By a detailed judgment, the designated companyrt came to the companyclusion that in the instant case the provisions of Section 21 1 b of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 for short TADA Act were applicable which, inter alia, provides that if it is proved by evidence of an expert that the finger prints of the accused were found at the site of the offence or on anything including arms and vehicles used in companynection with the offence, then the designated companyrt shall presume, unless the companytrary is proved, that the accused had companymitted such offence.
That pipe was taken by two police officers for finding out whether there was any finger print on the same.
According to the evidence on record which has been accepted by the designated companyrt, a piece of iron pipe was recovered.
On 17th September, 1993, an incident took place where there was a bomb blast near Shiv Sena Shakha No.
The report of the expert was that two finger prints existed and finger prints were photographed.
All this action took place on 17th September, 1993.
In that case, the finger prints of Dr. Ansari and five other accused were taken.
Along with the appellant accused 2 to 13 were also tried but by the impugned judgment they were all acquitted against which the state has filed criminal appeal Nos.
On the finger prints being matched, the expert came to the companyclusion that the finger print of Dr. Ansari, the appellant herein, did match with the finger print on the pipe which had been recovered from the scene of the incident on 17th September, 1993.
It was the case of the prosecution that the police thought it proper to see whether the finger print on the pipe which had been recovered on the 17th September, 1993 matched with any of the finger prints which had been taken on 19th January, 1994.
One of them was fit for companyparison.
In companynection with the Bombay blast case, the appellant Dr. Ansari was apprehended on 19th January, 1994.
