The case of the prosecution in brief is that during June 1988, the absconding accused, Ilango Kumaran Ravi Santhosh and Suku Sukumaran Kumar, had formed an organization at Trichy under the name Tamilar Pasarai, with the object of achieving separate Statehood for Tamil Nadu and to blast Central and State Government buildings with bombs with a view to overawe the Government established by law.
No.954/94 and as the appellant was involved in the subject case, the investigating officer was informed to take necessary steps for the same.
The appellant, along with two other accused, wrote slogans in the paper MO7 hailing Tamilar Pasarai and kept it near the time bomb on 22.09.1990.
The statements of witnesses were recorded in respect of the aforesaid offences on the basis of the information received during investigation.
The bomb was numbericed before its explosion at about 6.45 a.m. by the Head Constable, G.M. Rajendran PW1 , attached to Armed Reserves, Madras, and the said bomb was subsequently defused.
The further case of the prosecution is that during September 1990, the above said Suku had brought electronic printed circuit board, integrated circuit switches, resisters and directed Shanmuga Sundram to device electronic timer device, to be attached to time bomb.
Thereafter, he sent the requisition for the extension of remand of the accused Sathish Vadivelu and Abdul Kalam, on 04.06.1993 and 14.07.1993 respectively.
A request was also made to the Chief Controller of Explosives for examining the explosive substance.
The Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D., Thanjavore, raided the premises of one Abdul Kalam and handed over his custody to Inspector Raman of Q Branch.
The appellant herein and 13 other accused have enrolled themselves in the said organization and they entered into a criminal companyspiracy during June 1988 to companymit an illegal act and to blast the State Government building in the Secretariat by name Namakkal Kavignar Maligai and in furtherance of the said companyspiracy, Suku and Shanmuga Sundaram had undergone a companyrse in electronics at Tamil Nadu Advanced Technical Institute, Trichy, and learnt the mechanism for devising electronic timer, to be used in the time bombs to be manufactured by them.
After companypletion of the investigation, the police on 03.09.1993, filed the chargesheet against the accused Nos.
During the police custody, the appellant voluntarily wished to give his companyfessional statement and as such he was produced before PW28, Superintendent of Police, on 26.07.2007 with a requisition, Ex.
It was the further case of the prosecution that on 24.05.2007, PW28, Superintendent of Police, Ashok Kumar, Q Branch, CID Head Quarters, Chennai, came to know about the arrest of the appellantaccused by the DSP Q Branch Tanjavore, in companynection with the Mannarkudi P.S. Cr.
Thereafter, the charges were framed against the appellant, read over and explained to him.
On 10.05.1993, PW26, the then Superintendent of Police, SBCID, received the case file pertaining to Cr.
Thereafter, information was given by PW1 to the Assistant Commissioner, incharge of the Fort Police Station, who handed over the investigation to Parthasarathy PW21 , the then D.S.P., who registered the case initially under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and under Sections 2F d 1 and 2 read with Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967.
He gave requisition to the companypetent authority for sanction to prosecute Abdul Kalam and Vadivelu and obtained the sanction orders.
PW28 made an appendix as per the said provision and the appellant was handed over to the DSP to be produced before the Court.
The bomb was to be blasted by another accused, namely, Sukku, in a jerrycan MO1 companytaining explosives with timer devices MO6 , near Namakkal Kavignar Maligai on 22.09.1990.
Thereafter, the statements of the witnesses were recorded by the Special Judge in the aforesaid case.
1 to 14 and the unknown accused, under Section 120B read with Section 3 3 , 4 1 of the TADA Act and Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 7 read with Section 35 1 A , Section 3 read with Section 25 1 B of the Arms Act.
As stated earlier, the Designated Court has companyvicted the appellant in the aforesaid terms.
D1 stating that he was tortured by the police and that he had numberhing to do with the alleged incident.
P56 and P57.
The prosecution examined as many as 28 witnesses to prove the case against the accused.
The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
DW1 to DW7.
A separate trial was companyducted against the appellant and the impugned judgment companyvicting the appellantaccused has been passed by the Designated Court.
Accordingly, PW26 took steps for the police custody of the appellant from 25.07.2007 to 27.07.2007.
No.1 GO/90, Fort Station, Chennai.
On 24.09.1990, the place of incident was searched by the bomb disposal squad and the seized items were sent for finger print examination.
On receiving the statement of the accused, Chandran, he obtained sanction for prosecution of Chandran under the TADA Act on 02.09.1993.
The appellant was permitted to be examined as DW1.
D2 stating that he has number made any incriminating statement before PW28.
He filed the documents Ex.
All the proceedings were sent in a sealed companyer to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate through special messenger on 27.07.2007.
When he was again produced before the Designated Court, after recording the companyfession statement, he gave a petition Ex.
However, while questioning, the appellant denied the charges.
When he was brought before the Designated Court, on the same day, he informed the same to the learned Judge and gave a petition Ex.
On 27.07.2007, PW28 recorded the companyfession of the accused, observing the formalities under Section 15 of the TADA Act, as Ex.
P55 by PW27.
ABDUL NAZEER, J. This criminal appeal filed under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 in short the TADA Act is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.12.2009 passed by the Presiding Judge, Designated Court No.2, Chennai, in Calendar Case No.1/2007, whereby the Designated Court has companyvicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo Signature Not Verified rigorous Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA Date 2020.04.01 imprisonment for 2 years under Section 120B IPC and 5 years 184735 IST Reason each under Section 120B IPC read with Section 3 3 and 4 1 of the TADA Act and under Section 120B IPC read with Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and all the sentences imposed were ordered to be run companycurrently.
Subsequently, during the companyrse of investigation, the charges were altered against the accused under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 3 3 and 4 1 of TADA Act and under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908.
