- (1.)On 17th September, 1993, an incident took place where there was a bomb blast near Shiv Sena Shakha no. 52. According to the evidence on record which has been accepted by the designated court, a piece of iron pipe was recovered. That pipe was taken by two police officers for finding out whether there was any finger print on the same The report of the expert was that two finger prints existed and finger prints were photographed. One of them was fit for comparison. AH this action took place on 17th september, 1993.
(2.)In connection with the Bombay blast case, the appellant Dr. Ansari was apprehended on 19th January, 1994. In that case, the finger prints of Dr. Ansari and five other accused were taken. It was the case of the prosecution that the police thought it proper to see whether the finger print on the pipe which had been recovered on the 17th September, 1993 matched with any of the finger prints which had been taken on 19th january, 1994. On the finger prints being matched, the expert came to the conclusion that the finger print of Dr. Ansari, the appellant herein, did match with the finger print on the pipe which had been recovered from the scene of the incident on 17th September, 1993.
(3.)By a detailed judgment, the designated court came to the conclusion that in the instant case the provisions of section 21 (1) (b) of the Terrorist and Disruptive activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short "tada Act") were applicable which, inter alia, provides that if it is proved by evidence of an expert that the finger prints of the accused were found at the site of the offence or on anything including arms and vehicles used in connection with the offence, then the designated court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the accused had committed such offence. By invoking this provision, the designated court held that as the finger prints of the appellant herein were on the pipe recovered from the site where the offence of blasting a bomb had occurred the presumption contained in this sub-section was attracted. The appellant herein was not able to rebut this presumption and in view thereof the appellant was convicted of offence punishable under section 3 (2) (ii) of the TADA Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another one year. The appellant was also convicted of an offence under section 5 of the TADA Act and was sentenced to suffer five years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. He was acquitted of the other offences both under the TADA Act and under sections 120b, 302, 307, 435 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code.