- (1.) This criminal appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 2.8.2007, passed by a Special Judge of the Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'TADA') in the Bombay Blast Case No. 1/93, acquitting the respondent of all the charges.
(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 with 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 respondent. 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 respondent (A-76) stood convicted. C. The respondent 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 the 'IPC') read with Sections 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3), (4), 5 and 6 TADA and read with Sections 302, 307,326,324,427,435,436, 201 and 212 IPC and offences under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25 (I-A), (l-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, 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, the respondent had been charged for persuading his brother-in-law Firoz Amani Malik (A-39) to undergo weapons' training in Pakistan and keeping in his possession 4 handgrenades brought to him by Firoz Amani Malik (A-39) and for handing over the same to Mohd. Jabir (A-93-dead), showing that the same had been smuggled into India for committing terrorist activities. E. The Designated Court after conclusion of the trial acquitted the respondent of all the charges. Hence, this appeal.
(3.) Shri Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the respondent had been responsible to send the co-accused to Dubai, and further to Pakistan to have training for handling the arms, ammunition and explosives, and therefore, his acquittal for all the charges is liable to be reversed.;