State of Maharashtra Etc. Etc. Vs. Som Nath Thapa, Etc. Etc.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 480 1996
(In Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2196 of 1995)
WITH
Criminal Appeal Nos.718, 793 and 810 of 1995
WITH
Criminal Appeal No 481 1996
(In Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No. 3305 1995)
(In Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2196 of 1995)
WITH
Criminal Appeal Nos.718, 793 and 810 of 1995
WITH
Criminal Appeal No 481 1996
(In Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No. 3305 1995)
Petitioner: State of Maharashtra Etc. Etc.
Respondent: Som Nath Thapa, Etc. Etc.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 480 1996
(In Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2196 of 1995)
WITH
Criminal Appeal Nos.718, 793 and 810 of 1995
WITH
Criminal Appeal No 481 1996
(In Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No. 3305 1995)
(In Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2196 of 1995)
WITH
Criminal Appeal Nos.718, 793 and 810 of 1995
WITH
Criminal Appeal No 481 1996
(In Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No. 3305 1995)
Judges: A.M. AHMADI, CJI., B.L. HANSARIA & S.C. SEN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 12, 1996
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860:
Section 120-A – Criminal conspiracy – Ingredients of – Bombay bomb blast case – Conspiracy consists of doing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means – Knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary.
(Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India, Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab, 1977(4) SCC 540; Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 319 US 703; People v. Lauria, 251 California Appeal 2d 471; R. v. Hasley, 1959 CLR 210; United States Falcone, 311 US 205; United States v. Feola, 420 US 671 – Referred.
Indian Penal Code, 1860:
Section 120-A – Criminal conspiracy – Ingredients of – Bombay bomb blast case – Conspiracy consists of doing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means – Knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary.
(Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India, Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab, 1977(4) SCC 540; Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 319 US 703; People v. Lauria, 251 California Appeal 2d 471; R. v. Hasley, 1959 CLR 210; United States Falcone, 311 US 205; United States v. Feola, 420 US 671 – Referred.
Held:
The aforesaid decisions, weighty as they are, lead us to conclude that to establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use. Finally, when the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is known that the collaborator would put the goods or service to an unlawful use. (Para 25)
Cases Reffered:
1. Mohd. Iqbal v. State of Maharashtra, JT 1996 (1) SC 114. (Para 35)
3. State of West Bengal v. Mohd. Khalid, JT 1994 (7) SC 660 = 1995 (1) SCC 684. (Para 30, 45)
4. Sanjay Dutt v. The State through CBI, Bombay, JT 1994 (5) SC 540 = 1994 (5) SCC 910. (Para 45)
5. State of Maharashtra v. Abdul Hamid Haji Mohammed, JT 1994 (2) SC 1 = 1994 (2) SCC 664. (para 45)
6. Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India, JT 1993 (3) SC 203 = 1993 (3) SCC 609. (Para 10)
7. R.S. Naik v. A. Antulay, 1986 (2) SCC 716. (Para 27)
8. Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab, 1977 (4) SCC 540. (Para 23)
9. State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, 1977 (3) SCR 113. (Para 29)
10. Natwarlal Shankarlal Mody v. State of Bombay, 1961 BLR 661. (Para 10)
3. State of West Bengal v. Mohd. Khalid, JT 1994 (7) SC 660 = 1995 (1) SCC 684. (Para 30, 45)
4. Sanjay Dutt v. The State through CBI, Bombay, JT 1994 (5) SC 540 = 1994 (5) SCC 910. (Para 45)
5. State of Maharashtra v. Abdul Hamid Haji Mohammed, JT 1994 (2) SC 1 = 1994 (2) SCC 664. (para 45)
6. Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India, JT 1993 (3) SC 203 = 1993 (3) SCC 609. (Para 10)
7. R.S. Naik v. A. Antulay, 1986 (2) SCC 716. (Para 27)
8. Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab, 1977 (4) SCC 540. (Para 23)
9. State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, 1977 (3) SCR 113. (Para 29)
10. Natwarlal Shankarlal Mody v. State of Bombay, 1961 BLR 661. (Para 10)
Foreign Cases Referred:
1. Direct Sales Co., v. United States, 319 US 703. (Para 15)
2. People v. Lauria, 251 California Appeal 2d 471. (Para 10)
3. R. v. Hawkesley, 1959 CLR 210. (Para 10)
4. United States v. Falcone, 311 US 205.(Para 15)
5. United States v. Feola, 420 US 671.(Para 10)
Books and Articles Referred:
Aiyer, P. Ramanath : Law Lexicon, 1987 Edition, p.1007.(Para 23)
Black’s Law Dictionary.(Para 32)
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. (Para 23)
Stroud’s Legal Dictionary. (Para 23)
JUDGEMENT:
HANSARIA, J. :
1. Bombay of yesterday, Mumbai of today: financial capital of the nation. It woke as usual on 12th March, 1993. People started for their places of work not knowing what was in their store. The terrorists and/or disruptionists, bent on breaking the backbone of the nation (for reasons which need not be gone into) had, however, hatched a well laid-out conspiracy to cripple the country by striking at its financial nerve. As Bombay set down to work, blasting of bombs, almost simultaneously, took place at important centres of commercial activities like Stock Exchange, Air India, Zaveri Bazar, Katha Bazar and many luxurious hotels. A shocked Bombay and a stunned nation first tried to provide succour to the victims as much as possible and then wanted to know the magnitude of the loss of life and property. It surpassed all imagination, as it was ultimately found that the blasts left more than 250 persons dead, 730 injured and property worth about Rs.27~13~
~14~
1. Bombay of yesterday, Mumbai of today: financial capital of the nation. It woke as usual on 12th March, 1993. People started for their places of work not knowing what was in their store. The terrorists and/or disruptionists, bent on breaking the backbone of the nation (for reasons which need not be gone into) had, however, hatched a well laid-out conspiracy to cripple the country by striking at its financial nerve. As Bombay set down to work, blasting of bombs, almost simultaneously, took place at important centres of commercial activities like Stock Exchange, Air India, Zaveri Bazar, Katha Bazar and many luxurious hotels. A shocked Bombay and a stunned nation first tried to provide succour to the victims as much as possible and then wanted to know the magnitude of the loss of life and property. It surpassed all imagination, as it was ultimately found that the blasts left more than 250 persons dead, 730 injured and property worth about Rs.27~13~
~14~
