The prosecution case in Special Case No.21 of 2006 in brief is, that bombs were planted on 11.7.2006 in seven different first class companypartments of local trains of Mumbai Suburban Railways by the Students Islamic Movement of India hereinafter referred to as the SIMI .
The accused respondents were also charged with offences under the Indian Explosives Act, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, the offences under the Indian Railways Act and the offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967.
On 24.7.2012, the accused respondents filed another application at Exhibit 2914 , again for summoning defence witness.
The appellants shall be entitled to have the witnesses in question summoned, and examine them as witnesses for the defence.
On 30.11.2006 the charge sheet in CR number5 of 2006 came to be filed as MCOCA Special Case number21 of 2006 hereinafter referred to as Special Case No.21 of 2006 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 325, 326, 327, 427, 436, 120B, 121 A, 122, 123, 124A, 201, 212 Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 3 1 i , 3 2 , 3 3 , 3 4 , 3 5 , the MCOCA, read with Sections 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 40 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, read with Sections 6, 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884, read with Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, read with Sections 3, 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, read with Sections 151, 152, 153, 154 of the Railways Act, 1989, read with Section 12 1 c of the Passports Act, 1967.
Based interalia on the aforesaid companyfessional statements, the witness at serial number 63 had accorded sanction for prosecution of the accused in Special Case number 4 of 2009.
To appreciate the reason for summoning the witnesses at serial number.
Having examined its witnesses, and having placed on the record of Special Case No.21 of 2006, the necessary exhibits, the prosecution closed its evidence on 4.4.2012.
The accused respondents herein desire to produce the witnesses at serial number.
The accused respondents herein are the accused in the companytroversy.
We shall number endeavour to delve into the second question, whether the companyfessional statements recorded by the three accused Sadiq Israr Shaikh, Arif Badruddin Shaikh and Ansar Ahmad Badshah , in Special Case number 4 of 2009, before the witnesses at serial number.
Later, the provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 hereinafter referred to as the MCOCA were applied to the case.
64 to 66 were then holding the rank of Deputy Commissioners of Police at the time when the companyfessional statements were recorded .
No.9707 of 2012.
In all these cases investigation was transferred to the Anti Terrorists Squad, Mumbai hereinafter referred to as the ATS , wherein the matter was registered as CR No.5 of 2006.
The companyfessional statement of Sadiq Israr Shaikh was recorded by Vishwas Nangre Patil, Deputy Commissioner of Police witness at serial number64 .
The object for summoning the aforesaid witnesses is, that the witnesses at serial number.
SIMI is a terrorist organization, the accused respondents are allegedly its members.
iii CR No.86 of 2006 at Bandra Railway Police Station iv CR No.87 of 2006 at Bandra Railway Police Station CR No.41 of 2006 at Andheri Railway Police Station.
ii CR No.78 of 2006 at Mumbai Central Police Station.
vi CR No.59 of 2006 at Vasai Road Railway Police Station vii CR No.156 of 2006 at Borivli Railway Police Station.
These blasts led to the registration of following seven criminal reports CR No.77 of 2006 at Mumbai Central Police Station.
During the companyrse of investigation in Special Case number 4 of 2009, some of the accused therein Special Case number 4 of 2009 had companyfessed that they, as members of the IM had carried out bomb blasts, in Mumbai Suburban trains on 11.7.2006.
The application filed by the accused respondents, inter alia, included the names of the following witnesses Witness at serial No.63 Chitkala Zutshi, Additional Chief Secretary Home Department Witness at serial No.64 Vishwas Nangre Patil, Deputy Commissioner of Police witness at serial No.65 Milind Bharambe, Deputy Commissioner of Police Witness at serial No.66 Dilip Sawant, Deputy Commissioner of Police.
The evidence sought to be given companyprised of two documents i.e., Exhibit A 10 and A 11.
Thereafter, witnesses were examined in defence by the accused respondents.
In other words, those who had made the companyfessional statements Sadiq Israr Shaikh, Arif Badruddin Shaikh and Ansar Ahmad Badshah before the witnesses at serial number.
The IM is also allegedly a terrorist organization, blameworthy of such activities within the territorial jurisdiction of India.
The companyrt held, that if the said statements companyld also number be admitted under Section 32, then they companyld also number be admitted under Section 11.
Thereupon, the accused respondents were charged under Sections 3 1 i , 3 2 and 3 4 of the MCOCA.
Severe injuries on account of the said bomb blasts were caused to 829 persons.
64 to 66 had recorded the companyfessional statements of Sadiq Israr Shaikh, Arif Badruddin Shaikh and Ansar Ahmad Badshah during the companyrse of investigation in Special Case number 4 of 2009.
64 to 66, are admissible in Special Case number 21 of 2006, by producing the persons before whom the companyfessional statements were made the witnesses at serial number.
The question is, what was the date of the birth of A. A letter from As deceased father to a friend, announcing the birth of A on a given day, is a relevant fact.
63 to 66 as defence witnesses.
According to the prosecution, the accused respondents had companyspired to plant bombs at Mumbais local trains to create panic in furtherance of terrorist activities being carried out by the SIMI in India.
These bomb blasts resulted in the death of 187 persons.
An entry in a memorandum book by C, the deceased father of B, of his daughters marriage with A on a given date, is a relevant fact.
Likewise, the statement of Arif Badruddin Sheikh was recorded by Miland Bharambe, Deputy Commissioner of Police witness at serial No.65 .
In all 13 accused were arrested in companynection with the bomb blasts of 11.7.2006.
On 19.7.2012, accused Nos.2, 6, 7 and 13 filed an application at Exhibit 2891 praying for issuance of summons to 79 witnesses named therein.
64 to 66, can be summoned to be produced in Special Case number 21 of 2006, as defence witnesses, at the choice and asking of the accused respondents in Special Case number 21 of 2006 , for affirming or denying the companyrectness of the companyfessional statements made by them before the witnesses at serial number.
The investigating agency had been claiming, that all bomb blasts in Mumbai since the year 2005 had been carried out by the IM.
The Trial Court by its order dated 1.8.2012, declined the prayer made by the accused respondents for summoning the witnesses at serial Nos.63 to Dissatisfied with the order dated 1.8.2012, the accused respondents preferred Criminal Appeal No.972 of 2012 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay hereinafter referred to as the High Court .
And, the statement of Ansar Ahmad Badshah was recorded by Dilip Sawant, Deputy Commissioner of Police witness at serial No.66 .
Chitkala Zutshi, the then Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department witness at serial No.63 had granted sanction for the prosecution of the aforesaid accused in Special Case No.4 of 2009 on 21.2.2009, by relying interalia on the companyfessional statements made by Sadiq Israr Shaikh, Arif Badruddin Shaikh and Ansar Ahmad Badshah.
63 to 66, to establish their own innocence.
A sues B for a libel expressed in a painted caricature exposed in a shop window.
Initially the accused respondents were charged with offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 427, 436, 20A, 120B, 123 and 124 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is necessary to first define the companytours of the companytroversy, which we are called upon to adjudicate, in the present appeal.
As against the accusations companytained in Special Case number21 of 2006, referred to above, in another MCOCA Special Case number4 of 2009 hereinafter referred to as Special Case No.4 of 2009 , it was alleged by the prosecution, that the accused therein were members of the Indian Mujahideen hereinafter referred to as the IM .
Leave granted.
Aggrieved with the order dated 26.11.2012, passed in Criminal Appeal No.972 of 2012, the State of Maharashtra preferred the instant Special Leave Petition Crl.
The accused respondents press for summoning the witnesses at serial number.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
The question is, whether, and when, A and B were married.
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. On 11.7.2006 there were seven bomb blasts in seven different first class companypartments of local trains of Mumbai Suburban Railways.
