II. Mohd. Sultan Sayyad (A-90) Vs. State of Maharashtra
Sections 3(3), 3(2)(i)(ii), (4), 5 and 6 – Bombay Blast case – Appellant Mohd. Sultan Sayyed, A-90, officer of Custom Department, attended meeting at Persian Darbar and Hotel Big Splash – Allowed Mohd. Dossa and his associates to carry on smuggling activities and facilitated landing /transportation of contraband in lieu of illegal gratification. Conviction under Section 3(3) of TADA, held, is fully justified, though he could not be held responsible for larger conspiracy.
456. In addition to the main charge of conspiracy, he was also charged for attending the meeting that had been held at Hotel Persian Darbar on 6.1.1993, alongwith co-accused Ranjit Kumar Singh Baleshwar Prasad (A-102) and Customs Superintendent Lotle (PW-154). At the said meeting, he (A-90) had allowed Mohd. Dossa and his associates to carry on their smuggling activities, and had further facilitated their landing at Dighi on 9.1.1993, which was within his territorial jurisdiction. He was further charged for the same and also for permitting smuggling activities of Tiger Memon (AA) and his associates on 2.2.1993. After meeting Tiger Memon (AA) and his associates at Hotel Big Splash on 2.2.1992, he had further facilitated the landings of arms, ammunition and explosives at Shekhadi on 3.2.1993 and 7.2.1993.
He has been convicted under Section 3(3) and has been awarded a punishment of 7 years RI alongwith a fine of Rs.1 lakh, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 3 years. He has already served the sentence and deposited the fine.
457. After appreciating the entire evidence on record, the learned Special judge came to the conclusion that:
Truly speaking receipt of bribe amount for allowing the said operation considered from proper angle also connotes that the act committed by A- 102, 90, 113 & 82 being primarily for receipt of bribe amount by misusing/abusing their official position would definitely fall out of sphere of the conspiracy for which the relevant operation was organized and effected by other co-conspirators for commission of terrorist act. The same is obvious as conspirators always join the conspiracy or become members of conspiracy due to being interested in either furthering the object of conspiracy or achieving the object of conspiracy. The payment of the money for commission of act which may have a semblance of furthering object of conspiracy will still not make the concerned liable for offence of conspiracy. The same is apparent as the act committed by them would be for the purposes of receiving the said payment and not mainly for furthering the object of conspiracy. It is true that their such acts as ruled earlier would amount to commission of offence of an abetment or assistance etc. for commission of terrorist act by other conspirators and they could be held liable for the same but still they cannot be said to be involved in the conspiracy. In view of the aforesaid, none of the A-102, 90, 113 & 82 can be said to be guilty for commission of offences of conspiracy for which the charge at head 1st ly is framed against them or even otherwise for any smaller conspiracy. However, by way of abundant caution it will necessary to record that aforesaid observations is limited to above stated accused from Customs dept., and the same is not in relation to A-112.
458. As the learned Special Judge has dealt with the said issue elaborately and has placed the respondents at par, we do not see any cogent reason to take a view contrary to the view that has been taken in the case of the co-accused Jayawant Keshav Gaurav (A- 82).