Respondent 3 has number affirmed an affidavit denying the said allegations made by the petitioner.
During investigations it appeared that materials had transpired for prosecuting the accused under Sections 3 and 4 of TADA.
There with the help of accused Tenia, Ukil and Khurshid brought those bags inside the Khaskhas Godown on first floor of 267, B.B. Ganguly Street through Satta Gali.
Upon companypletion of investigation, the police obtained sanction to prosecute under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act from the State Government.
9121 W of 1993.
328 of 1994.
In the charge sheet all the necessary ingredients under Sections 3 1 and 4 of TADA had been mentioned.
4509 P dated 11 6 1993 from the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal case diary etc.
Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the State of West Bengal has preferred these criminal appeals.
Due to this explosion the houses either companylapsed or got damaged.
On that basis, Case No.
Accused Jaysoara was introduced to other accused, namely, Mohammed Abdul Aziz, first respondent in Criminal Appeal No.
267, B.B. Ganguly Street, Calcutta 12 and damage to Premises Nos.
emphasis supplied Now, therefore, on careful companysideration of all the facts, materials and circumstances of the case and in exercise of the powers companyferred upon me by Section 20 A 2 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1993, I, Shri Tushar Kanti Talukdar, Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, do hereby accord sanction for prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1993 of the following persons, viz.,
8378 W of 1993.
84 dated 17 3 1993 under Sections 120 B/436130213071 326 IPC, under Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, under Section 3 and TADA Act, placed before me, that on 16 3 1993 at about 23.59 hours there was an explosion due to blast of bombs and explosive materials which caused destruction of Premises No.
Accused Khalid and Hassu opened those bags and brought out explosive materials and some small tin companytainers.
Accused Rashid Khan answered him in presence of those two persons as to why large number of bombs were necessary referring to recent past Bombay Riot.
Owner of Khaskhas Godown, E.M. Naushad and his men were present inside the first floor of the said building i.e. inside his godown cum residential place at that time.
The High Court in the impugned judgment criticises the order of sanction.
8377 W of 1993.
Cognizance taken.
Then accused Tenia, Ukil, Hassu and Khurshid started mixing the explosive materials while accused Gulzar, Khalid and Murtaza started straining the materials.
Soon after accused Nisar Gulzar, Khalid and Murtaza were straining those explosive materials.
84 dated 17 3 1993 and all subsequent proceedings thereto are illegal, void and inoperative in law A writ in the nature of certiorari and or an order of direction in the like nature companymanding the respondents to transmit the records relating to TADA case pending before the said respondent to this Court A writ in the nature of prohibition and or an order of direction in the like nature prohibiting the respondents and or their agents and or their subordinates from proceeding any further with the TADA case A writ in the nature of mandamus to respondents to forbear from applying the provisions of TADA against him and from taking any action or step thereunder and to release the petitioner from custody forthwith.
At about 23.00/23.30 hours on 16 3 1993, accused Pannalal, after preparing a few bombs came down and went out, being followed by a witness.
329 of 1994 and Lala alias Parwez Khan.
A companyplaint was lodged on 17 3 1993 regarding this incident by Mr B.K. Chattopadhaya, Sub Inspector attached to Bowbazar Police Station.
The first respondent, Mohammed Rashid Khan moved a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making inter alia the following prayers That the companynizance taken by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, Respondent 7, in TADA Case No.
267, B.B. Ganguly Street, Calcutta.
The facts also disclose that companyfessions were made by Accused 3, Pannalal and Accused 6, Md. Gulzar under Section 164 of the Code before the Magistrate.
At about 21.00/21.30 hours of that night, an electrician of that locality who used to sleep in the night inside the Khaskhas Godown regularly also came there but being rebuked by accused Murtaza he left the Khaskhas Godown.
Accused 7 and 8 are reportedly absconding.
AND WHEREAS, it appears after due companysideration of all the records, documents etc.
The sanction to prosecute under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and the sanction under Section 20 A 2 were obtained on 11 6 1993.
Accused Gulzar tried to open the lid of a drum but he was asked by accused Khalid and accused Murtaza number to do so.
Again on 16 3 1993 accused Md. Khalid and accused Hassu brought explosive materials in two bags and with accused Gulzar and Mustafa Murtaza came near the Satta Gali at about 20/20.30 hrs.
The charge sheet was submitted on 14 6 1993, well within 90 days as is spoken to under Section 167 2 a i of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code .
The short facts are as under.
Accused Lala, Kalloo and Imtiaz came inside the first floor of 267, B.B. Ganguly Street and supervised this manufacturing process.
The sanctioning authority mentioned inter alia that the intention of the accused was to strike terror in the people and or to strike terror in a particular section of the people and or to adversely affect the harmony amongst the Hindus and the Muslims.
Pannalal Jaysoara and Md. Gulzar, the seizure lists, opinion of experts, Order No.
mentioned earlier, that the aforesaid persons by their acts have companymitted offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1993.
A further challenge in the writ petition was also made to the vires of TADA.
It was also mentioned the accused had companyspired and prepared to companymit disruptive activities.
On 3 5 1993, information to this effect was given to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
Thereafter at intervals accused Gulzar and accused Khalid left that house for their destinations.
While granting sanction under Section 20 A 2 of TADA it was mentioned that the records were placed before the sanctioning authority for examination and perusal.
Thereafter accused Murtaza, Khalid and Hassu and Khurshid kept two drums and four bags together and placed a plastic sheet.
Fix 10 7 1993 for E.R. to date.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MOHAN, J. Criminal Appeal No.
The orders of sanction and taking companynizance were quashed.
Sanction under Section 20 A 2 of TADA from the Police Commissioner was also obtained.
All the street lights and lights inside Satta Gali and lights on the first floor of 267, B.B. Ganguly Street and its surrounding areas were burning.
The challenge to the Act was number gone into since the same was pending at the relevant time before this Court.
1 of 1993 arising out of Section H Bowbazar Police Station Case No.
Then Accused 1 Mohammed Rashid Khan asked Accused 3, Pannalal, to start the work of preparation of bombs and thereafter went towards his hotel Shahi Darbar.
Having regard to the gravity of the offence, the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta passed an order that the case shall be investigated by a team of high ranking police officials.
266, 268 A, 43/3, 42/1, B.B. Ganguly Street, 1, Haberly Lane, 37, Robert Street, Calcutta 12 etc.
Heard.
Accused Zakrin was found standing near the Satta Gali and accused Md. Rashid Khan was then talking with two persons of Haberly Lane, standing on the pavement in front of 266, B.B. Ganguly Street.
327 and 329 of 1994.
A few persons were present inside Satta Gali then.
8377 W of 1993, against which this appeal has been preferred, is the main case.
In the companyrse of investigation witnesses were examined, various seizures were made and companyfessions made by two of the accused, namely, Pannalal Jaysoara and Mohammed Gulzar were recorded by a learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 7 4 1993 and 19 5 1993 respectively.
84 dated 17 3 1993 was registered in the police station under Sections 120 B/436/326/307/302 Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.
emphasis supplied Thereafter, it proceeds to say that the accused with intent to strike terror in the people and or to strike terror in a particular section of the people and or to alienate a particular section of people, to adversely affect the harmony amongst the Hindus and Muslims were engaged in preparing and or causing to be prepared, bombs, with explosive substances and highly explosive materials by procuring them, which acts were likely to cause death or injuries to persons and loss of or damage to and or destruction of properties and thereby companymitted terrorist acts, emphasis supplied AND WHEREAS it appears, from the aforesaid records and documents, that the aforesaid persons companyspired and were preparing to companymit disruptive activities.
The same decision was applied to Criminal Appeals Nos.
328 of 1994 is directed against the judgment and order dated 13 4 1994 of the High Court of Calcutta in CO No.
329 of 1994 is directed against the judgment and order dated 13 4 1994 of the High Court of Calcutta in CO No.
Death of 69 persons, serious injuries to 46 persons and companyplete destruction of a two storeyed building and partial companylapse of other two and damage to five more buildings were caused by the accused by an explosion caused by bombs and huge quantities of extremely dangerous nitro glycerine based explosives which experts have opined to be dangerous to life and property.
Some other people who used to stay during night were also present inside the Khaskhas Godown on that night.
This companyplaint was treated as first information report.
Criminal Appeal No.
Criminal Appeal No.
All these cases arise out of writ petitions filed in the High Court of Calcutta challenging the validity of sanction and taking companynizance of the cases against each of the respondents by the Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 hereinafter referred to as TADA .
At about 23.59 hours on 16 3 1993 the explosion took place resulting in death of 69 persons and 46 persons injured.
328 of 1994 since CO No.
At about 22.00/22.30 hours, on that day, accused Pannalal came to the office of accused Md. Rashid Khan at 266, B.B. Ganguly Street.
The said premises and some other buildings adjoining it companylapsed and or were badly damaged.
1 Md. Rashid Khan, son of late Ramzan Khan, of 43, B. Ganguly Street, Calcutta 1 2.
Perused the police papers.
It inter alia holds It has been specifically alleged that numbersanction order was given by the Commissioner of Police Respondent 3 before the Designated Court took companynizance on 14 6 1993.
After departure of accused Rashid Khan, Accused 3 Pannalal also left that place for his residence.
327 of 1994 is directed against the judgment and order dated 13 4 1994 of the High Court of Calcutta in CO No.
69 persons died, 5 of them died as a result of direct blast and 46 others were injured.
On the evening of 16 3 1993, an explosion occurred at or near Premises No.
in companynection with Bowbazar PS.
As such he did number open the lid of the drum.
emphasis supplied Issue warrant of arrest against accused Parvez Khan Md. Parvez Khan Parwez Lala and accused Imtiaz Khan.
On the same morning, i.e., 16 3 1993, accused Kalloo with accused Imtiaz went to the place of accused Pannalal Jaysoara and asked him to companye to their place at Bowbazar Street for preparing bombs.
There he met accused Aziz, Rashid, Lala and Zakrin who took him to the Khaskhas Godown cum Factory located on the first floor of 267, B.B. Ganguly Street through Satta Gali where accused Murtaza, Tenia, Nisar, Ukil, Hassu and Khurshid were found preparing bombs and there was huge quantity of the mixture of explosive materials over a plastic sheet on the first floor of 267, B.B. Ganguly Street besides a number of empty small tin companytainers.
The order of sanction by the Commissioner of Police is dated 11 6 1993.
The said affidavit affirmed by K. Sanyal also does number disclose that he was authorised to affirm the affidavit on behalf of the Commissioner of Police Respondent 3.
It inter alia says WHEREAS, it appears from all the reports, recorded statements of witnesses, companyfessional statement of accused persons viz.
and death of 69 persons and injuries to large number of people.
