HUSSEIN GHADIALLY ALIAS MHGA SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(SC)-2014-7-52
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GUJARAT)
Decided on
July 18,2014
Hussein Ghadially Alias Mhga Shaikh
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
NAZIR AHMED V. KING EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]COMISSIONER OF POLICE BOMBAY VS. GORDHANDAS BHANJI [REFERRED TO]
RAO SHIV BAHADUR SINGH VS. STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SINGHARA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
ANIRUDHSINHJI KARANSINHJI JADEJA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
AHMAD UMAR SAEED SHEIKH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD IQBAL M SHAIKH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA KISHORE JHA VS. MAHAVIR PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
DHANANJAYA REDDY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT URJA VIKASH NIGAM LTD VS. ESSAR POWER LTD [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL VS. UGRASEN [REFERRED TO]
MANJIT SINGH ALIAS MANGE VS. CBI [REFERRED TO]
JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE OF AIRLINES PILOTS ASSOCIATIONS OF INDIA VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION [REFERRED TO]
RANGKU DUTTA ALIAS RANJAN KUMAR DUTTA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
ASHRAFKHAN @ BABU MUNNEKHAN PATHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
KISHIN S. LOUNGANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2016-12-148] [REFERRED TO]NISAR AHMED HAJI SAYED BILAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-4-270] [REFERRED TO]
VINIT KUMAR VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(BOM)-2019-10-114] [REFERRED TO]
SARVESH KUMAR SHAHI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-3-67] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND AGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2018-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH KARIMAN TIRKI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-10-141] [REFERRED TO]
GARIB DASS AND ORS. VS. MULAKH RAJ AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
AKUMS DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN [LAWS(UTN)-2022-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI SANIL KUMAR VS. THE STATE [LAWS(CAL)-2018-8-226] [REFERRED TO]
SOMEN BAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2018-9-147] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
EMKAY MEDICARE SERVICES THROUGH VS. THE PRESIDENT, RAJASTHAN MEDICARE RELIEF SOCIETY [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
KAVITA PRAMOD KAMBLE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-11-317] [REFERRED TO]
EBHA ARJUN JADEJA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2019-10-49] [REFERRED TO]
LT. COL. PRASAD SHRIKANT PUROHIT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-4-53] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. MOHINUDDIN JAMAL ALVI [LAWS(SC)-2016-5-50] [REFERRED TO]
SARAL WIRE CRAFT PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-7-56] [REFERRED TO]
HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED VS. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2015-2-43] [REFERRED TO]
SBPL INFRASTRUCTURE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-6-72] [REFERRED TO]
POLYMAC THERMOFORMERS PVT LTD & ANR VS. WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-8-112] [REFERRED TO]
NOOR ALAM KHAN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2019-1-95] [REFERRED TO]
UMARMIA ALIAS MAMUMIA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
UMARMIYA ISMAILMIYA SAIYED @ MAMUMIYA PANJU MIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-69] [REFERRED TO]
KSHAMA MISHRA; ASHWITA TRIPATHI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS ; UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD AND 20 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-92] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. S.K.L. CO VS. CHIEF COMMERCIAL OFFICER [LAWS(SC)-2015-12-58] [REFERRED TO]
MANTU SHARMA @ SANJAI SINGH VS. THE STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-415] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMICHAND VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2019-12-193] [REFERRED TO]
MESSERS CTM TECHNICAL TEXTILES LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2020-12-584] [REFERRED TO]
DISTRICT COLLECTOR VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(MAD)-2022-7-485] [REFERRED TO]
E C SCARIA VS. STATE [LAWS(KER)-2015-12-343] [REFERRED]
T. MHONYAMO TSOPOE VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2018-3-48] [REFERRED TO]
NABHYA INFOTECH PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
GURKHO BAI VS. KUVER SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2019-1-235] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH MANEKCHAND KOTHARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2015-1-46] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN MAMMEN VS. U O I [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-273] [REFERRED TO]
ADHITHYA VARMA RAJA.T.K MEMBER NO.26429 IRINJALAKUDA CO VS. IRINJALAKUDA CO [LAWS(KER)-2016-1-116] [REFERRED TO]
GURUPADA DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-5-122] [REFERRED TO]
SADIQ BASHA VS. STATE BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2022-7-191] [REFERRED TO]
B N M HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY [LAWS(PAT)-2017-12-109] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAL PURI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-115] [REFERRED TO]
SEENI NAINAR MOHAMMED VS. STATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(SC)-2017-4-100] [REFERRED TO]
HUSSNA VS. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY THRU. HOME SECY. & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-93] [REFERRED TO]
NIHOKHU VILLAGE COUNCIL VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2021-3-124] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
T.S.THAKUR, J. -
(1.)COMMON questions of law arise for consideration in these appeals which were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common order. The appeals arise out of two separate judgments delivered by the Designated Court at Surat both dated 4th October, 2008 whereby the Designated Court has while acquitting some of the accused persons convicted the rest and sentenced them to imprisonment for different periods ranging between 10 to 20 years. In Criminal (TADA) case No.41 of 1995 disposed of with Criminal (TADA) case No.1 of 2000 arising out of C.R. No.70 of 1993 relevant to Criminal Appeals No.92 of 2009 and 658 of 2009, the Designated Court has convicted the appellants in those appeals while respondents in Criminal Appeal No.305 of 2009 filed by the State of Gujarat against the very same judgment have been acquitted. In Criminal Appeals No.432 -33 of 2009 the State has sought enhancement of the sentence awarded to those convicted by the Trial Court.
(2.)IN Criminal (TADA) case No.59 of 1995 and 2 of 2000 arising out of C.R. No.32 of 1993 the Designated Court has similarly convicted some of the accused persons who are (appellants before us in Criminal Appeals No.110 of 2009 and 659 of 2009). The State has also assailed in the appeals filed by it the judgment of the Trial Court and sought enhancement of the sentence awarded to those convicted by it in Criminal Appeals No.303 -304 of 2009.
The facts giving rise to the registration of I.C.Rs. No.32 and 70 of 1993 at Varccha and Surat Railway Police Stations in the State of Gujarat respectively leading to the arrest of those accused of committing the offences and their eventual conviction by the Trial Court have been set out at great length by the said Court below in the two judgments and orders impugned before us. We need not, therefore, recapitulate the entire factual backdrop in which the appellants were tried, found guilty and sentenced except to the extent it is absolutely necessary to do so. Suffice it to say that the two blasts one at Mini Hira Bazar, Varccha Road, Surat and the other at Platform 1, Surat Railway Station took place on 28th January, 1993 and 22nd April, 1993 respectively. In the incident that took place at Mini Hira Bazar, Varccha Road, one minor girl barely 8 years old lost her life while as many as 11 others were injured. The second incident at the Surat Railway Station relevant to ICR No.70 of 1993 left as many as 38 persons injured, some of them grievously. The prosecution case is that the genesis of the two incidents mentioned above lay in the demolition of the Babri Masjid on 6th December, 1992 at Ayodhaya which had led to wide -spread communal riots in several parts of the country. These riots took place even in the city of Surat causing damage to life and property to the Muslim community. With a view to giving relief to those affected by such riots a Relief Camp at Ranitalao area in the city of Surat was set up mainly by the accused persons including Hussein Ghadially, Iqbal Wadiwala, Mohammad Surti, Hanif Tiger and others. A makeshift office adjacent to the relief camp provided to the accused persons space to hold their meetings.
(3.)THE prosecution alleges that on account of riots and damage suffered by the Muslims, the accused persons nurtured a feeling that the Government and the police will not be able to protect their community. The prosecution's further case is that in order to protect the members of the Muslim community and also to retaliate against the majority community the accused persons initially decided to collect firearms, swords, spears, iron rods, country made bombs and gelatin bombs etc. and to distribute the same to those who had converged in the relief camp. It was also decided to import firearms, bombs etc. from Abdul Latif, a notorious gangster of Ahmedabad who was known to accused No.1 Hussain Ghadially. Abdul Latif was then in Dubai but later arrested and produced before the Designated Court. He was killed in a police encounter during the trial.
(2.)IN Criminal (TADA) case No.59 of 1995 and 2 of 2000 arising out of C.R. No.32 of 1993 the Designated Court has similarly convicted some of the accused persons who are (appellants before us in Criminal Appeals No.110 of 2009 and 659 of 2009). The State has also assailed in the appeals filed by it the judgment of the Trial Court and sought enhancement of the sentence awarded to those convicted by it in Criminal Appeals No.303 -304 of 2009.
The facts giving rise to the registration of I.C.Rs. No.32 and 70 of 1993 at Varccha and Surat Railway Police Stations in the State of Gujarat respectively leading to the arrest of those accused of committing the offences and their eventual conviction by the Trial Court have been set out at great length by the said Court below in the two judgments and orders impugned before us. We need not, therefore, recapitulate the entire factual backdrop in which the appellants were tried, found guilty and sentenced except to the extent it is absolutely necessary to do so. Suffice it to say that the two blasts one at Mini Hira Bazar, Varccha Road, Surat and the other at Platform 1, Surat Railway Station took place on 28th January, 1993 and 22nd April, 1993 respectively. In the incident that took place at Mini Hira Bazar, Varccha Road, one minor girl barely 8 years old lost her life while as many as 11 others were injured. The second incident at the Surat Railway Station relevant to ICR No.70 of 1993 left as many as 38 persons injured, some of them grievously. The prosecution case is that the genesis of the two incidents mentioned above lay in the demolition of the Babri Masjid on 6th December, 1992 at Ayodhaya which had led to wide -spread communal riots in several parts of the country. These riots took place even in the city of Surat causing damage to life and property to the Muslim community. With a view to giving relief to those affected by such riots a Relief Camp at Ranitalao area in the city of Surat was set up mainly by the accused persons including Hussein Ghadially, Iqbal Wadiwala, Mohammad Surti, Hanif Tiger and others. A makeshift office adjacent to the relief camp provided to the accused persons space to hold their meetings.
(3.)THE prosecution alleges that on account of riots and damage suffered by the Muslims, the accused persons nurtured a feeling that the Government and the police will not be able to protect their community. The prosecution's further case is that in order to protect the members of the Muslim community and also to retaliate against the majority community the accused persons initially decided to collect firearms, swords, spears, iron rods, country made bombs and gelatin bombs etc. and to distribute the same to those who had converged in the relief camp. It was also decided to import firearms, bombs etc. from Abdul Latif, a notorious gangster of Ahmedabad who was known to accused No.1 Hussain Ghadially. Abdul Latif was then in Dubai but later arrested and produced before the Designated Court. He was killed in a police encounter during the trial.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.