State of Maharashtra Vs. Faki Ali Faki Ahmed & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 401 of 2011
And
State of Maharashtra v. Abdullah Ibrahim Surti
Criminal Appeal No. 595 of 2011
And
State of Maharashtra v. Abdullah Ibrahim Surti
Criminal Appeal No. 595 of 2011
[From the Judgement and Order dated 30.05.2007 of the Presiding Officer of the Designated Court, under TADA (P) Act, 1987 for Bombay Blast Cases, Greater Bombay in Bombay Blast Case No. 1 of 1993]
Petitioner: State of Maharashtra
Respondent: Faki Ali Faki Ahmed & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 401 of 2011
And
State of Maharashtra v. Abdullah Ibrahim Surti
Criminal Appeal No. 595 of 2011
And
State of Maharashtra v. Abdullah Ibrahim Surti
Criminal Appeal No. 595 of 2011
[From the Judgement and Order dated 30.05.2007 of the Presiding Officer of the Designated Court, under TADA (P) Act, 1987 for Bombay Blast Cases, Greater Bombay in Bombay Blast Case No. 1 of 1993]
Judges: P. Sathasivam & Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 21, 2013
Head Note:
Criminal Appeal Nos. 401 and 595 of 2011
Appeal against acquittal by State – Acquittal of the charge of larger conspiracy – Limitation of court to interfere. Held Court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence. Acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence. Interference is needed only when there are good reasons for it. State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh’s case referred and followed. No reason to interfere with the reasoning of Designated Court.
Appeal against acquittal by State – Acquittal of the charge of larger conspiracy – Limitation of court to interfere. Held Court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence. Acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence. Interference is needed only when there are good reasons for it. State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh’s case referred and followed. No reason to interfere with the reasoning of Designated Court.
Cases Reffered:
1. State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal [JT 2012 (5) SC 229] (Para 320)
JUDGEMENT:
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
319. These appeals have been preferred by the State against Abdullah Ibrahim Surti (A-66), Faki Ali Faki Ahmed Subedar (A-74) and Janardhan Pandurang Gambas (A-81), who were acquitted of the charge of larger conspiracy. The evidence against all the three respondents had elaborately been dealt with in the connected appeal filed by them. The learned Designated Court has dealt with the issue after considering the entire evidence on record and appreciating the depositions as well as the confessional statements made by the parties.
320. We are fully aware of our limitation to interfere with an order against acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Courts 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. (Vide: State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal, JT 2012 (5) SC 229).
321. In view of the above, we do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the order of the Designated Court so far as the acquittal of the respondents on a particular charge is concerned. The appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.
**********
319. These appeals have been preferred by the State against Abdullah Ibrahim Surti (A-66), Faki Ali Faki Ahmed Subedar (A-74) and Janardhan Pandurang Gambas (A-81), who were acquitted of the charge of larger conspiracy. The evidence against all the three respondents had elaborately been dealt with in the connected appeal filed by them. The learned Designated Court has dealt with the issue after considering the entire evidence on record and appreciating the depositions as well as the confessional statements made by the parties.
320. We are fully aware of our limitation to interfere with an order against acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Courts 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. (Vide: State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal, JT 2012 (5) SC 229).
321. In view of the above, we do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the order of the Designated Court so far as the acquittal of the respondents on a particular charge is concerned. The appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.
**********
