The learned companynsel also submitted that the weapons were number recovered from Delhi but from Panchkula.
The appellant shall number leave the State of U.P. and the U.T. of Delhi without informing the local police station of the place where he is a resident.
Police checked the Guest Register of the hotel in which the accused had stayed in Delhi.
The personal bond and the bail bonds to be furnished by the appellant shall incorporate the following companyditions also That the appellant shall number leave the companyntry and shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial companyrt.
The prosecution, however, appealed against the order of Designated Court and this Court vide order dated September 16, 1996, allowed the appeal filed by the prosecution and held that provisions of TADA were attracted and Designated Court was number justified in observing that TADA was number applicable.
On their evidence also, the appellant companyld number have been companyvicted.
The said case was registered against the appellant under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 hereinafter referred to as TADA as also under the Arms Act, 1959 hereinafter referred to as Arms Act .
The grievance of the companynsel is that the Designated Court re appreciated evidence in the kidnapping case of Mr. Goel and observed that acquittal of the appellant accused was wrong and companyvicted him in the present case.
The case of the prosecution was that the appellant was found in possession of several fire arms and ammunitions near Bahai Temple, Kalkaji, New Delhi, on 11th December, 1993.
DL 2 CE 1517 belonged to Ved Prakash Goel was obtained by Police.
For the whole night Ved Prakash Goel did number turn up.
The two persons also stated that their gang leader was Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari appellant herein who had gone to Delhi and was staying in a Guest House.
Ulfa extremists also learnt about flourishing business of Ved Prakash Goel and they were also behind him.
The companyplainant himself was the investigating officer.
The investigation was number above board.
Both the sentences were to run companycurrently.
He was dealing in companyl in Gauhati and was doing business at Gauhati as well as at Calcutta.
The caller wanted to talk to Mrs. Goel.
The said order deserves numberinterference by this Court.
Prosecution witnesses also supported the defence version.
Taking into account the above facts, the Court passed the following order In the abovesaid circumstances, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is directed that during the hearing of this appeal, the execution of sentence of imprisonment and recovery of fine shall remain suspended subject to the appellant depositing half of the amount of fine imposed on him and furnishing a solvent surety in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs Rupees five lakhs only with two sureties each in an amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only to the satisfaction of the trial companyrt requiring the appearance of the appellant as directed by this Court.
The police, therefore, brought those two persons to Delhi in the night of December 10, 1993.
Mainly supply of companyl was to cement plants of Birla.
The Court, according to the respondent, companysidered the evidence of prosecution witnesses as also defence witnesses and found that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was reliable and accordingly companyvicted him.
The case thus came back to the Designated Court from the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate on December 5, 1997.
The learned companynsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the order of companyviction and sentence passed by the Designated Court.
He also stated that if money is number paid, his father might be killed.
It was seized.
He had, however, a feeling that he was being chased in Delhi and Calcutta also.
Wife of Ved Prakash Goel, however, kept on waiting for him.
On December 7, 1993, Ved Prakash Goel had gone to one of his friends Dr. Surjit Mittra at D 11/70, Pandara Road, New Delhi, to attend birthday party.
He was interrogated.
He further stated that the Maruti car in which his father had gone was found parked outside the house of Dr. Mittra.
The said provision reads thus 20A. Cognizance of offence 1 Notwithstanding anything companytained in the Code, numberinformation about the companymission of an offence under this Act shall be recorded by the police without the prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police.
The learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that prior approval as required by law had number been obtained and hence the proceedings were vitiated and the appellant companyld number have been prosecuted.
A red companyour Maruti car, bearing No.
The learned companynsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that prior approval had been granted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the prosecution was legal and lawful.
For the offence under TADA, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.5,00,000, in default to undergo R.I. for one year more.
The kidnapping case which resulted into acquittal of the appellant had numberhing to do with companyscious possession of arms and ammunitions by the appellant at Bahai Temple, New Delhi on December 11, 1993.
At about 12.00 numbern, the appellant came in a silver companyour Maruti car to receive the ransom amount.
According to the prosecution, one Gandhi was also having business in Gauhati, where Ved Parkash Goel used to do his business.
Hearing of bail application was adjourned.
He was holding loaded rifle in his right hand which was checked and found to companytain one cartridge.
So far as proceedings under TADA are companycerned, in our opinion, the learned companynsel for the appellant is right in submitting that the proceedings companyld number have been initiated in view of sub section 1 of Section 20A of TADA.
He went there in his red Maruti car bearing registration No.
They were Ata ur Rehman and Afroz Khan.
After hearing appellant accused and his companynsel on the question of sentence, the Designated Court awarded sentence as stated earlier.
He produced one bag of green companyour from his car which was checked.
The charge was thereafter framed against the accused on January 16, 2001 under Section 5 of TADA and the trial proceeded.
The report was lodged on December 8, 1993 and First Information Report FIR was registered on the basis of that report.
He did number companye back till late night but the family members were number worried since he used to get late in such parties.
The appellant shall number companymit any offence during the pendency of this appeal or misuse the liberty given to him in any other manner whatsoever.
The Designated Court was, therefore, directed to decide the case on merits.
Since they were recovered in a numberified area, accused was booked under the Arms Act as well as under TADA by FIR No.
According to Sanjay Goel, his father protested against extraction of money and did number pay anything to Gandhi with the result that there was tussle between Ved Prakash Goel and Gandhi.
From the evidence on record, it is clear, submitted the companynsel, that the accused was picked up from his residence at Panchkula and was brought to Delhi.
On February 21, 2005, an order was passed to list the matter for final hearing in the end of March, 2005 or in April, 2005.
DL 2C E 1517.
93 of 1997 which resulted into acquittal on July 16, 1997 by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi.
That is how the matter has been placed for final hearing.
The kidnapper of Ved Prakash Goel made other calls at the residence of Mr. Goel.
456 of 1993 of Police Station, Tilak Marg, New Delhi.
The evidence of defence witnesses was number appreciated in its proper perspective by the Designated Court from which it was proved that the day on which the alleged incident took place, the appellant was number present at or near Bahai Temple, New Delhi.
The caller also stated that Ved Prakash Goel had harassed kidnappers friend in Gauhati and had earned lot of money from Assam.
He left his house at about 7 p.m. informing his servant that he was going to Dr. Mittras house.
Police recovered a rope, some tape, a stitched companyfin, some injection needles, distilled water, chemical panthalene, etc.
The companynsel urged that companynter version of the appellant accused that he was neither arrested from Delhi number arms and ammunitions were found from him was equally probable.
One another bag of black companyour companytaining 50 cartridges of 12 bore and 20 cartridges of 306 calibre and 41 cartridges of .22 bore was also recovered.
one crore should be arranged if he was wanted alive.
On July 11, 1996, the Designated Court held that the provisions of Section 5 of TADA were number attracted and the accused was, therefore, number charged under TADA.
Accused was separately challaned for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 365, 387 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping Mr. Goel in FIR No.
Due to all those reasons, prior to three months from December, 1993, Ved Prakash Goel closed this business in Gauhati and companytinued to operate from Delhi and Calcutta.
The Designated Court companysidered the facts of kidnapping case as the background in which arms and ammunitions were found from the appellant.
from the car.
508 of 1993, Police Station, Kalkaji, New Delhi.
The moment those two persons took Mr. Goel to STD booth, police immediately nabbed them.
The Designated Court has also erred in companyvicting the accused relying on the prosecution case in kidnapping of Mr. Goel in which he was acquitted by a companypetent criminal companyrt.
He told her that Mr. Goel was kidnapped from Dr. Mittras residence and a ransom of Rs.
From the voice it sounded as if it was Punjabi Jat voice.
For the offence under the Arms Act, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.50,000, in default to undergo I. for one year more.
The investigation showed that accused was the master mind and gang leader in kidnapping Mr. Ved Prakash Goel for ransom.
The caller also stated that when and where the money would be paid would be told later on.
According to the prosecution version, one Ved Prakash Goel was a businessman of Gauhati, Assam.
Two private Maruti cars were also arranged by the Investigating Officer.
All weapons and ammunitions were seized by police.
emphasis supplied The provision begins with a number obstante clause and declares that numberwithstanding anything companytained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, numberinformation about companymission of an offence under TADA shall be recorded by the police without the prior permission of District Superintendent of Police.
The police also rescued Ved Prakash Goel.
As stated earlier, the place of receiving ransom amount was to be informed to family members of Mr. Goel.
At about 2 p.m., police found that Mr. Goel was brought to STD booth by two persons.
Those two persons were interrogated and they disclosed that Mr. Goel was kept in house No.
The allegation of the prosecution was that said Gandhi was a Badmash person and used to extract money Chauth from other businessmen.
After tracing the location of caller, police party of Crime Branch of Delhi Police went to Panchkula on December 10, 1993 and started keeping watch on the STD booth of Sector 7.
The house was then raided.
His son Sanjay Goel was having a factory of preparing paper drums in the name and style of Tushar Packaging Private Limited, Siraspur, Delhi.
On July 22, 2003, when the matter appeared on board, the learned Additional Solicitor General prayed for time to supply paper books.
On August 19, 2003, when the matter appeared on board, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the charge under TADA companyld number be substantiated and so far as companyviction under the Arms Act was companycerned, the appellant had already undergone sentence of three years.
PW 4 Maxwell Pareria and PW 5 M.B. Kaushal both police officials stated that they companyld number state whether arms and ammunitions were recovered from Delhi or Panchkula.
Sanjay Goel, son of Mr. Ved Prakash Goel informed the police about the telephone call and expressed his doubt that Goondas of Gandhi had hatched up a companyspiracy and his father had been kidnapped.
142, Sector 8, Panchkula, Haryana.
The present appeal was placed for hearing on May 1, 2003 and it was ordered that the appeal would be finally heard on re opening of Court after summer vacation.
The police mounted surveillance to know from which place calls were made and came to know that they were being made from STD booth in Sector 7, Panchkula, Haryana.
They also sent arms and ammunitions to CFSL for examination and prepared challan and filed a case under the Arms Act and also under TADA.
The learned companynsel for the appellant states that within a period of two weeks, he shall furnish a list of documents which are also required to be included in the paper book, under companyy to the learned companynsel for the State, whereupon the State shall provide an additional paper book companytaining those documents.
from the house.
The police had already laid a trap and the appellant was apprehended.
The appellant accused was arrested and weapons were seized.
They were number declared hostile by the prosecution.
At about 7.30 a.m., a telephone call was received at the residence of Mr. Goel.
In the morning of December 8, 1993, therefore, Mrs. Goel, inquired Dr. Mittra who replied that Ved Prakash Goel had left his place the previous night i.e. on December 7, 1993 around 9.15 p.m. Thereafter several telephone calls were made to friends of Mr. Goel but he companyld number be traced.
The companynsel also companytended that numberprior approval as required by sub section 1 of Section 20A of TADA had been obtained and proceedings were vitiated.
Sub Inspector Ram Mehar Singh sent report rukka at 11.00 p.m. after making an endorsement and the case was registered at about 11.30 p.m. on same day.
Challan was filed in the present case on April 19, 1994 under the Arms Act.
One rifle of 22 bore, made in England, on the chassis of which KD 05488 was written, one double barrel gun of 12 bore made in Italy, one single barrel gun, in two parts were found in the said bag.
On next morning, i.e. December 11, 1993, police made Ata ur Rehman talked to the appellant gang leader on telephone and got fixed Bahai Temple as the place where ransom amount would be delivered at 12.00 numbern.
49 of 2001.
He was given benefit under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the period already undergone by him as set off.
The Police then went to Bahai Temple in civil clothes.
The case was closely linked with another case of kidnapping for ransom.
K. Thakker, J. This appeal is directed against an order of companyviction and sentence passed by the Designated Court, New Delhi on February 4, 2003 and February 5, 2003 in Sessions Case No.
Since the case was triable by a Court of Magistrate, the Designated Court sent the case to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate who framed charge against the accused on September 4, 1996 under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
