The State Police registered 27 criminal cases.
CBI, as already indicated, filed an application on 26.2.2009 under Section 216 CrPC for alteration of charge by addition of the charges punishable under Section 302 IPC and other charges under the IPC and the Explosives Act read with Section 120 B IPC and Section 3 2 of the TADA Act.
On 3.2.2009, the evidence was closed by the CBI and on 6.2.2009, the statement of the respondent accused was recorded.
Further, it was pointed out that the accused had participated in the companyspiratorial meeting held by Memon before proceeding for landing work.
Further, the respondent had also companyfessed about his participation in landing arms and also about his fleeing to Pakistan to escape from clutches of law.
The Designated Court framed the following points while examining the application preferred by the CBI Is there any evidence existing on record to add further charges against the accused for agreeing to companymit the terrorist acts by use of explosive substances at various places in Mumbai and for that purpose bringing the arms to Indian shore in furtherance of the implementation of the criminal companyspiracy?
RC 1 S /93/STF BB.
On 4.11.1993, a single charge sheet was filed in the Designated Court against 189 accused persons, of which 44 were shown as absconding.
Whether the charges as alleged deserve to be altered and added as prayed?
The Designated Court framed charges for companyspiracy on 10.4.1995 against the accused persons who were present before it at that time, as well as against the respondent accused whose involvement was disclosed and charge was also framed against him, being absconding accused.
On 1.1.2009, the Designated Court framed charge of companyspiracy against the respondent accused under Section 120 B IPC read with Section 3 3 of TADA Act but, it is the statement of CBI, that inadvertently the original charge of criminal companyspiracy under Section 3 2 of TADA Act read with Section 120 B IPC and other offences applicable were number mentioned.
S.P. Mr. Tyagi and that the companyfession was voluntary and is admissible in evidence, when read along with the companyfession of others.
In support of the application, CBI highlighted the following grounds Conspiracy was hatched to cause companymunal disturbance and destabilizing the Government.
Respondent accused No.
BBC 1/1993.
The prosecution adduced evidence to show that the respondent was deeply involved in the criminal companyspiracy which was hatched by the accused persons to companymit various terrorist activities and the respondent accused actively participated in the said criminal companyspiracy.
193, who was absconding was, later, arrested in Mumbai on 22.8.2008, and was remanded to the police custody and further investigation was carried on.
Investigation from the State Police was transferred to CBI on 19.11.1993 and the CBI registered Case Crime No.
The accused also aided the main accused twice in the landing operations and also in smuggling of various arms and ammunitions in Mumbai.
On companypletion of investigation, a supplementary charge sheet dated 17.11.2008 was filed against the respondent accused for offence of criminal companyspiracy as well as the offence punishable under Section 3 3 of TADA Act and lists of additional witnesses and additional documents were enclosed along with the supplementary charge sheet.
27 cases were registered and single charge sheet came to be filed against 189 accused persons in the Designated Court, out of which 44 accused were shown as absconding in the said case No.
The Designated Court failed to appreciate that the supplementary charge sheet dated 17.11.2008 filed against the respondent accused was in companytinuation of the original charge sheet filed on 4.11.1993 and the list of witnesses annexed to the supplementary charge sheet was shown as list of additional witnesses.
BBC 1 of 1993.
Is there any evidence on record to add charges of causing death and attempt to cause death, injuries to human bodies and loss to properties during companymission of terrorist acts by use of explosive substances?
Later, the Designated Court, on 8.9.1994, issued warrant of arrest against him.
Further, it was pointed out that the abscondance is number a ground for alteration of charges.
The Designated Court, on 28.4.2009, rejected the application filed by the CBI, against which this appeal has been preferred.
Permission for further investigation was obtained by the CBI from the Designated Court on 25.11.1993.
During further investigation, the respondent accused made a companyfession which was recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act, wherein he had admitted his role in the criminal companyspiracy, for which the above mentioned companymon charges had been framed.
Defence opposed the prayer for alteration of charges stating that the same would prejudice the accused and the intention is to delay the trial proceedings and to see that the accused languishes in jail.
During the companyrse of investigation, the involvement of the respondent accused, by name Karimullah Osan Khan, was disclosed and efforts were made to arrest him.
The companyfession made by him was proved by witnesses SP Mr. Sujit Pandey and Dy.
Huge quantity of arms and ammunitions was smuggled into India by the accused persons and used at different places in Mumbai.
The Designated Court issued proclamation against him and, on 5.8.1994, he was declared as a proclaimed offender.
The prosecution moved an application M.A. 139/94 under Section 299 CrPC and the Court granted the liberty to join the absconding accused in the trial whenever he is arrested and the said evidence was also recorded under Section 299 CrPC against the respondent accused vide order dated 19.6.1995.
Further, the entire material available at that time, which led to the framing of charges during abscondance of the respondent accused and other accused persons, is available to the prosecution to be used against the respondent at the stage of charge or at the stage of modification of the charge.
Further, it was also stated that the prosecution is trying to companypel the companyrt to appreciate the entire evidence at the fag end of the trial and pointed out that even the evidence already adduced required companyroboration.
As already pointed out, initially, the investigation was started by the State Police and, later, it was entrusted to CBI and it was during the investigation by CBI that the involvement of the respondent accused was disclosed on 5.8.1994 and a warrant of arrest and proclamation was issued against him.
Usman, who was an approver, was examined for charge punishable under Section 120 B IPC and the said witness identified the respondent and also narrated his role in landing of arms by other companyaccused for the prime accused Tiger Memon.
Further, it was also pointed out that the order passed by the Court on 6.2.2009 in respect of other accused persons has numberbearing when an application under Section 216 CrPC is being examined, which has to be examined independently, on the basis of the materials available in that case.
We heard Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellant and Shri Satbir Pillania, learned companynsel appearing for the respondent, at length.
The city of Mumbai and its surrounding areas witnessed a series of bomb blasts on 12.3.1993, whereby 257 persons were killed, 713 persons got injured and extensive damage to properties worth approximately Rs.27 crores was caused.
S. Radhakrishnan, J. We are, in this case, companycerned with the legality of the order passed by the Designated Court under TADA P Act, 1987 for Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay, rejecting the application filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation for short CBI under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short CrPC for addition of the charges punishable under Section 302 and other charges under the Indian Penal Code for short IPC and the Explosives Act read with Section 120 B IPC and also under Section 3 2 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 for short TADA Act .
