State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs. Jayawant Keshav Gaurav
EmailTerrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
Sections 3(3), 3(2)(i)(ii), (4), 5 and 6 – Bombay Blast case – Accused 82, facilitating transportation of contraband of Mohd. Dossa and his associates by piloting two metro trucks filled with arms and ammunitions, in a Custom Department, jeep driven by A-30 on the intervening night of 9th/10th January, 1993 – Abetment of attack – Conviction under Section 3(3) of TADA. Held his involvement in facilitating transportation is fully established. However as he was a lower rank officer and his superiors were actually involved in the conspiracy, he could not be held responsible for larger conspiracy. Conviction under Section 3(3) of TADA upheld.
A-82 was guilty of facilitating such landings and transportation as being a Customs Inspector, he was the recipient of a bribe amount. He (A-82) had conversations with Tiger Memon (AA) and had further allowed Uttam Potdar (A-30) to drive a customs car. However, as he (A-82) was an officer of a lower rank in the Customs Department, it was his superior officers who were actually involved in the conspiracy. His involvement was to the extent of the offence punishable under Section 3(3) TADA, which includes conspiracy to a certain extent, as well as of offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code; the Explosives Act; the Explosives Substances Act; and the Arms Act etc. Thus, despite the fact that he himself had been involved in abetting the landing and transportation of contraband, he could not be held guilty of the larger conspiracy. The appeal with respect to Jayawant Gauruv (A-82) was hence, dismissed. (Para 455)
449. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the final judgment and order dated 2.8.2007 passed by Special Judge of the Designated Court under the TADA in the Bombay Blast Case No.1 of 1993, by which the respondents/accused (A-82, A-90, A-102, A- 113) have been convicted for the offences punishable under various provisions of TADA and other Acts, but have been acquitted of the general charge of conspiracy under TADA.
In view of the fact that each respondent being assigned different acts, has been charged differently and has been awarded a different sentence, it is desirable to deal with the case of each respondent separately to certain extent.
450. Shri Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the State, has submitted that all the four respondents, were officials of the Customs Department. They had been warned by their superior officers that arms and ammunition were going to be smuggled into the country through the sea; and they were therefore, required to take all possible preventive measures and to remain constantly alert. Despite the said warnings, the respondents demanded higher bribes from the smugglers for the purpose of permitting their landings and transportation, and therefore, they ought to have been convicted for the first charge of conspiracy as well.
451. Per contra, Ms. Farhana Shah, Shri Mushtaq Ahmad and Ms. Afshani Pracha, learned counsel for the respondents, have submitted that the respondents have already been convicted under various Acts, and considering the participation of the individual respondents in the said crimes, punishments have been awarded to them, as deemed appropriate. Therefore, no further sentence is required.
452. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
**************
