (Para 46)
       (vi) TADA-Section 3(3)-Charge under-Bombay Blast case-Appellant having knowledge about transportation of arms, ammunition and RDX brought by co-accused M-He has to be imputed intent of its use for illegal purpose-Prima facie case against appellant under Section 3(3) -Charge maintained.
       Held: Any reasonable person knowing about transportation of materials like RDX has to be imputed the intent of its use for illegal purpose-there being no material to show that RDX can be put to any legal use. Further, as already held, the prosecution has no obligation under the law to establish that the appellant had known that the RDX, and for that matter other objectionable materials would be used for the purpose of blasts which had taken place in Bombay. The alleged fact that the jeeps provided by the appellant had cavities to conceal arms ammunition and RDX and that the jeeps were recovered at the instance of the appellant on 1.6.1993 in which were found traces of RDX, would prima facie show that the appellant had aided the terrorist act in question even as per the definition of the word "abet" given in Section 109 of the Penal Code. The alleged financial assistance provided would attract the enlarged definition of abetment given in Section 2(1)(a)(iii) of the Act. (Para 49)
       Further Held: That the fact of knowledge of the aforesaid transportation was known as per the confessional statement of the appellant from his driver. The further statement in this context is that despite knowing this he had not disclosed to anybody about transportation, which according to the appellant was due to the fear of police. Shri Jethmalani asked the just mentioned questions to persuade us to hold that there was no criminality in the silence of the appellant in not informing the police about the transportation. Even if some allowance is made to this part of the submission of the learned counsel, the law of conspiracy being as explained above, a prima facie case against this appellant under Section 3(3) of the Act does exist. The individual charge as well as the general charge, therefore, must be maintained in so far as he is concerned. (Para 50)
       (vii) T ADA-Section 3(3)-Charge under-Bombay Blast case- Appellant while posted as Additional Collector of Customs allowed smuggling of arms, ammunition and explosives by not doing Nakabandi at pre-arranged point-the had information about landing to RDX Nakabandi done not at proper place, as that left Road free for smugglers to carry goods upto Bombay Charges rightly framed against appellant T.
       Held: As to Thapa, the allegation relates to facilitating movement of arms, RDX etc., which act would amount .to abetment, as it would be an assistance, which would attract clause (iii) of Section 2(i)(a) of the Act, defining the word 'abet'. It may be noted that the individual charge against Thapa is for commission of offence under Section 3(3) of T ADA, which, inter alia, makes abetment punishable.
       (Para 59)
       Result: Ordered accordingly.

JUDGMENT

B.L. Hansaria, J.-Bombay of yesterday, Mumbai of today: financial capital of the nation It woke as usual on 12th March, 1993. People started for their places of work not knowing what was in their store. The terrorists and/or disruptionists, bent on breaking the backbone of the nation (for reasons which need not be gone into) had, however, hatched a well laid-out conspiracy to cripple the country by striking at its financial nerve. As Bombay set down to work, blasting of bombs almost simultaneously, took place at important centers of commercial activities like Stock Exchange, Air India, Zaveri Bazar, Katha Bazar and many luxurious hotels. A shocked Bombay and a stunned nation first tried to provide succour to the victims as much as possible and then wanted to know the magnitude of the loss of life and property. It surpassed all imagination, as it was ultimately found that the blasts left more than 250 persons dead, 730 injured and property worth about Rs. 27 crores destroyed. By all counts, it was thus a great tragedy; and revolting also, as it was men-made.

2 All right thinking persons and well wishers of the nation started asking; Why it happened? How could it happen? We are not concerned in these cases with why, but with how. The gigantic task led Bombay police, despite its capability, to seek assistance of the CBI. An arduous and painstaking investigation by a team of dedicated officials showed that the aforesaid bomb blasts were a result of deep rooted conspiracy - concerted action of many, guided either by greed or vengeance. The finale of investigation consisted in charge-sheeting 145 persons (of whom 38 were shown as absconders) under various sections of the Penal Code and the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (T ADA), hereinafter the Act also. The Designated Court constituted under Section 9 of the Act carne is be seized of the matter and by its impugned order of 10 9.1995 it has framed charges against 127 persons, discharging at the same time 26. One died and two became approvers. (The total Thus comes to 146).

3. Of the charged accused, four: (1) Abu Asim Azmi; (2) Amjad Aziz Meharbaksh; (3) Raju alias Raju Code Jain; and (4) Somnath Thapa have approached this Court having felt aggrieved at their having not been discharged. The State of Maharashtra has approached the Court seeking cancellation of bail granted to appellant Thapa.

4. We were fortunate to have leading criminal lawyers of the country to assist us in the matter inasmuch as Shri Ram Jethmalani appeared for Raju and Moolchand, Shri Rajinder Singh, for Abu Azim Azmi, Shri R.K. Jain for Amzad Ali and Shri Shirodkar for appellant Thapa. The State was represented by Addl Solicitor General, Shri KTS Tulsi. Lengthy arguments were advanced by the learned counsel to sustain the stands taken by them. We put on record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by all.

5. The appeals call for examination of three questions of law. These are:

(a) What are the ingredients of "criminal conspiracy, as defined in Section 120-A of the Penal Code?

(b) When can charge be framed?

6. After understanding and explaining the legal position, we would examine the cases of individual appellants and would see whether any of them deserves to be discharged. We would then express our view whether bail of Thapa has to be cancelled and whether Moolchand has to be released on bail.

Essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy:

7. It would be apposite to note at the threshold that Sections 120-A and 120-B, which are the two sections in, Chapter V-A of the Code, came to be introduced by Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1913. The Statement of Objects and Reasons stated that a need was felt for the same to make conspiracy a substantive offence. In doing so the common law of England was borne in mind.

8. Section 120-A defines criminal conspiracy as below:

"120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy:-When two or m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Cases Referred (7)