MOHAMAD ASIK Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these criminal appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8-3-2001 made in Sessions Case No.1 of 1999 by the Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee thereby sentencing all the appellants/accused to undergo R.I. for a period of four years for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, IPC, to undergo R.I. for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, to undergo R.I. for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo R.I. for a period of one month for the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 17 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants are all members of 'Al-umma' organisation, which is banned by the Government of Tamil Nadu : that between 27-3-1997 and 14-2-1998 at Door No.34, Maroof Sahib Street, Anna Salai, Chennai, the appellants conspired to commit illegal act i.e. to plant powerful explosives in important cities all over Tamil Nadu and to strike terror in the minds of the people of, Tamil Nadu and immediately after the bomb blast incident was over, their intention was to endanger life or to cause serious damage to public properties by themselves or to enable other persons by means thereof and in pursuance of the conspiracy, the accused, on 14-2-1998 at the said address were possessing explosive substance and engaged in illegal activities to bring up the organisation. On the above accusation, the Court below having framed charges punishable under Section 120-B, IPC, r/w. Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 17(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, would conduct a thorough trial of the case, wherein on behalf of the prosecution, 13 witnesses would be examined for oral evidence as P.Ws.1 to 13 and would mark 12 documents for documentary evidence as Exs. P.1 to P.12 besides marking 18 material objects as M.Os.1 to 18. On behalf of the defence, they would examine, one Thandavamoorthy as D.W.1 for oral evidence with no documents marked on their side.

(2.) THE Court below, in consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the evidence adduced, held the appellants/accused guilty of the offences charged and sentenced them as aforementioned. Aggrieved, A..5 and A.11 have come forward to prefer the Criminal Appeal No.230 of 2001, A.7 has come forward to prefer the Criminal Appeal No.232 of 2001 A.1 to A.4, A.6, A.8, A.10 and A.13 have come forward to prefer Criminal Appeal No.420 of 2001 and A.9 has come forward to prefer the Criminal Appeal No.793 of 2001. THE case of the prosecution is that accused 1 to 13 are members of the banned organisation by the Tamil Nadu Government viz., 'Al-umma's, that between 27-3-1997 and 14-2-1998, at Door No.34, Maroof Sahib Street. Anna Salai, Chennai the accused conspired to plant powerful explosives in major cities all over Tamil Nadu and to strike terror in the minds of the general public and to cause serious danger to life and damage to public properties by themselves or through others and in pursuance of the conspiracy, on 14-2-1998, at the said place, which is the headquarters of the office of the said banned organisation, they possessed explosive substances and engaged themselves in illegal activities in promotion of the ideals of the organisation. THE prosecution case in evidence through the witnesses examined and documents and material objects marked, as aforementioned, is that P.W.1 who was the Inspector of Police, Law and Order in D2-Anna Salai P.S. would depose that on 14-2-1998, at various places in Coimbatore, bomb blasts were carried out particularly aiming at Mr. L. K. Advani as the target orchestrated by Muslim Fundamental organisation 'Alumma' having Coimbatore as its headquarters, not only to show its protest against Bharatiya Janata Party but also to express its displeasure with the functioning of the said party and to create disturbance and disharmony among the religions, that the founder-leader of the organisation viz. Basha, having been arrested in many other cases based on the cases registered by the Central Bureau of investigation and got released and was staying along with his accomplices and they were conspiring to disturb the ensuing elections making use of the explosive substances and indulging in extremist activities as it came to be known on reliable information that on information of threat to BJP leader Sri Advani, who was to visit Madras, they have inspected the place occupied by the said group on 14-2-1998 at about 8.15 p.m. and sent messages and sending advance intimations in Ex. P.1 to the concerned Courts, he prepared FIR and when he approached the particular place, the first accused Basha and 12 others were engaged in preparing country bombs and petrol bombs with the help of empty liquor bottles and on seeing the police party, they attempted to escape but coordinating the place, all the 13 persons were arrested in the presence of the witnesses viz. G. P. Papa and Santharupan that they also seized various types of knives, patta knives and veechu aruvals numbering 25, ten wooden logs, empty liquor bottles of 250 ml. filled with iron particles numbering seven and soda bottles numbering 20, petrol bottles with the thread numbering three, bottles with iron scrap numbering 11 and 180 ml. bottles with thread numbering 22 and 5 litre petrol contain can, 2 kg. chilly powder bag, many incriminating books, cash of Rs.14,800/- belonging to the first accused, a jute bag containing 40 black stones and yet another bag containing 40 broken bricks, five country bombs, ordinary detonators numbering 50, gelatine sticks numbering ten and electric detonators numbering ten have been seized under the cover of Ex. P.2 mahazar attested by the witnesses that having taken all the accused and the seized articles to the police station, he registered the case in his station crime No.294/98 under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act in Ex. P.3 FIR and recorded the confessional statement of the accused and sent the FIR and the M.Os. to the Court and on 15-2-1998, the accused were remanded to judicial custody.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.230 and 232 of 2001 would submit that on 14-2-1998, the G.O. was passed and the police gets information about the 'Al-umma' activists particularly that of A.1 that regarding Section 120-B, IPC, the apprehension of conspiracy that P.W.1 received was on no reliable information that under Section 165 of the Police Standing Orders, he has power that Ex. P.3 FIR was registered but at 4.00 p.m. on 14-2-1998 that in Ex. P.2, there is no crime number that in Ex. P.1 there is a crime number that the police have violated all procedures in the seizure that no observation mahazar or rough sketch of the scene of occurrence had been prepared that on 14-2-1998, the FIR had been registered at 4.30 p.m. itself, that though P.W.9 the Forensic Expert was examined before the Court, his 161, Cr. P.C. statement was not recorded. THE learned counsel, at this juncture, would refer to Ex. P.8, letter written by the XIII M.M., Egmore, Ex. P.9 the report from the Chemical Analysis and Ex. P.10 the letter written by the Officer-in-charge of the Commandos Bomb Squad to the Court. THE learned counsel would deal with Section 293 of the Cr. P.C. in relation to the reports of certain Government Scientific Experts which could be used as evidence in any enquiry, the trial or other proceedings and that the Court may summon and examine any such evidence as to submit his report. THE learned counsel would then point out that Exs. P.8 to P.10 do not tally. At this juncture, the learned counsel would cite a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Rehman reported in AIR 1960 SC 210 : (1960 Cri LJ 286) wherein dealing with the provisions of Central Excise and Salt Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it has been held : "THE object of the search under the Act is only to ascertain whether there is a contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules R.201 enables the authorised officer to make a search only for the investigation of an offence.