AHMED SHAH KHAN DURRANI @ A.S. MUBARAK versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2013] 16 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 21-03-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 16 S.C.R .. 1 
AHMED SHAH KHAN DURRANI @ A.S. MUBARAK 
A 
V. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal. No. 1438 of 2007) 
MARCH 21, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 
- s.5 - Bombay serial blasts of 1993 - Possession of weapon 
B 
-
A-20 charged for keeping one AK-56 rifle and two C 
magazines -
Conviction of A-20 - Justification - Held: 
Justified - Sufficient material to show that recovery had been 
made at the behest of A-20 from the factory owned by a 
partnership to which he was the partner - In such a fact-
situation, he' ought to have explained the reason/source of his D 
knowledge of such contraband articles being kept in his factory 
-
. 
- As he had not mentioned that he had seen someone 
. keeping the articles there, or somebody had told him about 
that, or he had seen the things lying there, the only reasonable 
inference drawn is that he himself had kept the same at that E 
place - Being a partner of the firm if he was having the 
knowledge that some contraband were lying in his premises, 
he ought to have informed the police if he had no guilty mind 
-Explanation that at the time of recovery he did not have the 
key, not enough to tilt the balance in his favour - As A-20 F 
made a statement leading to the discovery of AK-56 assault 
rifle and two magazines having kept in his workshop and the 
same had been found concealed on the loft, he cannot 
escape from the liability of possessing and concealing of the 
same, thus liable to be punished u/s.5 TADA. 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 
- ss. 3 and 5 -Bombay serial blasts of 1993 - Participation 
in landing and transportation of smuggled arn:is, ammunition 
and explosives ~-conviction of A-31 - Justification - Held: 
G 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 16 S.C.R. 
A Justified - Evidence on record made it clear that A-31 had 
participated in landing operation of contraband goods at 
Shekhadi as he was one of the persons who accompanied 
Tiger Memon (AA) and others and he had also been to 
Wangni Tower alongwith other associates and contraband 
B material were loaded in tempo - The tempo was taken by him 
alongwith absconding accused to Mumbra as instructed by 
Tiger Memon (AA) - This version duly supported/corroborated 
by A-128 and by the evidence of PW-2 - Arms Act, 1959. 
C 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 
- ss.3(3) and 6 -Bombay serial blasts of 1993 - Facilitation 
of commission of terrorist activities - Smuggling and landing 
of arms, ammunition, hand grenades and explosives -
Conviction of A-30 - Challenged - Held: A-30 was aware that 
the smuggled goods were arms and ammunition, and even 
D after acquiring such knowledge, he had continued the landing 
of said smuggled goods - He was thus liable for commission 
of offences uls.3(3) and 6 TADA - Evidence on record made 
it crystal clear that A-30 was not only a close associate of 
Tiger Memon (AA) and acting as a landing agent, but a man 
E of confidence who could negotiate with the police and customs 
officials to fix the amount of bribe for facilitating the smuggling 
and transportation of the smuggled contraband - A-30 had 
been fully aware of the nature of contraband, and inspite of 
coming to know that the contraband contained arms, 
F ammunition and explosives, he continued to help the 
smugglers - Further, A-30 had close association with A-82, 
officer of the customs department, who had been helping the 
smugglers by taking a bribe through A-30 - Therefore, A-30 
also convicted for conspiracy - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 1208 
G - Arms Act, 1959. 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 
- ss. 3 and 6 - Bombay serial blasts of 1993 - Participation 
in landing and transportation of contraband smuggled into the 
H country by Tiger Memon (AA) - Abetting and participating in 
AHMED SHAH KHAN DURRANI @ A.S. MUBARAK v. 
3 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
terrorist activities - Conviction of A-46 - Challenged - Held: 
A 
Confession of A-46 revealed that he was in employment of 
the Memon family - It could not be accepted that A-46 was 
not aware of illegal business of Tiger Memon (AA) or about 
the nature of the contrabands smuggled into India - Presence 
of A-46 at the place where the goods were exchanged, at B 
Wangni Tower and concealed into cavities of vehicles for 
transportation to Bombay, shows that he was a very close 
confidant of Tiger Memon (AA) - 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.