PW 1 said that on being interrogated appellant produced one revolver MO1 and two cartridges MO2 MO3 .
THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1997 Present Honble Dr. Justice A. S. Anand Honble Mr. Justice K. T. Thomas S. k. Bhattacharya, Adv for the appellant Guntur Prabhakar, Adv.
He found out appellant in Room No.2 of the building annexed to Masjid e Niyameth Kha e Ali at Mir ka Daira at Haribowli.
As mentioned above the Designated Court acquitted him of the offences under TADA but companyvicted him of the offences under the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and was sentenced as aforesaid.
He was arrested on 19 1 1994 and after recording his companyfessional statement the police seized a revolver and two cartridges which were produced by him.
He deposed to the fact that he made close watch on certain organizations in the wake of series of bomb blasts which rocked that city for a while and on receipt of some vital information about the activities of the appellant he proceeded to the place where he was staying, accompanied by two Revenue officials PW 22 and PW 23 .
In this case, there is number even a suggestion that appellant did anything as against the Government of India or any other Government of the State.
for the Respondent and Appellant in Crl.
PW 14 who was incharge of management of the rooms in the building attached to the aforesaid mosque said that appellant was staying in Room No.
The charger framed against the appellant companytains numberaverment that appellant did anything as against the Government.
Those articles were seized and later they were subjected to tests in the Forensic Science Laboratory.
The decisive ingredient for establishing the offence of Sedition under Section 124 A IPC is the doing of certain acts which would bring the Government established by law in Indian into hatred or companytempt etc.
PW 1 was the Superintendent of Police of Hyderabad City Zone CID during the relevant time.
A. No, 81/97 J U D G M E N T O R D E R The following Judgment Order of the Court was delivered J U D G M E N T THOMAS.
J Bilal Ahmed Kaloo, a Kashmiri youth had a sojourn in the city of Hyderabad and was involved in a prosecution under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987, for short TADA .
Though the Designated Court under TADA he was companyvicted of Sedition under Section 124 A of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment for life, besides being companyvicted of certain other lesser offences for which a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years was awarded under each companynt.
After investigation was companypleted he was challaned before the Designated Court at Hyderabad for offences under Sections 124 A, 153 A and 505 2 IPC, and under Sections 3 3 , 4 3 and 5 of the TADA, and also under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act.
He himself was in possession of lethal weapons like companyntry made revolver and live cartridges.
PW 16, the Assistant Director of that Laboratory has stated in companyrt that the said revolver and cartridges were found to be in perfect working companydition and he issued a certificate to that effect.
Appellant was an active member of a militant outfit called Al Jehad which was formed with the ultimate object of liberating Kashmir from Indian Union.
The case against the appellant in short is the following.
With this in mind appellant spread companymunal hatred among the Muslim youth in the old city of Hyderabad and exhorted them to undergo training in armed militancy and offered them arms and ammunitions.
2 of the building during the relevant time.
Hence the case against him would stand or fall depending on the other evidence.
He was propagating among the Muslims that in Kashmir Muslims were being were being subjected to attrocities by the Indian Army personnel.
During the period when series of bomb blasting occurred in the city of Hyderabad the police kept a close watch on the activities of the appellant who was then staying in a room adjacent to Masjid e Niyameth Kha e ali at Mir ka Daira at Haribowli in Hyderabad.
