Al Hadi Badar Naseer Mohammed vs State Of Maharashtra Ig
2009 Latest Caselaw 149 Bom

                                    1

MNM




                                                                          
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          APPELLATE SIDE




                                                  
                   Criminal Appeal No.434 of 2009
                                 IN
                    Sessions Case No.714 of 2008




                                                 
Al Hadi Badar Naseer Mohammed             ..           ..       Appellant/
                                                                Accused




                                        
               Versus

State of Maharashtra        ig    ..      ..                   Respondents
(Sahar Police Station L.A.C. No.930/2008)
                          
Mr.A. Majeed Memon for Appellant.
Mrs.A.A. Mane, APP for State.
        -----
           


                          CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ.
        



                          Dated : 19TH DECEMBER, 2009

JUDGMENT :

1.The Appellant-accused has challenged the judgment and order of the learned 7th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.714 of 2008,

under which he has been convicted of offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908 (the Act) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 5 years, pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

2.The Appellant-accused has also been convicted under Rule 3 of the Air Craft (Carriage of Dangerous Goods)

Rules, 2003, punishable under Section 10 of the Aircraft Act, 1934 and sentenced to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for 6 months and pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to suffer imprisonment for 1 month.

3.The accused is stated to be a national of State of Oman. He was admittedly in Mumbai and on 23.7.2008.

When the incident took place he was to board the flight for Muscat. At about 16.50 hours his baggage was kept

in the baggage machine at Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Sahar, Mumbai. Several sutali

bombs, anars, peacock crackers and other dangerous substances were found sealed in his baggage in two

pairs of footwear (4 chapples)amongst clothes.

4.It is the prosecution case that those are explosive substances and were dangerous to life and property and would cause serious injury to them. The accused is charged with endangering life and causing injuries to

life and property and prosecuted under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Since he was carrying substances which were dangerous goods, he is also charged and prosecuted under Rule 3 of the Aircraft (Carriage of Dangerous

Goods) Rules, 2003 and for having committed the offence under Section 10 of the Aircraft Act, 1934. Based upon

such charges, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses.

5.P.W.1 is the Security Officer, serving in Air India at Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Sahar, since

1982. He was having a duty of scanning of baggages of the passengers of the Oman flight. It is his evidence that when the passenger came and kept his bag on the X-

ray machine for scanning, he found incriminating articles. He kept the bag on the table and asked the

passenger to open the bag. The passenger opened the bag. He found sutali bomb in one black colour plastic

bag, two pairs of chappals, clothes and Oman Air ticket. This was less than the quantity of explosives

that he saw in the X-ray image and hence he again checked the bag. Nothing was found. So he kept the

box of chappals on the X-ray screen. He found explosives in the image of the chappals. He stopped

the passenger and informed his superiors. The superiors called the Police from Sahar Police Station. The Police called the Panchas. The soles of the chappals were opened in the presence of the panchas. After opening

the chappals, explosives were found in the sole of the chappals. The explosives were seized and he deposed that each chappal had crackers, anars, small crackers, sutali bomb, etc. These articles were seized and the

panchanama was made. All the explosive substances found in the bag were produced in the Court and have been

marked Articles A to E. The chappals have been marked Articles F to I. The chappals box and his clothes have

been marked Articles J and K. He lodged an FIR. In his cross examination he disputed the fact that the

passenger was an Oman national and could not speak Hindi, English and other languages. He did not feel any abnormality in his behaviour. He disputed the

suggestion that the accused was a patient of affective disorder depressive type and having suicidal tendency.

He has been cross-examined about the passport, ID card and ticket of the passenger, but with which this case

is not concerned.

6.P.W.2 is the panch in whose presence the soles of the chappals were opened and the various explosive

substances like crackers anar, suttali bomb and other explosives were seized. P.W.2 has proved by direct

evidence the execution of the panchanama, which is marked Exhibit-20. He was at the Airport until 10 p.m. He has identified Articles A to I in Court. He has identified the accused in Court. His cross-examination

shows that he could not state which crackers were found and kept in which packet. That is natural. He has been asked the usual questions about availability of the seized articles in the market and the special reason to

identify them.

7.P.W.3 is a businessman dealing in Mobile SIM cards. His examination-in-chief shows that the accused purchased a

SIM card from him. He was a heighted (tall) person. P.W.3 has deposed that he could identify the accused

because of such height. He has also deposed in his cross examination that he had talked to the accused in Hindi. He has refuted the suggestion that the accused

had not come to his shop or that he had identified him on the say of P.P.

8.P.W.4 is the person who sold the chappals to the

accused. He has identified the accused in Court. His deposition shows that the accused had gone to purchase

the chappals. He purchased 2 pairs of chappals for Rs. 200/-. The accused asked him to fill up the crackers in

the sole of the chappals. P.W.4 refused, as he was not the cobbler, and sent him to a cobbler nearby. His

cross-examination shows that he had no special reason for deposing against the accused.

9.P.W.6 is the cobbler, to whom the accused was sent. He

has deposed that two persons had come to him for stitching the chappals. He was told to fill up the crackers in the sole of the chappals by opening the stitches. He filled up the crackers in the sole of the

chappals. He identified the accused, the crackers as well as chappals upon being shown Articles A to I. His

cross-examination is upon the premise that many customers come to his shop, there was nothing

identifiable about the accused or about the crackers and the chappals.

10.P.W.5 is the Police Officer, who was called upon the baggage check of the accused having been done at Sahar

International Airport. He had called the panch. He corroborated the evidence of the Security Officer, P.W.

1 and panch, P.W.2, to state what had happened during the exercise of making the panchanama. His deposition

shows that the stitches of the chappals were removed and the crackers in the sole of the chappals were

found. These were 30 sutali bombs, 10 anars and 10 small crackers. His cross-examination shows that he

had made entries in the Station Diary upon receipt of the information before he reached the spot in 5 months.

He could not tell how many bags of crackers were prepared. These were available in the market.

11.P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer (IO) who

investigated the case from the Sahar Police Station. He served as Police Inspector. He commenced his investigation from 24.7.2008, a day after the accused was apprehended at the Airport. The case was

registered and the panchanama was got prepared. Upon interrogation of the accused, he was taken by the

accused to the shopkeeper and the cobbler. His cross- examination shows that he had not obtained sanction

under Section 7 of the Act. This was, though he had addressed letters to the requisite Authority on

11.12.2008 and 18.12.2008. His cross-examination shows the receipt of the letter from the Consulate General of the Sultanate of Oman, Mumbai, along with the medical

report of a hospital, of the Sultanate of Oman dated 31.7.2008 and 29.7.2008, respectively during the course

of investigation. The letter and the medical report received by him, have been marked Exhibits 30 and 31 in

evidence. His cross-examination further shows that he had shown the accused to a Doctor as per his compliant.

The Doctor s report is not produced by the prosecution. The accused has also not called upon the prosecution

also to produce such reports. His cross-examination further shows that he had sent the incriminating

articles to the Chemical Analyzer (CA) and they have been produced under the seal of the CA. The report of the CA had been produced in the evidence, Exhibit-26.

12.The Chemical Analyzer s report shows that 4 chappals had traces of potassium and nitrate radicals. Sutali bombs and crackers had aluminum, barium, strontium, calcium nitrate, nitrite, chlorate radicals, elemental

sulfur and charcoal. Charcoal was also detected on one of the sutali bombs along with the aforesaid chemicals.

13.So much evidence was recorded by the learned Sessions

Judge till 6.3.2009.

14.Upon such evidence, the statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) of the accused came to be recorded on 12th March 2009. His case is

only of denial.

    15.On   9th   March
                            
                           2009,    the    consent      of      the        Competent
      Authority     (Central      Government)      under        the        Explosive
                           

Substances Act was sought to be obtained by the I.O.

16.Thereafter on 19th March 2009, the evidence of the competent Authority was led. He is an IAS Officer. He

admitted receipt of the 2 letters of the IO on 11th December 2008 and 18th December 2008 along with the CA

report, FIR, spot and seizure panchanamas. He granted his consent to prosecute the accused upon going through those documents on 9th March 2009 under Section 7 of the Act under the power vested in him as the District

Magistrate. His evidence shows that from the aforesaid documents and other papers, he concluded that the accused was found with explosive substances being sutali bombs, anars and other crackers since the CA

report had confirmed those to be explosive substances.

17.His cross-examination shows that he had not given his consent for 3 months, due to he having several duties.

He refuted the suggestion that his consent order was prepared by the IO and he mechanically signed it. This

evidence has been put to the accused on 19th March 2009 when the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C again came to be recorded. His case

is of denial.

18.It is based upon such evidence that the learned Judge has convicted the accused of carrying explosive

substances.

19.From the aforesaid evidence the fact of the accused having gone to the Airport to board the flight to

Muscat/Oman where his baggage was searched and found to be having incriminating materials which were seized

under panchanama and he came to be arrested is clearly made out. The fact that the aforesaid incriminating materials were found stitched into the sole of his chappals is also made out. The cross examination of

the security officer P.W.1 who found the incriminating articles, informed his superior, called the police, prepared the panchanama and seized the articles is not at all dishevelled in his cross examination. Only 2

cases are sought to be put to the witness. The first is that he did not understand English or Hindi, which

case is refuted by P.W.1.

20.His evidence is corroborated by P.Ws.2 and 5.

21.P.W.5, who was an officer working at Sahar Police Station, was called and he had called the panchas. The panchanama was executed in his presence. He has also

deposed about the articles seized under the panchanama.

      He   made   the    relevant
                             ig      station    diary       entry         and       had
      arrested     the   accused    on    the   same     day.         His       cross

examination has also not disrupted his evidence in the

least.

22.P.W.2 is the panch who was called by P.W.5. He has proved the panchanama Exhibit-20. The seizure of the

articles shows articles A to I being seized from one bag which came to be identified. That bag which was of

red colour, has also been identified by the panch as Exhibit-L. Even his cross examination has yielded nothing though he was at the Airport until 10 p.m.

23.P.W.4 and 6 are the 2 independent witnesses who sold chappals to the accused and who stitched the crackers in the chappals. P.W.3 had sold a sim card to the accused.

24.All these witnesses have identified the accused in

Court. The transaction which they were respectively concerned with was a unique transaction involving a

passenger who had to board a flight and who was apprehended with sutali-bomb and fire crackers stitched

into the sole of his chappals kept in a bag, which was to be carried as his hand baggage during the flight. The two independent witnesses are the persons who came

upon a unique customer who instructed them to stitch sutali-bomb and fire crackers into the soles of the

chappals he purchased. It must be remembered that P.W.3 has deposed that the accused was a heighted person.

25.The identification by all these witnesses is,

therefore, of a unique incident which they are not likely to forget. The incident took place on 23 rd July

2008. The evidence has been recorded within a few months. The identification of the accused is perfect

and complete. The cross examination of each of these witnesses, to show that there was no particular reason why they identified the accused, is immaterial. Though the accused may not have looked particularly

distinctive to identify, the incident which each of these witnesses experienced was memorable(one which cannot be erased from memory) if only for its uniqueness.

26.All that is to be seen is whether a sutali-bomb and

other firecrackers were explosive substances having the propensity to cause damage and harm to the property and

person in the circumstances under which they were carried and were to be kept. They were carried stitched

in the chappals and therefore, specifically by the act of the accused, admitted to be concealed. They were in the handbag of the accused, which was to pass security

at the Airport. Had they been passed they would have been in the passenger hold of the aircraft. They would

be in the custody, possession, power and control of the accused. Only he knew the fact of the sutali-bombs and

other fire crackers being in the luggage hold where the handbags of all the passengers including the accused

were to be kept. Only the accused could have had access to them and could have used or misused them during the

flight. Under Section 2(a)of the Explosive Substances Act 1908(the Act) an explosive substance is deemed to

include:

any materials for making any explosive substance; also any apparatus, machine,

implement or material used, or intended to be used, or adapted for causing, or aiding in causing, any explosion in or with any explosive substance....

Section 4 of the Act imputes liability for any

attempt to cause explosion by possession of such substances, it runs thus:

4.Punishment for attempt to cause explosion, or

for making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property - Any person who unlawfully and maliciously-

(a)...

(b)makes or has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance or special category explosive substance with intent by

means thereof to endanger life, or cause serious injury to property, or to enable any other

person by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property in India,

shall, whether any explosion does or does not take place and whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be punished,

(i) in the case of any explosive substance, with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of

either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;

(ii) ...

The punishment for such offence is prescribed in Section 5 which runs thus:

5. Punishment for making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances Any person who makes or knowingly has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance or special category explosive substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable

suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, shall, unless he can show that he

made it or had it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, be punished, -

(a) in the case of any explosive substance, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;

(b)...

27.The C.A s report shows various chemicals including

potassium and nitrate radicals, sulphur and charcoal found in the sutali ig bomb and fire crackers. It is common knowledge that these chemicals and substances in the crackers burst upon being ignited with a match-

stick or a lighter. This would cause or aid an explosion. If they are ignited the sutali-bomb upon

bursting in a aircraft filled with passengers would cause harm, damage and injury to some or all of them

depending upon its potency. The anar and other crackers, if ignited, would shower the chemicals which

are ignited. In a situation such as an aircraft which holds a number of passengers seated closely against one another such an act would also cause damage, harm and injury because such substances have the propensity to

explode upon ignition by ordinary means such as a match-stick or a lighter. Judicial notice is required to be taken of the fact that such sutali bombs or crackers can be ignited only in open spaces. Even in

open spaces they are known to have caused injuries to children or nearby persons upon they bursting. It is

also common knowledge that the person who ignites sutali-bomb or fire crackers invariably runs behind few

steps moments before it is expected to burst. Such a scenario could never have been contemplated in an

aircraft had the sutali-bomb and fire crackers burst upon being ignited by the mischief or misdemeanor of the accused. The fact that he carried these bombs

concealed in his chappals which are specially purchased only for such carriage from the shopkeeper P.W.4 and

which he got stitched from the cobbler P.W.6 and the further fact that he had not kept those explosive

substances in the check-in baggage, but in the hand baggage, shows his intention of committing the criminal

act of endangering life and causing injury to property by carrying such explosive substances punishable under

Section 5(a) of the Act.

28.Mr. Memon argued that these were children s crackers which did not even need licence for purchase. This, ofcourse, completely overlooks the most material aspect that the accused, a 30 year old adult, who is not a

child, sought to take the sutali bombs and crackers stitched in his chappals in an aircraft and not in the open where children play with the crackers.

29.Mr.Memon oversimplified the act by stating, presumably

upon instructions in Appeal, that the sutali bomb and fire crackers are banned articles in his native land,

the Sultanate of Oman and hence he contends, the accused may have got them stitched and concealed. There

is no such case made out by the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Evidence has shown that the accused committed the positive act of

admittedly concealing the substances he took with him in his flight as his hand baggage.

                                ig                             The accused is
      stated to have carried them to give his children.                             That

fact shows the accused trying to circumvent and evade

the laws of his Country. Oman is an alien friend of India. Indian Courts are duty bound and always uphold

laws of friendly countries. The Court, therefore, would be loathe to even entertain a suggestion that an act

which is admitted to be violative of the laws of the Sultanate of Oman can be allowed to pass. In fact an

argument of the kind lends itself to the taint of irresponsibility and must be eshewed. The accused is indeed not imbecile enough to try to ward off arm of the law of his land.

30.Mr. Memon contended that the accused did not even know English or Hindi. He sought to substantiate that fact by showing that the questions put in the first

statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C has been interpreted to him by the Public

Relations Officer of Oman Consulate in Mumbai. The second 313 statement recorded on 19th March 2009 is not

so interpreted, but yet answered by him to the Judge who signed the statement in accordance with legal

procedure.

31.The interpretation to the accused of a greater part of

313 statement may not itself show his complete lack of knowledge of Hindi and English languages.

ig He is born national of Oman, who may not understand fully the concept of the trial in his second or third language.

However, the accused has signed the statement in English as can be seen from his rather illegible

signature. At least it is clear that his signature is not in Arabic. The evidence of P.W.1 shows he having

refuted the case put to him that the accused did not know English or Hindi properly. The evidence of P.W.3

shows that the accused had talked to him in Hindi when he purchased SIM card from him. The contention to shrug the consequences of the investigation and trial upon his ignorance of the law comes to nothing.

32.Mr.Memon rightly argued that he did not want to go into the merits of the case. He requested the Court to

take up the Appeal out of turn only upon the question of lack of consent required to try the accused and the

fact that he was an imbecile national of the Sultanate of Oman who could be deported to that country. Mr.

Memon argued that prior sanction of the competent authority under the act was required to prosecute the

accused under Section 7 of the Act.

Section 7 of the Act runs thus:

7.Restriction on trial of offences No Court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an

offence against this Act except with the consent of the Central Government vide Amendment of 1-2-2002.

33.The Section does not require sanction, but consent. This consent is not prior consent.

34.Consent as defined in BLACK s Law Dictionary Eighth Edition page 323 and Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Iyer Third Edition at page 973 is thus:

Consent is an agreement, approval or permission as to some act or purpose specially given

voluntarily by a competent person; legal effective ascent.

35.It is, therefore, an act of a competent authority actually approving an action taken upon being in

agreement with the action or granting permission for any act to be done or done.

36.Sanction as shown in the aforesaid digest at page 4221

is:

Express authorization, permission or recognition e.g., of an action, custom or institution etc., under Section 132(1)(a) Cr.P.C. 1973. In the case

of RE La Warr, 16 Chancery Division 587x.

It further shows that sanction not only means prior approval; it also means ratification.

37.Consequently,if prior sanction is required the

legislation makes an express provision for prior sanction, in view of the ex-post facto sanction which

can be granted under several legislations.

38.Mr. Memon contended that as per the requirement of sanction under Section 7 of the Act the trial could not have commenced until the sanction was obtained and the entire trial is vitiated since it was commenced before

the sanction was granted, the charge was framed and the evidence of P.W.1 to 7 came to be recorded before the sanction was granted. He submitted a copy of a commentary from a book on the Act without any

preceedents. The prosecution had not obtained sanction prior to the trial. In the cross examination of the

P.W.7, the I.O s efforts put in during investigation of requiring the consent of the competent authority was

sought. The cross examination of P.W.7 revealed a letter and reminder sent by the I.O to the competent

authority on 11th December 2008 and 18th December 2008 for granting consent. His evidence showed that consent was not received until the date of his cross

examination which was completed on 6th March 2009. The second reminder was sent on 7th March 2009 by the I.O

to the Competent Authority. The accused s statement has been recorded on 12th March 2009. Between the date of

the completion of the cross examination and recording of the statement of the accused, the competent

authority had given consent to prosecute the accused on 9th March 2009. His evidence was recorded on 19 th March

2009. Further statement of the accused was also recorded on that day.

39.The trial commences from the date of the framing of the charge. The trial continues until the judgment is delivered. The trial was in progress when the consent

was given by the competent authority. It has to be seen whether such consent can be held to be validly given. The consent is not ex-post facto consent as it is given during the period of the act which is required to be

consented by the competent authority. That act is the proceeding of the trial.

40.Mr. Memon argued that the trial could not have

commenced until consent was obtained, the prosecution has not heeded that fact and hence the trial is

vitiated. The case was in fast track Court. The notings of the learned Judge show that the case commenced from 7th November 2008 when the accused was

produced from the judicial custody for the first time. After his application for bail was rejected the charge

came to be framed on 4th February 2009. The fact that the consent was not obtained has not been brought to

the notice of the learned Judge by either the prosecution or the defence. It would have to be seen

whether consent to the prosecution given at such late hour after the 7 witnesses were examined and part

statement of the accused under Section 313 was recorded would be a valid consent in law.

41.A reading of Section 7 of the Act does not show how such consent can be vitiated. Prior consent is not required to be given. The consent is essentially only

the approval of the act of the prosecution and the permission for that act. The competent authority has been provided with the relevant material to give consent which are enumerated in his examination-in-

chief, being the C.A report, F.I.R, spot and seizure panchanama. It is for him to apply his mind and to

arrive at the conclusion and to grant or refuse to consent to the prosecution. He has to apply that mind

independently and grant or refuse consent. If the trial proceeds without his consent he may take

exception to the Act. However, his consent can be given any time before the act, to which his approval or permission is required or granted, is finally complete.

Consequently it is seen that the consent, though delayed, is not barred as the trial though commenced

has not completed. Consequently the act of prosecuting the accused can be approved and permitted by the

competent authority any time before the completion of trial.

42.Mr. Memon contended that the accused is mentally

deficient. He made him out to be an imbecile. He argued that being of deficient mental capacity the

accused could not have contemplated the seriousness of the substances that he carried and its consequences. The argument on behalf of the accused, serious as it is, is made without any material to justify such case.

There is no case in 313 statement of the accused of his imbecility or mental deficiency. The accused has been put the prosecution case by the learned Judge which he has refuted as false or as he being unaware of. When

asked whether he would lead any evidence in defence or examine himself on oath, he has answered in the

negative. When asked at the end of the statement whether he wanted to state anything else about the case

he only again stated that the case was false.

43.The I.O P.W.7 has been shown two letters from the Consulate General of the Sultanate of Oman, Mumbai about his ill-health in Oman with regard to the accused

dated 31st July 2008 and 29th July 2008 respectively.

     The     I.O    has    admitted
                                 ig         that       he    had      received             these
     documents during investigation.                        Upon such receipt the

documents have been marked Exhibits-30 and 31. Mr.

Memon sought to rely upon these documents. The contents of these documents are not proved even by

preponderance of probability. The marking of these documents as Exhibits is upon receipt of documents as

is required to be done under the Indian Evidence Act. (see Bishwanath Rai Vs. Sachidanand Singh A 1971 SC

1949 @ 1953). The mere production of the documents upon receipt by the I.O cannot prove the truth of the contents of the documents. As these are private documents their contents can be only proved by direct

oral evidence of the signatories of the documents or by secondary evidence, as permitted under the Evidence Act. The accused who was asked whether he would lead evidence in his defence had refused to do so. The

documents therefore, remained to be proved. It cannot be seen whether they are genuine documents issued by

the authors of the documents. The contents of these documents, therefore, cannot be read in evidence.

44.Passing off the serious case such as this, by a new

case brought out in the Appeal of the lack of mental health of the accused in doing the illegal act that is not proved, can come to nothing. These documents are

not even relied upon in the trial for making out the case of lack of mental capacity of the accused.

45.Mr. Memon made a written application to Court dated

19th November 2009 on behalf of the accused that he be deported to his native land by the Court and that the

accused would not even desire to stay in India so that this country may rid itself of the accused. That

application alone may be considered, but not before the accused serves out the sentence under the case of the

prosecution of his illegal and dangerous activity shown to be intended to cause harm and danger to the nationals of this Country which has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

46.It is seen that the trial has proceeded in accordance with law. The prosecution has obtained consent of the competent authority before the completion of the trial.

The consent is properly given. The prosecution has made out a case of the accused having carried explosive

substances to the Airport which was sought to be taken in his handbaggage in the aircraft, thus committing an

offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908.

47.The prosecution has also charged the accused with having committed offence under Section 10 of the

Aircraft Act,1934 read with Rule 3 of the Aircraft Rules to which Mr. Memon conceded.

ig He did not argue upon the conviction under the Aircraft Act. The accused has already served his sentence imposed under that Act.

Consequently that aspect need not be considered.

48.The prosecution has proved the possession of the explosive substances with the accused as well as his

intent to endanger human life and property. There is clear and cogent evidence about the act of the accused

and his intent thereto made out by the prosecution. The learned Judge has considered the prosecution case in all its details. The learned Judge has also considered the purport and intent of the Section 5 of the

Explosive Substances Act to impute knowledge and intent upon the accused in causing injury to human life and property.

49.The judgment of the learned 7th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewri, Mumbai dated 8th April 2009 is

correct and confirmed.

50.The appeal is dismissed.

51.The accused shall serve his sentence in India. At the

end of his sentence the Superintendent of the Jail where he is held shall hand over the accused to the

Consulate General of the Sultanate of Oman in Mumbai and shall see that the accused is deported to his

native country as per the application made on behalf by his Advocate dated 19th November 2009.

52.The Superintendent of the Jail shall also inform the

Immigration Authorities of this order as also the requirement of his deportation for making necessary

records in the immigration office to prevent the re- entry of the accused in India.

(SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)