III. Ranjitkumar Singh Baleshwar Prasad (A-102) Vs. State of Maharashtra
EmailAppeal:
Petitioner: III. Ranjitkumar Singh Baleshwar Prasad (A-102)
Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Apeal:
Judges: P. Sathasivam & Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 21, 2013
Head Note:
Section 3(3) – Bombay blast case – Appellant A-102, officer of Custom Department – Convicted under Section 3(3) – Helped Tiger Memon, Mohd. Dossa and associates in transportation of illegal arms and ammunitions in lieu of illegal gratification – Participated with A90 in Persian Darbar meeting – Acquitted of major conspiracy – Justification. Held, his main aim, like A90, A82 and A113 was to make illegal money. It is true that he helped accused in carrying out terrorist activities, still, as held by Designated Court he cannot be said to be involved in conspiracy.
JUDGEMENT:
459. In addition to the general charge of conspiracy, he (A-102) has been charged similarly to accused (A-90), for attending the meeting that was held on 6.1.1993 at Hotel Persian Darbar alongwith the other accused, and for thereafter allowing the smugglers to continue their smuggling activities within their territorial jurisdiction in lieu of payment of Rs.7.80 lakhs per landing. In furtherance thereof, the contraband, including arms and ammunition were smuggled into India, on 9.1.1993 within the limits of their territorial jurisdiction. He was further charged with facilitating the transportation of arms, ammunition and explosives on 3.2.1993 and 7.2.1993. Thus, he has been convicted under Section 3(3) TADA and has been awarded the punishment of imprisonment for 9 years, alongwith a fine of Rs. 3 lakhs, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of 4 years. The respondent (A-102) has presently served out more than five years of the punishment awarded to him and has also deposited the fine.
460. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion as under:
265) Without making any unnecessary dilation about the self-eloquent evidence about which the relevant excerpts are cited earlier it can be safely said that considering the act committed by these 4 accused as reflected from same i.e. participation of A-102 & 90 in Persian Darbar meeting and negotiating with smugglers about the bribe amount to be paid and granting them a charter to smuggle the contraband articles or in fact any thing, the act of A-82 in spite of being present on the spot of interception of goods by police, instead of seizing the same allowing the same to be transported further and in most clandestine manner piloting the convoy carrying the contraband goods on its way to destination uptil a particular spot, advising the policemen in clandestine manner etc., and of A-II3 though not being directly connected with said landing readily & willingly accepting his share of booty from the bribe amount received for the said landing and thereby denoting his implied connivance for the said operation seized earlier; not revealed otherwise in view of himself being not directly involvement in commission of act and considering the further acts committed by A-90, 82 and 113 regarding Shekadi landing and so also to some extent byA-l02 clearly reveals themselves having committed the offence u/s. 3(3) of TADA for which each of them has been charged with at this trial.
266) However, the careful consideration of said evidence and even after taking into consideration the fact that A-102 and A-90 had participated in Persian Darbar meeting; still the evidence having fall short of themselves having connived with the conspirators in this case for commission of said act for the purposes of conspiracy, it will be difficult to hold them or any one of them liable for offence of conspiracy for which each of them has been charged with on the basis of evidence surfaced regarding Dighi landing episode and so also about Shekadi landing episode about which the discussion is made later on.
267) Truly speaking receipt of bribe amount for allowing the said operation considered from proper angle also connotes that the act committed by the A- 102, 90, 113 & 82 being primarily for receipt of bribe amount by misusing/abusing their official position would definitely fallout of sphere of the conspiracy for which the relevant operation was organized and effected by other co-accused. 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 et 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 1stly is framed against them or even otherwise for any smaller conspiracy. However, by way of abundant caution it will be necessary to record that aforesaid observations is limited to above stated 4 accused from Customs dept., and the same is not in relation to A-102 i.e. Addl. Collector of Customs whose case clearly appears to be different i.e. his connection with Tiger Memon being spelt from evidence revealed during Shekadi landing, there being hardly any evidence of himself having received….
461. In view of the opinion expressed hereinabove, as regards the other accused, we are not able to accept the appeal filed by the State in respect of Ranjitkumar Singh Baleshwar Prasad (A-102) either.
**************
460. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion as under:
265) Without making any unnecessary dilation about the self-eloquent evidence about which the relevant excerpts are cited earlier it can be safely said that considering the act committed by these 4 accused as reflected from same i.e. participation of A-102 & 90 in Persian Darbar meeting and negotiating with smugglers about the bribe amount to be paid and granting them a charter to smuggle the contraband articles or in fact any thing, the act of A-82 in spite of being present on the spot of interception of goods by police, instead of seizing the same allowing the same to be transported further and in most clandestine manner piloting the convoy carrying the contraband goods on its way to destination uptil a particular spot, advising the policemen in clandestine manner etc., and of A-II3 though not being directly connected with said landing readily & willingly accepting his share of booty from the bribe amount received for the said landing and thereby denoting his implied connivance for the said operation seized earlier; not revealed otherwise in view of himself being not directly involvement in commission of act and considering the further acts committed by A-90, 82 and 113 regarding Shekadi landing and so also to some extent byA-l02 clearly reveals themselves having committed the offence u/s. 3(3) of TADA for which each of them has been charged with at this trial.
266) However, the careful consideration of said evidence and even after taking into consideration the fact that A-102 and A-90 had participated in Persian Darbar meeting; still the evidence having fall short of themselves having connived with the conspirators in this case for commission of said act for the purposes of conspiracy, it will be difficult to hold them or any one of them liable for offence of conspiracy for which each of them has been charged with on the basis of evidence surfaced regarding Dighi landing episode and so also about Shekadi landing episode about which the discussion is made later on.
267) Truly speaking receipt of bribe amount for allowing the said operation considered from proper angle also connotes that the act committed by the A- 102, 90, 113 & 82 being primarily for receipt of bribe amount by misusing/abusing their official position would definitely fallout of sphere of the conspiracy for which the relevant operation was organized and effected by other co-accused. 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 et 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 1stly is framed against them or even otherwise for any smaller conspiracy. However, by way of abundant caution it will be necessary to record that aforesaid observations is limited to above stated 4 accused from Customs dept., and the same is not in relation to A-102 i.e. Addl. Collector of Customs whose case clearly appears to be different i.e. his connection with Tiger Memon being spelt from evidence revealed during Shekadi landing, there being hardly any evidence of himself having received….
461. In view of the opinion expressed hereinabove, as regards the other accused, we are not able to accept the appeal filed by the State in respect of Ranjitkumar Singh Baleshwar Prasad (A-102) either.
**************
