JAMEEL AHMED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Designated Judge at Ajmer, Rajasthan, made in TADA Special Case No. 8 of 1992. In the said case, the appellants herein along with some other accused were charged by the Deputy Superintending of Police, CBI/SIC.II, New Delhi for offences under Ss. 3(3) and 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TADA Act'), S. 120-B, I.P.C.; and Ss. 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act and Ss. 9-B and 9-C of the Explosives Act. After trial the Designated Court held the appellants guilty of offences punishable under S. 120-B, I.P.C., Sections 3(3) and 6(1) of the TADA, S. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with S. 120-B of the I.P.C. and S. 6 of the Explosive Substances Act. Learned Judge also held A-5 guilty of offences punishable under Ss. 9-B(i)(b) and 9-C of the Explosive Act. Based on the said conviction, he imposed a sentence of 5 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000 on each count, on these appellants, and in default in the payment of fine, to undergo a further RI for 6 months on each count, on each of them. He also sentenced the appellants for offences punishable under Ss. 3(3) and 6(1) of the TADA and imposed a sentence of 5 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000 on each of them, in default to undergo RI for 6 months. He further sentenced the appellants for an offence punishable under S. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with S. 120-B, I.P.C., and S. 6 of the Explosive Substances Act and imposed a sentence of 5 years' RI with a fine of Rs. 500/- on each count on each of them; in default to undergo RI for 3 months. Nextly, he held A-5 guilty of offences punishable under Ss. 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. He directed all the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) Prosecution case involving these appellants, stated briefly, is as follows :

(3.) The Ministry of Personnel, Govt. of India, under a Notification dated 1-2-1991 and after obtaining the consent of the State of Rajasthan handed over the investigation to the CBI which continued the further investigation. 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 conspiracy to procure explosives from Maharashtra and to transport the same to Punjab to indulge in terrorist activities. 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 conspiracy. 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.