On questioning the three occupants of the said truck, namely, A 7 to A 9, told the investigating officers that they had numberlicence to possess these explosives.
Learned Judge also held A 5 guilty of offences punishable under Sections 9 B i b and 9 C of the Explosives Act.
The prosecution further states that in the month of October, 1990, A 2 met A 1 at Nanded and asked him to arrange for a further quantity of 2 1/2 quintals of gelatine and 400 detonators and two bags of Calcium Ammonia Nitrate.
The Investigating Officer also seized the truck and registered an FIR against these accused persons.
of opium.
They also opined that Calcium Ammonia Nitrate which is a fertilizer can also be used as an explosive when mixed with diesel fuel oil which then becomes explosives of class II as defined in Schedule I of Explosives Rules, 1983.
It is pursuant to this demand, A 2 met Jameel Ahmed A 5 at Nanded and asked him for the said quantity of gelatine, detonators and Calcium Ammonia Nitrate.
Based on the said companyviction, he imposed a sentence of 5 years RI with a fine of Rs.1,000 on each companynt, on these appellants, and in default in the payment of fine, to undergo a further RI for 6 months on each companynt, on each of them.
Prosecution case involving these appellants, stated briefly, is as follows On 20.12.1990, a Police party headed by Sukhpal Singh, PW 9, Inspector, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bhilwara Rajasthan intercepted Truck No.
Prosecution further alleges that these explosives were delivered to A 2 by father of A 5 viz.
Nextly, he held A 5 guilty of offences punishable under Sections 9 B i b and 9 C of the Explosives Act, 1884 and sentenced him to undergo RI for 2 years with a fine of Rs.500/ in default to undergo further RI for 3 months.
Said SHO, Satya Narayan, PW 12 found one ENCOR briefcase which had 8 bundles of electric detonators, and hidden with the load of bananas, he also found 13 cartons of gelatine and 2 bags of calcium ammonia nitrate.
Defence examined DW 1, Sulakshan Singh who was A 9 in the trial and had pleaded guilty as their witness and produced 5 documents in their defence.
Ismail Bhai A 6 which explosives were taken to Nanded by A 2 in the Maruti Van of PW 1 Sanjay Gaware on 12.12.1990 and was stored in a Kholi rented by A 2 at Usman Road, Nanded.
And there is numberchallenge to their companyviction.
During the companyrse of investigation, it was numbericed that M s. Asian Explosives, Akola of which A 5 was the partner, did number maintain the record of the transaction of gelatine of the aforesaid batches in the records of the firm.
P 124 during the trial.
It is the further case of the prosecution case that on 20.5.1991 Didar Singh A 2 gave a companyfessional statement which was recorded by PW 42 and marked as Ex.
A 3 to A 6 apart from denying their involvement, pleaded that they are totally innocent and have been falsely implicated.
He directed all the substantive sentences to run companycurrently.
On receipt of the said information, A 2 arranged for a Maruti Gypsy No.
He also sentenced the appellants for offences punishable under Section 3 3 and 6 1 of the TADA and imposed a sentence of 5 years RI with a fine of Rs.1,000 on each of them, in default to undergo RI for 6 months.
The said truck was then driven to Malegaon where a companysignment of bananas was loaded in the truck to be transported to Amritsar and the said truck left for Bhusawal where some more bananas were loaded and on 18.12.1990 the said truck proceeded further towards Punjab.
A 3 and A 4 who were companyvicted under the impugned judgment have also chosen number to challenge their companyviction.
According to the prosecution in this companyfession A 1 voluntarily admitted his involvement in the charges framed against him.
of India, under a numberification dated 1.2.1991 and after obtaining the companysent of the State of Rajasthan handed over the investigation to the CBI which companytinued the further investigation.
P.C. and all of them denied the prosecution case.
P 126, P 109 and P 128 respectively wherein these accused admitted their guilt and their respective involvement in the offence alleged against them.
He further sentenced the appellants for an offence punishable under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with section 120B IPC, and Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act and imposed a sentence of 5 years RI with a fine of Rs.500/ on each companynt on each of them in default to undergo RI for 3 months.
On opening the cartons, the officers found 200 gelatines in each of the carton.
Hence, these appeals are by A 1, A 2, A 5 and A 6 only.
They were Beant Singh, A 7 Jagjeet Singh, A 8 and Sulakshan Singh, A On a search of the truck, PW 9 and his party found 1.25 kg.
BLL 4750 and went to his Kholi at Nanded and companylected the explosives and proceeded to the place where the said truck was parked and the explosives were transferred to the said truck by A 7 to A 9 who had brought the truck from Punjab.
On the way at Mangalwara, Beant Singh A 7 purchased 1.25 kg.
The accused persons before the trial companyrt were examined under Section 313 Cr.
P 126 wherein this accused number only admitted his personal involvement in the charges levelled against him but also gave details of the involvement of accused A 1 to A 9 in the above case.
The Investigating Officer, PW 12, took out the samples of gelatine from each carton and electric detonators from each bundle, as also 1 kg.
Prosecution also states that during the companyrse of investigation, Beant Singh A 7, Jagjit Singh A 8 and Sulakshan Singh A 9 made voluntary companyfessional statements which was recorded by Ram Vallabh Sharma PW 43 on 4.1.1991 which were marked as Ex.
P 126, P 109 and P 128 respectively also pleaded guilty at the stage of recording their pleas, hence, were companyvicted based on their plea of guilt.
of Calcium Ammonia Nitrate from each of the bags which were seized, for the purpose of chemical examination.
A 1 denied his companyfessional statement and stated that he was asked to sign on a blank paper and that he did number know Hindi.
They also produced 12 articles as material objects in the case.
Said PW 9 sent a written report to SHO, PS Sadar, Bhilwara, who along with his staff reached the spot and companyducted further search of the said truck.
A case under section 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act was also registered against the said 3 accused persons for possessing 1.25 kg.
On further investigation, based on this information, it was found that Beant Singh A 7, Jagjit Singh A 8 and Sulakshan Singh A 9, the persons who were found in the truck seized earlier, along with Ismail Bhai A 6, Jameel Ahmed A 5, Dinesh Kumar A 11 and A. Srinivas A 12 had also joined in the said companyspiracy.
They companytend since accused A 7 to A 9 pleaded guilty, they were companyvicted by the trial companyrt at the stage of recording of their pleas, therefore, the trial of those accused got separated from that of the appellants, hence the trial leading to the companyviction of A 7 to A 9 is different from the trial in which the appellants were tried.
of opium.
A 2 stated that his companyfessional statement is fabricated and he was asked to sign on a blank paper and he did number know Hindi or English.
On facts of the case, learned companynsel then argued that the companyfessional statements of accused A 7 to A 9 as per Ex.
P 109, P 128 P 129 are number made in the same trial in which these appellants were tried.
On each carton Noble Explochem Ltd. 595/2, Giriprt Nagpur, Noble Brand Class III, Division I, CAT.ZZ was written in English.
Further case of the prosecution is that in the months of May June, 1990, A 1 summoned A 2 in the presence of A 10 and asked A 2 to arrange 2 cartons of gelatine and 100 detonators which A 2 arranged and supplied the same to A 1, A 4 and A 10 at Dunlop Hotel, Latoor Road, Nanded.
It is seen from the records that during the companyrse of investigation, Section 6 of the TADA was also invoked as against these accused.
It is during this journey on 22.12.1990 the said truck when it reached Checkpost No.2 at Bhilwara was intercepted by the staff of the Narcotics Control Bureau as stated above and the companytraband articles both opium and explosives were seized.
The said authorities also opined that the explosives so seized were marked with the name of M s. Noble Explosives and also identified the batch number which was traced to M s. Asian Explosives, Akola.
J U D G M E N T With Crl.
Thus on the ground that these accused persons had companymitted an offence under Section 9 B of the Explosives Act, Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 286 of the IPC, they were arrested.
Since this transaction is number relevant for the purpose of these appeals, we need number dilate on the facts of this transaction any further.
PAT 1933 at Octroi Post No.2, Bhilwara at about 10.30 a.m. The truck was loaded with bananas and there were 3 occupants in the truck.
The prosecution at the trial examined 49 witnesses and exhibited 174 documents.
of opium and one briefcase companytaining 8 bundles of detonators.
It is to be numbered that originally even though there were many other accused they were number sent up for trial by the investigating agency by showing their names in companyumn 2 of the chargesheet because the investigating agency companyld number find sufficient material of their involvement.
It is also the case of the prosecution that similar procurement of explosives was also made in the month of July, 1990 by accused A 1 to A 4 from one Dinesh Kumar of M s. Sushil Explosives.
It is stated that A 5 knowing well that these explosives were meant for use by the militants of Punjab, agreed to supply the same for an enhanced sum of Rs.1,000 per carton of gelatine even though the prevailing market price was just Rs.650/ as also two bags of Ammonia Nitrate.
After trial the Designated Court held the appellants guilty of offences punishable under Section 120B IPC, Sections 3 3 and 6 1 of the TADA, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 120B of the IPC and Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act.
It should be numbered herein that A 10 had died during trial hence proceedings against him had abated.
It is based on the material and oral evidence available at the trial that the Designated Court found the appellants guilty as stated above and sentenced them.
On 14.12.1990 at about 10/11 a.m. A 2 was informed by A 1 and A 4 that a truck loaded with oil seed cakes had companye from Punjab for carrying the explosives back to Punjab.
Based on the information received by the CBI and on further investigation, it was found that in the month of June, 1990, Madha Singh, A 10 along with Sukhwant Singh A 4, Kulwant Singh A 3, Gyani Pratap Singh A 1 and Didar Singh A 2 had entered into a criminal companyspiracy to procure explosives from Maharashtra and to transport the same to Punjab to indulge in terrorist activities.
The prosecution also alleges that Gyani Pratap Singh A 1 also made a companyfessional statement on 21.2.1991 which was recorded by PW 42, D.R. Meena, Superintendent of Police, and was marked as Ex.
In the said case, the appellants herein along with some other accused were charged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI SIC.II, New Delhi for offences under Sections 3 3 and 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 hereinafter referred to as the TADA Act , Section 120 B IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the Expolsive Substances Act and Section 9B and 9C of the Explosives Act.
The Ministry of Personnel, Govt.
A. Nos.215/2003 1361/2002 SANTOSH HEGDE,J. All these appeals arise out of a companymon judgment of the Designated Judge at Ajmer, Rajasthan, made in TADA Special Case No.8 of 1992.
Prosecution companytends that the explosives seized from the said truck were examined by the C.F.R.L., New Delhi as also by the Controller of Explosives, Jaipur, who opined that the said explosives were standard industrial explosives.
In regard to some other accused persons the Designated Court itself at the stage of framing charges found there was numbermaterial to proceed against the said accused hence discharged them.
It is also to be numbered at this stage that accused A 7 to A 9 who were found transporting the explosives in the truck, number only gave companyfessional statements as per Ex.
Prosecution further says that on receipt of these explosives, A 2 informed A 1 about the same.
