Ahmed Shah Khan Durrani @ A.S. Mubarak S. Vs. State of Maharashtra

[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1438 OF 2007]

[Criminal Appeal No. 912 of 2007]

[Criminal Appeal No. 1030 of 2012]

[Criminal Appeal No. 1311 of 2007]

[Criminal Appeal No. 417 of 2011]

[Criminal Appeal No. 1610 of 2011]

[Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 2011]

[Criminal Appeal No. 1420 of 2007]

[Criminal Appeal No. 1031 of 2012]

[Criminal Appeal No. 675-681 of 2008]

[Criminal Appeal No. 600 of 2011]

[Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 2011]

[Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2011]

[Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2011]

[Criminal Appeal No. 1034 of 2012]

[Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 2008]

[Criminal Appeal No. 401 of 2011]

[Criminal Appeal No. 595 of 2011]

[Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 2008]

[Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 2008]

[Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 2011]

[Criminal Appeal No. 1630 of 2007]

[Criminal Appeal No. 1029 of 2012]

[Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2008]

[Criminal Appeal No. 415 of 2011]

[Criminal Appeal No. 2173 of 2010]

[Criminal Appeal No. 1632 of 2007]

[Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2008]

[Criminal Appeal No. 598 of 2011]

[Criminal Appeal No. 1439 of 2007]

[Criminal Appeal No. 1035 of 2012]

[Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2008]

[Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2011]

[Criminal Appeal No. 414 of 2011]

[Criminal Appeal No. 1423 of 2007]

[Criminal Appeal No. 1032 of 2012]

Ahmed Shah Khan Durrani @ A.S. Mubarak S. Vs. State of Maharashtra

[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1438 OF 2007]

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J:

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.5.2007, passed by Special Judge of the Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'TADA') for the Bombay Blast, Greater Bombay, in the Bombay Blast Case No. 1/1993, convicting the appellant under Section 5 TADA, and awarding the punishment of 5 years RI, along a fine of Rs.25,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 6 months.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

A. As the facts of this case and all legal issues involved herein have been elaborately dealt in the connected appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 1728 of 2007 [Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra thr. CBI], it may be pertinent to mention only the relevant facts and charges against the appellant (A-20).

B. Bombay Blast took place on 12.3.1993 in which 257 persons lost their lives and 713 were injured. In addition thereto there had been loss of property worth several crores. The Bombay police investigated the matter at initial stage but subsequently it was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as 'CBI') and on conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against a large number of accused persons. Out of the accused persons against whom chargesheet was filed, 40 accused could not be put to trial as they have been absconding. Thus, the Designated Court under TADA framed charges against 138 accused persons. During the trial, 11 accused died and 2 accused turned hostile. Further the Designated Court discharged 2 accused during trial and the remaining persons including appellant (A-20) stood convicted.

C. The appellant had been charged for general conspiracy which is framed against all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 3(3) TADA and Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') read Sections 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3), (4), 5 and 6 TADA and read Sections 302, 307,326,324,427,435,436, 201 and 212 IPC and offences under Sections 3 and 7 read Sections 25 (I-A), (l-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Arms Act'), Sections 9-B(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Explosives Act, 1884. Sections 3, 4(a)(b), 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

D. In addition to the general charge of conspiracy, he had also been charged under Section 3(3) TADA, under Section 5 TADA for keeping one AK-56 rifle plus two empty magazines and committed an offence in respect of the same under Section 6 TADA, and under Section 3(4) TADA read Section 212 IPC , for harbouring criminals. 3. After conclusion of the trial, the appellant (A-20) had been convicted under Section 5 TADA, and awarded the sentence as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.

4. Shri Sunil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant (A-20), has submitted that conviction of the appellant (A- 20) under Section 5 TADA, was not warranted in view of the fact that the recovery had not been proved in accordance law. The disclosure statement alleged to have been made under the provision of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called 'Evidence Act') has not been strictly followed. The said alleged disclosure statement did not bear the signature of the appellant (A-20). There were two panch witnesses, only one has been examined. The panch witness examined in the case had been a stock witness in the police as he had appeared as a panch witness in other cases. He was the resident of an area in close vicinity of the office of the Crime Branch of the police department. The watchman of the Ghanshyam building from which the recovery had been made, has not been examined. None of the neighbours of that building have been examined as witnesses. There are material contradictions/omissions in the deposition of the witnesses. Even the case number has wrongly been mentioned. The L.A.C. No.22/93 had been manipulated and it was shown as L.A.C.No.23/93. Even the recovery of the AK-56 rifle does not give rise to the presumption of possession. It was further submitted that the confession of the appellant (A-20) had been obtained by coercion by severely beating him. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

5. On the contrary, Shri Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, has vehemently opposed the appeal contending that the confession of the appellant (A-20) has not been relied upon by the Designated Court, therefore, it remains inconsequential. Only one of the panch witnesses had been examined in order to avoid multiplicity. Mere non-examination of the other panch witnesses would not make the case of the prosecution doubtful. The recovery had been made strictly in accordance law and in case the recovery had been made at the instance of the disclosure statement and from the place on which the appellant (A-20) had control over, the presumption has rightly been drawn, particularly in view of the fact that the appellant (A-20) did not lead any evidence in defence. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Evidence against the appellant (A-20):

(a) Confessional statement of the appellant (A-20)

(b) Confessional statement of Murad Ibrahim Khan (A-130)

(d) Deposition of Sahadev (PW-181)

(e) Deposition of Nagesh Shivdas Lohar (PW-356)

(f) Deposition of Shivaji Shankar Sawant (PW-524)

(g) Recovery of AK-56 rifle and two magazines Confessional statement of the appellant (A-20):

8. The confessional statement made by the appellant has not been relied upon by learned Special Judge. Therefore, we are not making any reference to it and it has to be ignored. More so, we do not find any force in the submission made by Shri Sunil Kumar that there had been two FIR's in respect of the same incident as a large number of remand applications had been filed and it is evident from the application that at initial stage it was shown as L.A.C. 23/93, but a correction had been made though out initials by the person who made the correction, but in his subsequent application it had been shown as L.A.C. 22/93. More so, the FIR number connecting this case is the same. Only one FIR had been exhibited in the court as Exhibit 1284-A dated 18.4.1993 and it contains case no. L.A.C. 23/93. Therefore, we do not think that the submission requires further consideration. Confessional statement of Murad Ibrahim Khan (A-130):

9. He had disclosed that he was fully acquainted Yakub Yeda and the appellant (A-20). Thus, he was having acquaintance hardened criminals. Deposition of Mohamed Ayub Mohamed Umar (PW-72)

10. He is a panch witness and a hawker, selling fruits on the footpath near Crawford Market. He deposed that on 17.4.1993 at about 12.45 hours, he was called to the police station by a Hawaldar and there Constable, Shivaji Sawant, P.I. asked him whether he would like to act as a panch witness in a case related to the Bombay Blast. He consented for the same and one more panch witness was also present in the said room. In his presence, accused (A-20) disclosed his name as Salim Khan and he said in Hindi that he was in possession of one AK-56 rifle and two magazines in his workshop the recovery of which he would get effected. The witness further corroborated the entire version of the recovery The witness further deposed that the police party along the accused (A-20) and the panch witnesses proceeded in the police vehicle and towards the place disclosed by the appellant (A-20) and entered the building pointed out by the appellant (A-20). The said workshop had a loft and one staircase. One police officer went on the loft. Thereafter, all other persons followed him. On the directions of the appellant, cartons, scrap material and gunny bag were found. The said gunny bag was turned out for emptying the same. One AK-56 rifle and two magazines were taken out of the said gunny bag. The AK-56 rifle and magazines were separately wrapped in brown paper and three packets were prepared and sealed separately. The packets were signed by him, co-panchas and Shri Sawant. In cross-examination, the witness (PW.72) said that label put up on the recovered goods had his signature and the goods had been seized. He further denied the suggestion made by the defence that he was the regular panch witness for the police. However, he had admitted that occasionally, he had worked as such and he had been a panch witness in other cases. Deposition of Shivaji Shankar Sawant, P.I. (PW-524)

11. He deposed that on 17.4.1993, he was interrogating the appellant (A-20) who was arrested in C.R. No. 71/93 along some other police officials. During the said interrogation, the appellant (A-20) consented to make the voluntary statement and in the presence of the panch witnesses and other police officials, the appellant (A-20) made a disclosure statement in Hindi. He recorded the same in the panchanama. The panchnama was read over to the appellant (A-20) and the panch witnesses. It was signed by the panch witnesses and countersigned by him (A-20). He disclosed that the appellant (A-20) had consented to show the place and take out AK-56 rifle and two empty magazines kept by the appellant (A-20). He further deposed that panchnama of the recovery from the workshop of the appellant (A-20) was correct. The same bears his signature and the signatures of panch witnesses and it was completed on 18.4.1993. He was a Police Inspector and working as a Dy. S.P. for Protection of Civil Rights, Unit Bombay. He clarified the correction regarding L.A.C.Nos. 22/93 and 23/93 and explained that there was a correction on the L.A.C. numbers. However, he had admitted that he had made that correction while registering the said case though it did not bear his initials and he was not in a position to give any reason for not putting his initials and correction was necessary as there had been some typographical error. He further stated that he arrested the accused formally in L.A.C. No. 23/93 at 1.25 a.m. on 18.4.1993. In paras 65 and 66, he deposed that he did not register any L.A.C. No. 22/93 and also did not know the name of officer who had registered L.A.C. 22/93. Deposition of Sahadev (PW-181):

12. He deposed that on 14.5.1993, he received requisition from Worli Police station for recording the confessional statement of the appellant A-20 and he had proved the said confessional statement. Deposition of Nagesh Shivdas Lohar (PW-356)

13. He has deposed that on 17.4.1993, he along Shivaji Sawant and one Head Constable interrogating the appellant (A-20) in case No.C.R. 71/93. He corroborated that Shri Sawant had asked the appellant (A-20) whether he wanted to make the voluntary statement. Thereafter, appellant made the statement in Hindi. He recorded the statement of the appellant in Hindi in the panchnama which was marked as Exh. 378 and is the same panchanama recorded by him about the statement of appellant (A-20) between 17th and 18th April, 1993.

14. The recovery of the AK-56 rifle and two magazines had been made on 17th/18th April, 1993 and in respect of the same panchanama Exh. 383 makes it clear that Farid Alam Rais Alam Qureshi and Mohamad Ayub Mohamad Umar had been the panch witnesses and in their presence the appellant (A-20) voluntarily made a disclosure statement that the AK- 56 rifle was kept in his workshop. This panchnama was concluded at 23.10 hours on 17.4.1993. The panchnama has been signed by both the witnesses as well as by the Inspector of Police, Shri S.S. Sawant. However, it does not bear the signature of the appellant (A-20). It further shows that in continuation of the same, the search was conducted and it reveals that after making the disclosure statement, the police had taken the accused along the panch witnesses to a closed workshop named as 'Bona Parte' industry belonging to him. The said workshop was having its shutter down and locked and in absence of the key the police forced open the lock and opened the same. The panchas along the accused (A-20) and the police party entered the workshop and found that there was no electricity however, they found that the loft measured approximately 16' x 40' had a loft a staircase. The appellant (A-20) led all of them to the loft by staircase. On reaching there the appellant (A-20) took out a box and scrap was removed. One AK-56 rifle and empty magazines were found wrapped in gunny sack. The police examined the said material and prepared the recovery memo. The recovery memo contained one AK-56 assault rifle of folding type butt, in rusted condition but had been greased and two magazines of AK-56 assault rifle no identification marks and numbers and it was in rusted condition and greased.

15. The Designated Court after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion as under: "A-20 having not explained the reason of his knowledge of such a contraband articles being kept in a said factory of which he was partner the same will lead only to the inference of himself having kept the same. The same is obvious as A-20 could have knowledge about the same in three contingencies i.e. a) he had kept the contrabands himself b) having seen somebody keeping the same there c) somebody had told him that the same being kept at the said place or having seen himself of such articles being kept at that place. In view of failure of A-20 to give any explanation regarding his knowledge being due to the reasons as stated in the aforesaid clauses b) and c) the same will lead to the conclusion as stated aforesaid. regard to matter stated in clause c) aforesaid it can be additionally added that since the accused was also partner of the said shop allowing the remaining of such articles at the said place would also attract the liability for the same] The same is the case regarding the submission advanced on the basis of A-20 at the time of recovery not having the key of the relevant gala. In light of the aforesaid discussion it is difficult to accept the submission canvassed that the evidence only establish the knowledge of A-20 of the contraband material lying at the said place and the same does not amount to himself being in conscious possession of the same. Needless to add that the inferences flowing from the statement made by A-20 consciously are not of a nature of denoting himself not being in conscious possession of contraband articles in the notified area."

16. We have appreciated the evidence on record and the case depends upon the veracity of evidence regarding recovery. There is sufficient material to show that the recovery had been made at the behest of the appellant (A-20) from the factory owned by a partnership to which he was the partner along one Surjit Singh. In such a fact-situation, he ought to have explained the reason/source of his knowledge of such contraband articles being kept in his factory.

17. In the instant case, as he has not mentioned that he had seen someone keeping the articles there, or somebody had told him about that, or he had seen the things lying there, the only reasonable inference is drawn that he himself had kept the same at that place. Being a partner of the firm if he was having the knowledge that some contraband were lying in his premises, he ought to have informed the police if he had no guilty mind.

18. So far as the explanation that at the time of recovery he did not have the key, would not be enough to tilt the balance in his favour. The fact that he did not have the key becomes totally redundant, as no conclusion can be drawn that the appellant (A-20) was not in possession of the said premises, and in such a fact-situation, it cannot be held that the appellant (A-20) was not in conscious possession of the contraband material.

19. We do not find any force in the submissions made by Shri Sunil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant (A-20), that the panch witness was the resident of Sitaram building, which was opposite to the office of the Commissioner of Police, or in a very close proximity of the same, and was working on the footpath nearby the said building, and he had acted earlier as a panch witness in test identification parade.

20. The police when searching for a panch witness, need not go to far off place of the police station as the panchnama is required to be recorded in a close proximity of time, when the accused apprehending his disclosure statement. Therefore, on such material suspicion about the credential of the police or panch witnesses cannot be doubted, unless there is some material to prove the contrary. Had it been picked up from a far off place, criticism could have been otherwise as to why the panch witness could not be called from neighbourhood.

21. The panch witness Mohamed Ayub Mohamed Umar (PW-72) could not be held to be a tutored witness or acting at the behest of the prosecution only on the ground that he had also been the witness in another case. It does not give a reason to draw inference that he was a stock panch witness unless it is shown that he had acted in such capacity in a very large number of cases.

22. More so, it cannot be held that Mohamed Ayub Mohamed Umar (PW- 72) was not an independent witness, or acting under the pressure of the police as he was carrying the business illegally out any license. More so, the appellant (A-20) had made the disclosure statement in his presence, he could explain the same. Therefore, it could not be held that he was deposing falsely.

23. We do not see any reason as to why his evidence should not be relied upon. Minor omissions/contradictions regarding labeling and sealing are not really the contradictions which go to the root of the matter. Non-examination of the watchman of Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, or omission of factor regarding electricity being not mentioned in the panchnama, or non-collection of broken lock, are the omissions of trivial nature, and do not warrant any undue importance for doubting the evidence of recovery.

24. Law does not require the witness to corroborate the evidence of an independent witness. Thus, the evidence of Mohamed Ayub Mohamed Umar (PW-72) duly corroborated by the contemporaneous panchnama is trustworthy.

25. As the appellant (A-20) made a statement leading to the discovery of AK-56 assault rifle and two magazines having kept in his workshop and the same had been found concealed on the loft, he cannot escape from the liability of possessing and concealing of the same, thus liable to be punished under Section 5 TADA. We see no reason to interfere the conclusion drawn by the learned Designated Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Aziz Ahmed Md. Ahmed Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra

[Criminal Appeal No.912 of 2007]

26. This appeal has been preferred against the judgments and orders dated 11.10.2006 and 31.5.2007, passed by Special Judge of the Designated Court under the TADA for Bombay Blast, Greater Bombay, in the Bombay Blast Case No. 1/93, by which the appellant had been found guilty under Section 5 TADA and on that count, he was sentenced to suffer RI for 5 years, and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further RI for 6 months. He (A-21) was further convicted under Sections 3 and 7 read Section 25(1-A)(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, but no separate sentence was awarded for the same.

27. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that : A. In addition to the first charge of general conspiracy, he was charged for attending conspiratorial meetings at Dubai where criminal conspiracy was discussed for distributing arms and ammunition to co- conspirators and for providing funds to them. Thus, he (A-21) was charged under Sections 3(3) and (4) TADA. Further, he (A-21) was charged unauthorisedly being in possession of one U.S. Carbine 0.300 three magazines and 28 cartridges in the notified area under TADA, between January 1993 and 5th April, 1993, and thus, charged under Sections 5 and 6 TADA, and further under the provisions of Sections 3 and 7 read Sections 25(-A), 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act. B. After the trial, the appellant (A-21) stood acquitted of all the charges except charges under Section 5 TADA and under the Arms Act. Hence, this appeal.

28. Shri Mushtaq Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had wrongly been involved in the offence and convicted, though there is no sufficient evidence on record, to involve the appellant in the crime. The evidence particularly the confessional statement of the appellant and the depositions of other witnesses particularly, Bhaskar Babu Rao Jadhav (PW-57), Dayandeo Sonaji Geete (PW-320), Vijay Meru (PW-561), and Shivajirao Kondiram Babar (PW-683) etc. are not worth reliance. The confessional statement of the appellant cannot be relied upon, as it was not made voluntarily and truthfully. The appeal deserves to be allowed.

29. Shri Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the appellant was a close associate of Tiger Memon (AA). He was fully involved in the entire episode including the conspiracy. He has wrongly been acquitted for the said charge. Thus, no interference is called for. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.

30. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

31. Evidence against the appellant (A-21):

(a) Confessional statement of the appellant (A-21)

(b) Deposition of Bhaskar Babu Rao Jadhav (PW-57)

(d) Deposition of Vijay Meru (PW-561)

(e) Deposition of Shivajirao Kondiram Babar (PW-683) Confessional Statement of appellant (A-21):

32. His (A-21) confessional statement had been recorded, however, the same had been discarded by the Designated Court, thus it cannot be considered. The evidence against the appellant (A-21) remains the recovery of the aforesaid arms and ammunition. In fact, an FIR had been registered on 5.4.1993 at 6.10 p.m. that the appellant (A-21) was found in possession of a Carbine of 30 Caliber of U.S. make, three magazines and 28 cartridges out holding a fire arms license. It was further revealed that on that day, the police got information that the appellant (A-21) who was a resident of Pydhonie, Mumbai was scheduled to come near a mosque opposite Pydhonie Police Station to acquire arms and ammunition of foreign make. On that information the trap was arranged near the Pydhonie Police Station.

At about 1.30 p.m. the trap party received the pre-decided signal, on which the appellant (A-21) was searched, however he was not carrying any arms and ammunition him. He was brought to the DCB, CID office and during interrogation he expressed his willingness to make a voluntary statement. Therefore, two panchas were called from the nearby area and in their presence, the appellant (A-21) disclosed that he had acquired two Carbines of foreign make and some arms and ammunition from one Mujahidan and one of the said Carbine had been concealed at Naryalwadi, Mazgaon. The appellant (A-21) led the police party and Panchas to Naryalwadi Muslim Cemetery (Kabaristan), Mazgaon and from the said graveyard he took out one gunny bag duly tied a rope. It had been concealed in thickly grown trees and shrubs. On being examined, one single barrel Carbine, 28 cartridges and 3 magazines were found. Panchnamas have made for his disclosure statement as well as for recovery of the said articles. Deposition of Bhaskar Babu Rao Jadhav (PW-57):

33. He is a panch witness. He supported the case of the prosecution and proved the disclosure statement of the appellant (A-21) as well as the recovery made at his behest. He gave a full description of how the appellant (A-21) made the disclosure statement and how the recoveries were made. It corroborates the version given in the FIR. However, in his cross-examination, he (PW-57) stated that he (PW-57) had prepared the notes for deposing in the court. He had given full details of the incident of 5.4.1993. In cross-examination he had admitted that he had also acted as a panch witness in 3 more cases. Deposition of Dayandeo Sonaji Geete (PW-320):

34. His deposition revealed that he had accompanied the appellant (A- 21) at the time of recovery along others. He admitted in his cross- examination that he himself had not made any entry in the Station Diary regarding the information received by Senior P.I. Shri Kumbhar about the appellant (A-21). He has further deposed that he could not remember the manner in which the panch witness arrived in the office. The said panch was brought by the police havaldar. The appellant (A- 21) had been detained in the office of DCB, CID under suspicion due to the receipt of information that he was to be at Pydhonie for acquiring arms. He also deposed that the office of the Bombay Municipal Corporation was inside the Naryalwadi Kabristan from where the recovery had been made at the instance of the appellant (A-21). He further proved the recovery and denied the suggestions that the appellant (A-21) did not make any disclosure statement nor any recovery had been made at his behest. He has also identified appellant (A-21) in the court.

35. The deposition of Dayandeo Sonaji Geete (PW-320) has been fully corroborated by another police official Vijay Meru (PW-561) in all respects. However, he has admitted that he had not made any entry in the Station Diary regarding the information received by Senior P.I. Shri Kumbhar, nor he was aware how the panch witness arrived and who was the police havaldar who brought the panch witnesses. However, he (PW-561) deposed that he had detained the appellant (A-21) on information that he was to be at Pydhonie for acquiring arms. Appellant (A-21) came there at about 1.30 p.m. and on getting the signal, the police party pounced upon him and apprehended him. Appellant (A-21) was searched but he was not carrying any weapon, however, one Ceiko watch, his driving licence, labour card bearing his photograph of Arab Emirates and some Dirhams and a silver ring were found him. The inventory of the said articles was prepared and they were seized. The currency in Dirhams was of the value of Rs. 13 to 14 thousand Indian rupees. He was interrogated by A.C.P. Shri Babar (PW-683) and Senior P.I. Shri Kumbhar. It was during his interrogation that appellant (A-21) expressed his desire to make the voluntary statement regarding fire arms. Thus, two panches were called. The suspect was introduced to the panches. The memorandum panchnama was prepared in respect of his disclosure statement. It was signed by panch witnesses and, thus, he supported the recovery of the articles as narrated by the other witnesses. He had proved the complaint as well as the proforma FIR on the basis of the said complaint. PW.561 registered the said offence as LAC No. 18 of 1993 against the appellant (A-21) for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 read Section 25 of the Arms Act. Though he was competent to answer as to whether the panch witnesses had been stock witnesses or whether there was any discrepancy in drawing the memorandum panchnama but defence did not ask any question during his cross-examination. He (PW-561) identified the appellant (A-21) on 24.4.1998 in the court and he has denied the suggestion made by the defence that the appellant (A-21) had not made any disclosure statement, nor the recovery of arms had been made on his disclosure statement. Deposition of Shivajirao Kondiram Babar, ACP (PW-683):

36. In his deposition, he revealed that he had received the information about appellant (A-21) that he would get the weapons near a mosque opposite police station Pydhonie. He had received the information from a secret source on telephone, he recorded the same and passed on the same to the senior officers. He deposed that on 5.4.1993 while he was in his office at Crawford Market, he had received the information from his source on telephone to the effect that appellant (A-21) involved in Bombay blast case was in possession of fire arms and would be available at Pydhonie. Immediately thereafter, he formed a team of police officers and staff and went to the Pydhonie and arrested the appellant (A-21), brought him to the office of DCB, CID at Crawford Market and he (A-21) was interrogated. This witness further supported the prosecution case that he made a desire to make confession voluntarily etc. etc.

37. The recovered material was sent for FSL, and the report Ext. 1940-A was received. According to which US Carbine gun and 28 cartridges sent for FSL were examined. The carbine gun was found in working condition, and it was capable of chambering and firing the cartridges recovered in that offence. So, the report was positive.

38. The appellant (A-21) made a complaint before the Designated Court, and the court directed his medical examination. He was examined and again sent on police remand.

39. After appreciating the entire evidence, the learned Designated Court came to the conclusion as under: "Since criminal conspiracies are hatched in secrecy and it is extremely difficult to collect the direct evidence about the same the established principles of law indicate that the standard of a proof requiring such type of cases is loosened, unnecessary hard standards regarding the identity of a particular person can't be expected.. Thus, considering in proper perspective all the said evidence, no other conclusion will emerge of A-21 having committed all the offences for which he is charged on the account of commission of overt acts, but the same will lead any prudent man to the legitimate conclusion of A-21 having committed the aforesaid acts for the purposes of furthering the object of conspiracy.

" 40. In view of above, the Designated Court found him guilty and imposed the punishment as referred to hereinabove. We find no reason to interfere the directions of the Designated Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

State of Maharashtra Through CBI Vs. Ahmad Shah Khan @ Salim Durani & ANR.

[Criminal Appeal No. 1030 of 2012]

41. This appeal has been preferred against the judgments and orders dated 11.10.2006 and 31.5.2007, passed by the Special Judge of Designated Court under the TADA, in the Bombay Blast Case No.1 of 1993, by which the respondents (A-20 and A-21) had been convicted under Section 3(3) TADA, and acquitted of the main charge of conspiracy.

42. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that : A. In addition to the main charge of general conspiracy, the respondents were additionally charged under Section 3(3) TADA for facilitating the commission of terrorist activities etc., as they had agreed to send persons for receiving training in arms, ammunition and explosives and making arrangements by harbouring and concealing their conspirators/terrorists for consideration of money from Tiger Memon (AA). They had further been charged receiving and keeping in possession of one AK-56 rifle and two empty magazines intention to use and commit terrorist acts. Further, under Section 5 TADA, for possessing the said AK-56 rifle; under Section 6 of TADA, in respect of the same AK-56 rifle; and lastly, for harbouring and concealing co- accused Javed Chikna, Yakoob Yeda and others terrorists/co- conspirators at Tonk, Rajasthan after the Bombay blast on 12th March, 1993. B. Both the respondents (A-20 and A-21) had been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 5 TADA, and awarded the punishment of five years, and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further R.I. for six months. But acquitted for the charge of conspiracy. Hence, this appeal.

43. Shri Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that in spite of the ample evidence against the said respondents (A-20 and A-21) in view of their involvement in conspiracy, the court below committed the grave error in discarding the same. The evidence requires total re-appreciation and the confessional statements of the respondents (A-20 and A-21) and other co-accused have to be taken into consideration. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

44. On the other hand, Shri Mushtaq Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (A-20 and A-21), has submitted that their confessional statements have rightly been discarded as the same had been recorded in utter disregard to the statutory provisions. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

45. We have considered rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the records.

46. The confessional statements of Ahmad Shah Khan @ Salim Durani (A- 20), Shaikh Aziz Ahmed (A-21), Moiddin Abdul Kadar Cheruvattam (A-48) and Ismail Abbas Patel (A-80) had been relied upon by the prosecution. The same stood discarded completely by the learned Special Judge on the ground that all the confessional statements had been recorded by the Police officer in utter disregard to the mandatory provisions of Section 15 TADA and Rule 15 of TADA Rules, 1987. The police officer failed to inform the said accused persons while recording their respective statements that they were not bound to make confessional statement and further failed to warn that, in case, they made statements, the same would be used as evidence against them. More so, the required certificate was not attached to the said statements.

47. This Court has laid down parameters for interference against the order of acquittal time and again. The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. While dealing a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject- matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality.

48. In view of the fact that no legal evidence which could be relied upon by the prosecution is available on record, we do not find any fault the impugned judgment and order. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. More so, the respondents (A-20 and A- 21) have filed appeals, as referred to hereinabove, and they have served 4 years of sentence and deposited the fine. The appeal stands dismissed. ?

Yusuf Khan @ Kayum Kasam Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra (through CBI, STF)

[Criminal Appeal No. 13l1 of 2007]

State of Maharashtra Vs. Yousaf Khan Kasam

[Criminal Appeal No. 417 of 2011]

[Criminal Appeal No. 1311 of 2007]

49. This appeal has been preferred against the judgments and orders dated 11.10.2006 and 31.5.2007, passed by the learned Special Judge of the Designated Court under the TADA, in the Bombay Blast Case No.1/93. The appellant (A-31) was charged general charge of conspiracy, and in addition thereto, he was further charged for participating in landing and transportation of the arms, ammunition and explosives smuggled into India by the conspirators and co-accused at Shekhadi and further for transporting the RDX explosives in his motor tempo No. MCU 4409, which was part of the said consignment and unloaded the same in the godown of co-accused Liyakat Ali Habib Khan (A-85) at MIDC, Thane. The appellant (A-31) was convicted under Section 3(3) TADA, and sentenced for 5 years rigorous imprisonment, along a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further RI for 6 months. Hence, this appeal.

50. Ms. Farhana Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that the appellant (A-31) has been wrongly convicted for the offences under TADA and the Arms Act. The confessional statements of the co-accused could not be relied upon for the reason as it has been obtained by coercion and it could not be held to be useful and truthful and, therefore, no worth reliance. The panch witnesses could not be relied upon as they were not the natural witnesses i.e. resident of the said area. Thus, appeal deserves to be allowed.

51. Per contra, Shri Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed the appeal contending that the stand fully established by the evidence on record, particularly, because of the confessional statements of appellant (A-31), A-64, A- 128 and further stand corroborated by the evidence of PW-2, PW-62 and PW-604. Thus, no interference is called for.

52 We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

53. Evidence against the appellant (A-31) :

a) Confessional statement of Nasir Abdul Kader Kewal (A-64)

b) Confessional statement of Shahnawaz Khan (A-128) c) Deposition of Usman Jan Khan (PW-2)

d) Deposition of Padmakar Krishna Bhonsle (PW-62)

e) Deposition of Ajit Surve (PW-604) Confessional statement of Nasir Abdul Kader Kewal (A-64):

54. In his confessional statement, he (A-64) has revealed that he had been associated in smuggling activities and had been participating in landing and transportation along co-accused. He had earlier worked in Saudi Arabia and after coming back settled in Bombay. His father-in-law Gulam Dastgir used to run the business of Matka at Bandra and thus, he (A-64) also joined the said business. Subsequently, he came in association of the smugglers and started helping them in landing and transportation. He participated in landing and transportation from Shekhadi on 7.2.1993 and said that the associates of Tiger Memon (AA) were present including appellant (A- 3l). At the instance of Tiger Memon, the bags of arms ?and explosives brought from the trawler were loaded in a tempo driven by appellant (A- 31). Confessional statement of Shahnawaz Khan (A-128):

55. Confessional statement of Shahnawaz Khan (A-128) revealed that he participated in landing on 7.2.1993. He (A-128) along co- accused brought the smuggled goods at Seashore and they found that two tempos were already parked there. One tempo was being driven by appellant (A-3l). The smuggled goods were being loaded in both the tempos. Tiger Memon (AA), Javed Chikna (AA) and Yeda Yakoob (AA) opened the sacks. The accused (A-128) saw that it contained rifles, hand-grenades and bags containing black coloured powder in it. Bullets were also there. Subsequently, those tempos were unloaded at a building a tower. The goods were reloaded in the cavity of Commander jeeps. The said vehicles (Jeeps) left for Bombay. One tempo though empty followed the jeep.

56. Usman Jan Khan (PW-2) identified the appellant (A-3l) in the court. Usman Jan Khan (PW-2) deposed that appellant (A-3l) participated in transportation of smuggled articles. He deposed that on the relevant date they came out of the hotel after having the meal and noticed that Javed Chikna (AA) and Yeda Yakoob (AA), were standing near the white coloured tempo which was being driven by appellant (A- 3l). Tiger Memon(AA) told Usman Jan Khan (PW-2) to take a seat in the said tempo the appellant (A-31). He (PW-2) sat in the tempo and they followed Tiger Memon (AA) and reached Shekhadi Coast at 9 p.m. The smuggled goods had already arrived at the Coast. The same were wrapped in gunny bags. On the instruction of Tiger Memon (AA), the goods were loaded in the two tempos, one of them was being driven by appellant (A-31). The goods were brought by the said tempo to Wangni Tower and were unloaded there. It was at Wangni Tower that the goods were opened and the witness could see AK-56 rifles, its rounds, handgrenades, pistols, magazines and RDX. They were reloaded in the cavity of the jeeps parked there.

57. Padmakar Krishna Bhonsle (PW-62) is the panch witness of the recovery of the vehicle and identified the vehicle recovered by Police Inspector, Anil Prabhakar Mahabole (PW-506). It was recovered at the disclosure statement of the appellant (A-31).

58. Ajit Shivram Surve (PW-604), the Police Officer attached DCB, CID who had been sent to get the samples prepared on 30.l1.1993 by P.I. Shri Pharande, and he corroborated the incident of collection of samples as described by Asit Binod Ghorai (PW-602). He also named 3 persons who collected the samples as Kulkarni, Malve and Surve. He (PW- 604) further deposed that he prepared the panchnama which was duly signed by the panch witnesses.

59. One application under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 was filed by the appellant (A-31) before the Designated Court for release of the tempo and the same was allowed. However, the court passed the order that the vehicle should be thoroughly examined by experts as to whether it contained any traces of the RDX. It was in view? thereof, 3 experts took samples on 30.11.1993 and the report dated 12.1.1994 detected traces of RDX. This was corroborated by panch witness, Asit Binod Ghorai (PW-602).

60. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that considering the confessions of the co-accused, Nasir (A-64) and Shahnawaz (A-128), as well as the statement made by Usman (PW-2) there can be no conclusion other than the fact that the appellant (A-31) was involved in the Shekhadi landing and the transportation operation.

61. After going through the evidence on record i.e. the confession of the co-accused (A-64 and A-128) as well as the deposition of the various prosecution witnesses, we find no merit in this appeal. Therefore, it is accordingly, dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 417 of 2011

62. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 2.8.2007 passed by Special Judge of the Designated Court under the TADA for Bombay Blast Case No.1 of 1993. The charge against the respondent (A-31) had been framed mainly for conspiracy. He was further charged abetting and knowingly facilitating the commission of terrorist activities during the period of December, 1992 to April, 1993 by involving himself in landing and transportation of arms, ammunition and explosives smuggled into India by his co- conspirators and the role played by the respondent (A-31) had been, transporting the said explosives landed at Shekhadi by his motor tempo No. MCU 4409 from Alibagh to Thane, which was unloaded in the godown of co-accused Liyakat Khan at MIDC.

63. After the trial, the said respondent (A-31) had been convicted for the main charge under Section 3(3) TADA for transportation of the said explosives and awarded punishment of five years a fine of Rs.25,000/- but has been acquitted of the charge of conspiracy. Hence, this appeal.

64. Shri Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in addition to the general charge of conspiracy, the respondent (A-31) had been charged for assisting Tiger Memon (AA) and his associates in smuggling of arms, ammunition, handgrenades and explosives and its landing and transportation from Shekhadi on 7.2.1993. The respondent was present at the instance of Tiger Memon and had transported the said contraband in his vehicle. Therefore, as the respondent had been aware of the nature of the contraband, he cannot escape the liability of charge of conspiracy. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

65. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (A-31) has submitted that he is merely a transporter and not an associate of Tiger Memon, so he could not be involved in the charge of conspiracy. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

66. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record.

67. The learned Special Judge dealt the issue and came to the conclusion that in spite of the fact that the respondent (A-31) transported the contraband in his tempo and took the same to a far distance but there was nothing on record to show that he had knowledge of the kinds of goods transported in his tempo.

68. The parameters laid down by this court in entertaining the appeal against the order of acquittal have to be applied.

69. From the evidence on record, it becomes clear that Yusuf Khan Kasam (A-31) had participated in landing operation of contraband goods at Shekhadi as he was one of the persons who accompanied Tiger Memon and others and he had also been to Wangni Tower along other associates and contraband material were loaded in tempo. The tempo was taken by him along absconding accused to Mumbra as instructed by Tiger Memon (AA). This version is duly supported/corroborated by Shah Nawaz Khan (A-128) (Ex. 1569-A) and by the evidence of Usman (PW- 2). However, there is nothing on record to show that he was aware as of what kinds of contraband were being transported in his tempo.

70. We are of the considered opinion that no further interference is required and appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Uttam Shantaram Potdar Vs. State of Maharashtra

[Criminal Appeal No. 1610 of 2011]

State of Maharashtra Vs. Uttam Shantaram Potdar

[Criminal Appeal No.398 of 2011]

71. Criminal Appeal No.1610 of 2011 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.5.2007 passed by Special Judge of the Designated Court under the TADA, for Bombay Blast, Greater Bombay, in the Bombay Blast Case No. 1/1993, by which the appellant has been convicted under Sections 3(3) and 6 TADA.

72. Criminal Appeal No.398 of 2011 has been filed by the State against the order dated 2.8.2007 by which A-30 stood acquitted of the first charge of larger conspiracy.

73. Fact and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that: ?

A. In addition to the main charge of conspiracy, the appellant (A-30) was charged for overt acts by abetting and knowingly and intentionally facilitating the smuggling the landing of arms, ammunition, hand grenades and explosives in India at Dighi, Mhasla, District Raigad on 9.1.1993. This was done by providing his truck No. MH-06-5533 and mobilizing men, material and resources in connivance the customs officers and police officials by bribing them and facilitating the safe movements of arms, ammunition and explosives by piloting the motor truck, thus the offences punishable under Section 3(3) TADA and under Section 6 TADA have been committed.

B. Further, the provisions of the Arms Act, the Arms Rules, the Explosive Act, 1884, Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and the Explosive Rules, have also been contravened, by facilitating the smuggling, landing and transportation of arms etc.

C. After the conclusion of the trial, appellant (A-30) was acquitted of the umbrella charge of conspiracy including of the charge under Section 120B IPC etc. However, he was convicted for charges under Sections 3(3) and 6 TADA. He has been awarded a sentence to undergo R.I. for 10 years along a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer RI for one year under Section 3(3), and to undergo 14 years R.I. along a fine of rupees one lakh and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer RI for three years under Section 6 TADA.

74. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant (A-30) has already served 14 years imprisonment, and has also deposited the fine. However, the appeal has been preferred by him only to get an acquittal, so as to remove the stigma attached to being convicted for offences as mentioned hereinabove. The State has also filed appeal against his acquittal of the first charge of conspiracy.

75. Shri C.U. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has wrongly been enroped in the crime. The evidence on record falls short to prove the charges against him. The confessional statements are not admissible as had not been recorded in accordance law. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed, and the stigma of the appellant is to be removed.

76. Shri Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the State has opposed the appeal contending that the appellant was a close associate of Tiger Memon (AA) and his associates. He was involved not only in landing and transportation, but in the larger conspiracy. Thus, the State has filed appeal against the order of his acquittal on the charge of conspiracy. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed, and appeal filed by the State deserves to be allowed.

77. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

78. Evidence against the Appellant (A-30):

(a) Confessional statement of appellant (A-30)

(b) Confessional statement of Janardhan Pandurang Gambas (A-81)

(d) Confessional statement of Mohd. Sultan Sayyed (A-90)

(e) Confessional statement of S.S. Talwadekar (A-113)

(f) Confessional statement of Mohd. Kasam Lajpuria @Mechanic Chacha (A-136)

(g) Confessional statement of Jamir Sayyed Ismail Kadri (A-133)

(h) Confessional statement of Salim Kutta (A-134)

(i) Confessional statement of Faki Ali Faki Ahmed (A-74)

(j) Deposition of Dilip Pansare (PW-97)

(k) Deposition of Vyankatesh Hirba (PW-588)

(l) Deposition of Dinesh Nakti (PW-95) Confessional statement of appellant (A-30):

79. The evidence against the appellant (A-30) is his own confession made on 12th/15th of July, 1993. He has stated throughout that he was a landing agent and involved in smuggling. However, he had no knowledge that arms were being smuggled and he participated in the same, taking it to be smuggling of silver only. The confessional statements of co-accused do not speak of the knowledge of the appellant (A-30) regarding the smuggling of arms and they too, have only deposed about smuggling of silver. In view of the discussion in Criminal Appeal no.1728 of 2007, the date of the recording of the confession has no bearing so long as the accused are being tried for the same crime in the same trial.

After the amendment, confessional statement of co-accused Jamir Sayyed Ismail Kadri (A-133), Salim Kutta (A-134) and Mechanic Chacha (A-136) had been recorded. Jamir Kadri (A-133) stated in his confession on the basis of hearsay that his brother Shabbir had told him that arms would be smuggled into the city, and that the same was also in the knowledge of the appellant (A-30). His confessional statement was recorded by A.K. Chandgude, Deputy S.P (PW-670) wherein the appellant (A-30) has stated that he was well acquainted other smugglers like Mohd. Dossa (AA) and Mechanic Chacha (A-136), and he had been acting as a landing agent in smuggling activities for these smugglers, for a long time. He (A-30) had also participated along the other co-accused like Salim Kutta (A-134) and Mechanic Chacha (A-136) in the smuggling of contraband and in providing landing and transportation facilities on 3.12.1992.

On 4.12.1992, he was contacted by Assistant Collector (Customs) R.K. Singh (A-102) through a Customs Sepoy. On reaching there at 8.00 pm, R .K. Singh, Assistant Collector, Custom (A-102) called him in the cabin and asked about the landing that had been made on the previous day upon replying he was told to wait Custom Inspector Gurav (A- 82). He (A-30) went to Mohd. Dossa on 5.12.1992 and explained to him , and to Mechanic Chacha (A-136), the entire incident. Mechanic Chacha (A-136) gave him (A-30), some money to be paid to the Mhasla Custom Staff, the Shrivardhan Custom Staff, the Murud Custom Staff and also to R.K. Singh (A-102).

On the same day he (A-30) handed over the money to some of them. Subsequently, it was revealed that the rates that were to be paid to the police officers as well as the customs officers per landing were fixed, and were also revised from time to time, and the appellant (A-30) had been very much involved in making the payment. Therefore, it is clear that he (A-30) enjoyed a higher status in the hierarchy of the gang of smugglers, and that he had been assigned an important role of negotiating customs officers and police officers, to remove any hindrance in the said smuggling. It is also clear that payments were made through him (A-30).

The appellant (A-30) confessed, that on 9.1.1993 he, along co-accused Salim Kutta (A-134) and Mechanic Chacha (A-136) had participated in the landing of smuggled goods and when they were coming to Dighi Jetty, on the way he had also met Gurav (A-82), who was driving his jeep. Thereafter, their vehicles were intercepted by Patil (A-116) an Inspector, near Gondghar Phata. In order to negotiate a safe passage for the smuggled goods, Mechanic Chacha (A-136) offered him a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, and when they were asked about the contents of the wooden boxes, Mechanic Chacha (A-136) stated that the same contained watches. On the said day, they had no cash and, therefore, Mechanic Chacha (A-136) took out five silver bricks from the first truck and gave them to Shri Patil, SI of Shrivardhan. The appellant (A-30) drove Gurav's jeep (A-82) and came to Kanghar.

There they shifted 170 bricks in the cavities of two trucks from Bombay. After loading the smuggled goods in the truck, the appellant went to Shabbir's residence along Salim Kutta (A-134), Feroz and the driver. They removed 80 bricks from the cavity of the first truck from Bombay, and placed them in this truck. The appellant (A-30) left a message at the residence of Patil (A-116), stating that he would come money on the night of the 10th of the month. Thus, he (A-30) subsequently met the said S.I. and it was decided that he would pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the Havaldars and Rs.2 lakhs to the SI separately, and the said amount was paid by the appellant (A-30). Further, in his confessional statement he has revealed that the truck bearing No. MH-06-5533 which was used on 9.1.1993 did not belong to him. One Dilip Hegiste was the registered owner of the said vehicle. Thus, it is clear that in his confessional statement, the appellant (A-30) does not say anything to the effect that he had no knowledge respect to the smuggled arms. Confessional statement of Janardhan Pandurang Gambas (A-81):

80. In his confessional statement he has revealed the presence of the appellant (A-30) and also has deposed about his (A-30) participation in the landing and transportation of the smuggled goods. However, the goods were silver and gold, and it was the appellant (A- 30) who had taken the said witness for the landing. He has stated that in addition to the silver and gold and rods kept in the gunny bags, there were 30 black military coloured boxes which were unloaded from the trawler and Mechanic Chacha (A-136) cautioned the labourer to handle the same care, as the goods were made of glass. Confessional statement of Jaywant Keshav Gurav (A-82):

81. He was working in the Customs Department at Mahad, and it was his job to prevent illegal smuggling along the sea coast and to nab the smugglers by gathering secret information against them, and further, to register cases against the smugglers. He (A-82) has stated that he had been helping smugglers by taking bribes and facilitating their landing and also the transportation of the smuggled goods. He had a settlement Rahim Laundriwala that he would be paid Rs.1,60,000/- for silver landing and that the witness would be informed of such landings in advance. The appellant (A-30) had met him in June 1992 and told the witness that he was a landing agent working at Dighi Jetty and that he had informed him (A-82) that there would be landing at Dighi Jetty of silver, by Mohd. Dossa.

The smuggled goods would come from Dubai and he (A-82) would be paid Rs.65,000/- for the said landing and appellant (A-30) had paid him this money after passing the said smuggled goods. This witness has corroborated the confessional statement of the appellant (A-30). In respect of the incident dated 3.12.1992, i.e. his meeting R.K. Singh, Assistant Collector, Customs (A-102) where he had bargained for a higher amount, as R.K. Singh (A-102) had told him (A- 82) that he must go to the appellant (A-30) and bring back a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs. After discussing the same the appellant, he (A-82) went to Bombay and here he was paid Rs.2.5 lakhs which was to be paid to R.K. Singh (A-102) and Rs.1.5 lakhs was to be paid to the Superintendent. He collected this money and paid the same to the said officers. In respect of the incident dated 9.1.1993 the witness revealed that he had been informed by R.K. Singh (A-102) that on the said day, Mohd. Dossa would smuggle the goods and that the landing would take place at Dighi Jetty and that he (A-82) must assist him. On that day, the appellant met this witness and informed him regarding the landing that would take place at the night at Dighi Jetty and has thus corroborated the confessional statement of the appellant (A-30) to the extent that they had in fact met in the said manner and that it was the appellant (A-30) who had negotiated Patil (A-116). It has further been revealed that the appellant (A-30) had driven the car of A-82. Confessional Statement of Mohd. Sultan Sayyed (A-90):

82. He is S.P. Raigad. In his confessional statement he has corroborated the version of events provided by the appellant, regarding the association of the smugglers R.K. Singh, Assistant Collector (A-102) and making regular payments of illegal gratification. He has also stated that it was the appellant (A-30) who had been negotiating the customs and police officers to revise the rates per landing. He (A-90) had accepted a bribe from the appellant (A-30) of Rs.1 lakh out of the total amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs that was paid by the appellant to R.K. Singh (A-102). Confessional Statement of SS Talwadekar (A-113):

83. He has also corroborated the confessional statement of the appellant regarding silver at Shekhadi sea-coast, in collusion the customs and police officers including J.K. Gurav (A-82). He has revealed that he had been facilitating the smugglers in their landings and transportation, and he has also accepted that he had received Rs.1.6 lakhs as was decided earlier for the first landing, for the second and also third landing. He has also admitted to accepting the said amount. So far as the incident dated 9.1.1993 is concerned, he has named the appellant (A-30) who met him (A-113) and paid him a sum of Rs.40,000/- out of the settled amount of Rs.1.25 lakhs. Confessional Statement of Mohd. Kasam Lajpuria @ Mechanic Chacha (A- 136):

84. His statement corroborates the statement of Salim Kutta (A-134) to the extent that Uttam Potdar (A-30) was the land